Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samba: Less Important Because Windows Is Less Important

Posted by Unknown on from the liberating-windows-users dept.

Jeremy Allison - Sam writes "Interview Bruce Byfield did with me after the Samba 4.0 release. Discusses interactions with Microsoft, the future of the code and project, and many other things."

3 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Re: samba - racist by dreold · · Score: 5, Informative

    Samba is a dance. Your confusing it with the term "Sambo" which is generally considered a racist term.

  2. Re:Too bad SMB is so slow by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's all in how the server is configured, and if the client will pipeline requests.

    I can easily saturate a gigabit network using modern Linux CIFSFS and Samba. Ensure you turn on pthread based aio on the server, and the client now issues multiple outstanding read/write requests.

    SMB2 makes this easier as it does this by default even on Windows clients. Ensuring your server has the pthread-based aio is the key though (depending on server CPU availablilty - on low end systems some OEM's get more mileage by using zero-copy sendfile/recvfile instead).

    Jeremy.

  3. Re:First posting? by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, you're getting the history the wrong way around.

    Samba was started in '92. The web wasn't on most companies radar until the late 90's.

    Web and database on Linux came in the door opened by file servers :-).

    Our original platform was SunOS (not even Solaris). When Samba started Linux was a toy, it didn't even have networking.

    Jeremy.