5 ms·

Samba is SO SLOW in Mac as well. My gigabit local ethernet connection is somehow slower than my internet connection. Anyone have suggestions of what to use besi

by warent 5y ago

Samba is SO SLOW in Mac as well. My gigabit local ethernet connection is somehow slower than my internet connection. Anyone have suggestions of what to use besides SMB?

jra_samba 5y ago
More details please. What server are you connecting to locally ?
- warent 5y ago
  Ubuntu 20.04 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/very-slow-access-to-smb-and-afp-shares.2285822/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/very-slow-access-to-smb... Google search "SMB Slow on Mac"
  - jra_samba 5y ago
    Are you using signing/encryption ? Never mind, saw the local "gigabit connection" above, so wired.
    - beermonster 5y ago
      Since MacOS 10.11.5 SMB signing is enabled by default which does impact performance.
paulmd 5y ago
NFS would be the traditional *nix answer there. SMB is also moderately CPU bottlenecked, especially depending on cipher suite, so if you're connecting to a super slow raspberry pi server or something, move to a decent server before writing it all off.
- rietta 5y ago
  NFS has its own issues, such as not being authenticated. SMB does support credentials and TLS for access.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Even better having $HOME mounted via NFS and then getting to go for a coffee because being unable to login due to file server issues with nfsd.
  - leohonexus 5y ago
    NFSv4 does support authentication via Kerberos and other providers, but its support on Mac is really patchy.
eric__cartman 5y ago
There are AFS servers for Linux. I don't know if macOS supports NFS shares, but if it does then that should be speedier. That said my Samba server does saturate a gigabit connection with a Windows client. The CPU usage on the server is around 25% when doing so, with a crappy low end AMD dual core from 2013 so the CPU shouldn't be a bottleneck.
- beermonster 5y ago
  Yes, one such is https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Netatalk https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Netatalk Though haven’t Apple deprecated [0][1] AFS in Mavericks 10.9 in favour of SMB? [0] https://eclecticlight.co/2019/12/09/can-you-still-use-afp-sharing/ https://eclecticlight.co/2019/12/09/can-you-still-use-afp-sh... [1] https://www.macworld.com/article/234926/using-afp-to-share-a-mac-drive-its-time-to-change.html https://www.macworld.com/article/234926/using-afp-to-share-a...
- nicholasjarnold 5y ago
  Yes, NFS shares can be (auto)mounted on OSX. It works well if you don't require authentication in the protocol. I have some devices setup this way on my LAN and the only "tricky" part is making sure your uids/gids align with the file perms on the server.
  - willis936 5y ago
    Is there any non-airgapped use case that doesn't require authentication? NFS sounds great when presented as a "faster alternative to samba". As soon as anything else is said about it you realize there's a reason it's been a bad choice for 20 years.
    - nicholasjarnold 5y ago
      > Is there any non-airgapped use case that doesn't require authentication? Here's one: Say you maintain the devices in your home LAN/WLAN, and you would like to centralize the storage/access of certain data like photos, music, video, shared Keepass DB files, etc. Let's also assume that you don't have a local threat model in your home network that includes "highly technical people that know about setting their UID who wish to access files you don't want them to see or have write access to". I would argue this is a semi-common home scenario for many of us. Perhaps you want your SO and/or child to have access to shared files on a NAS which supports NFS, and you don't have any Windows endpoints to worry about. In this scenario it's perfectly fine to just setup the devices which you want to have access to the NFS share(s) and completely ignore authentication for the file sharing protocol. If you're worried about WiFi guests that might be savvy or curious then simply create a guest-only wireless network that can get out to the internet but not the LAN. The above works fine for me, personally.
beermonster 5y ago
> Samba is SO SLOW Are you using SMBv3? Here are some comparison stats [1] [1] https://photographylife.com/afp-vs-nfs-vs-smb-performance https://photographylife.com/afp-vs-nfs-vs-smb-performance
philshem 5y ago
sshfs? https://github.com/libfuse/sshfs https://github.com/libfuse/sshfs
- leohonexus 5y ago
  Beware it’s now a PITA to install sshfs via Homebrew because macFUSE, a dep for sshfs has turned closed-source and Homebrew would refuse to install sshfs for that reason. To solve it, you’d have to install macFUSE binary from their official site first, and load their kernel extension via the GUI, before running the Homebrew command.
MisterTea 5y ago
MacOS is the Samba client or server? At home my FreeBSD samba server will saturate 1 Gb to a Windows 7 client. I used to use it with a Linux mint server that was slightly slower but still plenty fast (~80MB/sec vs 100+ for Windows)
easton 5y ago
The problem is that they aren't using Samba, they are using their own SMB implementation. They had to move after Samba went GPL3, and it hasn't been as performant or stable since (although recently it's a little better). https://www.osnews.com/story/24572/apple-ditches-samba-in-favour-of-homegrown-replacement/ https://www.osnews.com/story/24572/apple-ditches-samba-in-fa...
- jra_samba 5y ago
  Well they didn't have to move, just to be captain pedantic :-). They chose to do so, as they made a policy decision not to use any GPLv3 code. Which is their right to do so, of course. Apple have been moving to only permissively licenced code for a while now.
  - KolenCh 5y ago
    Sorry, a genuine question: it seems that they have to move as GPLv3 is anti-tivolization and Apple is TiVo-like (namely macOS are only licensed on Apple hardware.) So in this case apple’s action is a direct response to FSF’s decision to be anti-tivolization? Ie they are forced to either change their model to comply, or not use GPLv3 licensed softwares?
    - jra_samba 5y ago
      Well for Apples motives you would have to ask Apple. But from an external view of Apple, yes - this does seem to be a direct response to the GPLv3 anti-tivoization clause. Again, this is perfectly within their rights so I don't want anyone to think I'm complaining about this (anymore:-). I'm more annoyed with the FSF over GPLv3 than Apple. At least Apple have the courage of their convictions, which cannot be said anymore of the FSF.

