smb clients and performance

[Peter Blake]

On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Steve Jones wrote:

> 
> On Sep 29,  1:45pm, Darrin M. Gorski wrote:
>  Subject: Re: smb clients and performance
> 
> > MS Cleints will broadcast even if there is no samba server (for example,
> > you use NT instead). That's the default method of resolving names. It is
> > not, however, all that taxing on the network. We have over 800 MS clients
> > on 25 subnets, and we can use Samba, AND NT servers (not to mention
> > PCNFS) with no throughput problems.
> 
> 
> You say that this is the default behaviour.  But can this
> be configured otherwise?  If I understand correctly,
> the plan is to abandon netBEUI in order to forego the
> broadcasting of these clients.  In other words, do these
> clients *always* behave this way under NT or is there another
> mode of operation?

A PC running WFWG 3.1x with the native networking enabled will broadcast,
when connected to an ethernet, whether there is a server within earshot or
not.

> 
> This raises another question or two (please excluse
> my ignorance).  Do MS clients such as winfile the NET
> commands in the DOS box always use netBEUI for netBIOS or
> can they use TCP/IP instead (I have a limited understanding
> of protocols used by MS)?  My understanding has been that
> netBIOS can sit atop either netBEUI *or* TCP/IP.  But, even
> if this is true, will the MS clients work that way.  More
> to the point, will they cease to continually broadcast.
> 

It you install TCP/IP (from M$), then the SMB (aka CIFS?) protocol can be
carried by TCP and UDP frames. (Is this in addition to any raw mode,
anybody?).

I have observed (with tcpdump) that M$ servers (and samba) will compete
for election at regular intervals of a second or so.

If WINS is disabled in favour of DNS, does the name-related broadcasting
by an M$ client stop?


---
Peter Blake
ppb at hft.co.uk
ppb at baloo.tcp.co.uk