[Samba] Which version do I need for SMB2?

[Volker Lendecke]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:26:57PM -0400, John Klimek wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "try linux-cifs".  Are you suggesting I
> create local mount points using linux-cifs as the filesystem type?

You referred to it as "linux-cifs", I just followed your
wording. I mean you should use the Linux filesystem type
"cifs" in your fstab or use the "-t cifs" argument to the
Linux mount command.

> I'm willing to upgrade so that's not really a big issue.  I just need
> to know which version to upgrade to (eg. Samba3 or Samba4)

Samba3 or 4 won't help you at all for this, you need the
proper kernel support.

> I've heard that before as well but I've also heard/seen benchmarks
> where SMB2 is much, much faster than SMB1.  However, like you said,
> perhaps it's due to SMB optimizations.
> 
> Do you suggest I stick with Samba3 v3.3.2 and just use SMB?
> 
> I'd really prefer to use SMB2 (if possible) especially since I
> upgraded to Windows Server 2008 almost specifically for this feature
> but if you are telling me that Samba3 (v3.3.2) will provide me almost
> exactly the same performance than I'll stick with that.  However, if I
> need to optimize my configuration (versus no additional optimization
> with Samba4?) than that's a different story.
> 
> Thanks so much for your help!

Sorry to say that, but you got caught by Microsoft marketing
for completely non-reasons. Upgrading to Windows 2008 just
to support Linux clients better is -- well -- not going to
help you at all. You better read your license agreement if
you can return the W2k8 license :-)

Volker
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20090819/e23bd354/attachment.pgp>