Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Giving SMB2 Talks At SambaXP

Posted by kdawson on from the pinch-me dept.

Jeremy Allison - Sam writes "I'm not much for writing blog entries, but I thought Slashdot readers might like to know that Microsoft architects and testers are attending SambaXP and have been giving some wonderful talks on how the protocol document testing works, and on the design of SMB2 in order to work well on WAN links. Really interesting technical stuff. Pinch me, I'm back in 1994 and things are really fun again :-)."

6 of 53 comments (clear)

  1. SMB2 talk by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, for those of who can't attend, will there be some sort of webcast or what? In particular, I'm interested in what 'SMB2' will do that (RFC-compliant) NFSv4 won't.

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:SMB2 talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are there any good NFS clients for Windows? Any that are free? Yes, there's Microsoft's own from their Services for Unix download or the Vista/2008 Subsystem for Unix applications.

    2. Re:SMB2 talk by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Informative

      The slides will be posted at the conference website, but they're not up yet. Not sure yet about audio/video.

      Jeremy.

    3. Re:SMB2 talk by EvilRyry · · Score: 4, Informative

      That only supports the crusty, insecure NFSv3. NFSv4 was released in 2000 (aka 8 freakin years ago) and has far better security and performance than v3. Microsoft has announced that they will not be updating SFU and will discontinue downloads in 2009.

      So the correct answer would be "no", Microsoft hates NFS because they don't control it.

  2. ENOUGH WITH THE SUPER MARIO BROS JOKES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's three threads on that already. You can reply to those if you must. We don't need any more.

  3. Re:1994? by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They've already released the protocol info publicly. The catch isn't the protocol documentation, it's the patent license they claim is needed to implement the protocol It's moving the control point from trade secrets to patents. But I'm still really happy with the release of the info to the public. The docs aren't perfect yet, but they're going to be improved. It's a very positive step.

    Jeremy.