Why SMB2 need asynchronous architecture ?
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Mon Jun 3 05:50:20 MDT 2013
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 01:52:14AM +0000, Jim wrote:
> Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke <at> SerNet.DE> writes:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:57:59PM +0000, Jim wrote:
> > >
> > > Start from samba-3.6, SMB2 use asynchronous architecture.
> > >
> > > I don't understand why it benefits the performance of network
> application in
> > > Windows 7, and what kinds of network application can be benefited ?
> > >
> > > In my testing in windows7, SMB2 performance is worse than SMB1. (Test
> > > explorer and robocopy)
> > In theory, SMB2 has larger packets and less requests,
> > leading to higher performance. We have seen reports that
> > SMB2 is slower because by default signing is being used in
> > SMB2 and not in SMB1. Can you check that?
> > If that is not the case for you, we need to see why you are
> > seeing worse performance with SMB2.
> > Volker
> Hi, Volker:
> I use the following command to do the test.
> robocopy %pc_source%\5GB %syno_target%\ /E /IS /NS /NC /NP /NFL /NDL
> I think signature is off because 'Signature' value of SMB2 header is
> always 0 during the test.
> Test environment:
> - CPU: Intel Atom CPU D2700, DDR3 1GB.
> - Samba version is 3.6.9
Is it possible that you try Samba 4.0.x? We have done some
changes to the Samba packet handling, requiring less
With best regards,
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de
More information about the samba-technical