What about other clients? What about samba3?

What about other clients? What about samba3?

Posted May 7, 2003 0:44 UTC (Wed) by ranger (guest, #6415)
Parent article: Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)

The report states that Windows XP was used as the client for the test? MS has made some changes recently to allow bigger packets via SMB. How would win2k3 fair if it were serving clients that don't support sendfile (like win98, winnt, winme, etc)? What about non-windows clients (dos, OS/2, unix-based OSs)? Was signorseal support in XP turned off (could affect performance against Samba as the XP clients may try and negotiate it first and fail)? Why was the noatime option not used if the Windows equivalent was? Why were ext3 tuning options not used?

Samba2 has sendfile support, but it is disabled by default. Was samba2 recompiled with sendfile support and tested?

Samba3 has more mature sendfile support than samba2, and is arguably more stable than win2k3 at this stage, so was samba3 tested??

And I can't believe they couldn't find updated samba packages for Redhat from updates, I am sure RH has released 2.2.7a packages for AS 2.1!

Really, I don't think it would be difficult to get AS2.1 to beat Win2k3 by doing the same amount of tuning on the AS2.1 as they did to the win2k3 machines.

I would also like to see their full smb.conf ...

---