by warent 5y ago

Samba is SO SLOW in Mac as well. My gigabit local ethernet connection is somehow slower than my internet connection. Anyone have suggestions of what to use besides SMB?

jra_samba 5y ago

More details please. What server are you connecting to locally ?

warent 5y ago
Ubuntu 20.04 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/very-slow-access-to-smb-and-afp-shares.2285822/ https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/very-slow-access-to-smb... Google search "SMB Slow on Mac"
- jra_samba 5y ago
  Are you using signing/encryption ? Never mind, saw the local "gigabit connection" above, so wired.
  - beermonster 5y ago
    Since MacOS 10.11.5 SMB signing is enabled by default which does impact performance.

paulmd 5y ago

NFS would be the traditional *nix answer there. SMB is also moderately CPU bottlenecked, especially depending on cipher suite, so if you're connecting to a super slow raspberry pi server or something, move to a decent server before writing it all off.

rietta 5y ago
NFS has its own issues, such as not being authenticated. SMB does support credentials and TLS for access.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Even better having $HOME mounted via NFS and then getting to go for a coffee because being unable to login due to file server issues with nfsd.
- leohonexus 5y ago
  NFSv4 does support authentication via Kerberos and other providers, but its support on Mac is really patchy.

eric__cartman 5y ago

There are AFS servers for Linux. I don't know if macOS supports NFS shares, but if it does then that should be speedier. That said my Samba server does saturate a gigabit connection with a Windows client. The CPU usage on the server is around 25% when doing so, with a crappy low end AMD dual core from 2013 so the CPU shouldn't be a bottleneck.

beermonster 5y ago
Yes, one such is https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Netatalk https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Netatalk Though haven’t Apple deprecated [0][1] AFS in Mavericks 10.9 in favour of SMB? [0] https://eclecticlight.co/2019/12/09/can-you-still-use-afp-sharing/ https://eclecticlight.co/2019/12/09/can-you-still-use-afp-sh... [1] https://www.macworld.com/article/234926/using-afp-to-share-a-mac-drive-its-time-to-change.html https://www.macworld.com/article/234926/using-afp-to-share-a...
nicholasjarnold 5y ago
Yes, NFS shares can be (auto)mounted on OSX. It works well if you don't require authentication in the protocol. I have some devices setup this way on my LAN and the only "tricky" part is making sure your uids/gids align with the file perms on the server.
- willis936 5y ago
  Is there any non-airgapped use case that doesn't require authentication? NFS sounds great when presented as a "faster alternative to samba". As soon as anything else is said about it you realize there's a reason it's been a bad choice for 20 years.
  - nicholasjarnold 5y ago
    > Is there any non-airgapped use case that doesn't require authentication? Here's one: Say you maintain the devices in your home LAN/WLAN, and you would like to centralize the storage/access of certain data like photos, music, video, shared Keepass DB files, etc. Let's also assume that you don't have a local threat model in your home network that includes "highly technical people that know about setting their UID who wish to access files you don't want them to see or have write access to". I would argue this is a semi-common home scenario for many of us. Perhaps you want your SO and/or child to have access to shared files on a NAS which supports NFS, and you don't have any Windows endpoints to worry about. In this scenario it's perfectly fine to just setup the devices which you want to have access to the NFS share(s) and completely ignore authentication for the file sharing protocol. If you're worried about WiFi guests that might be savvy or curious then simply create a guest-only wireless network that can get out to the internet but not the LAN. The above works fine for me, personally.

beermonster 5y ago

> Samba is SO SLOW Are you using SMBv3? Here are some comparison stats [1] [1] https://photographylife.com/afp-vs-nfs-vs-smb-performance https://photographylife.com/afp-vs-nfs-vs-smb-performance

philshem 5y ago

sshfs? https://github.com/libfuse/sshfs https://github.com/libfuse/sshfs

leohonexus 5y ago
Beware it’s now a PITA to install sshfs via Homebrew because macFUSE, a dep for sshfs has turned closed-source and Homebrew would refuse to install sshfs for that reason. To solve it, you’d have to install macFUSE binary from their official site first, and load their kernel extension via the GUI, before running the Homebrew command.

MisterTea 5y ago

MacOS is the Samba client or server? At home my FreeBSD samba server will saturate 1 Gb to a Windows 7 client. I used to use it with a Linux mint server that was slightly slower but still plenty fast (~80MB/sec vs 100+ for Windows)

easton 5y ago

The problem is that they aren't using Samba, they are using their own SMB implementation. They had to move after Samba went GPL3, and it hasn't been as performant or stable since (although recently it's a little better). https://www.osnews.com/story/24572/apple-ditches-samba-in-favour-of-homegrown-replacement/ https://www.osnews.com/story/24572/apple-ditches-samba-in-fa...

jra_samba 5y ago
Well they didn't have to move, just to be captain pedantic :-). They chose to do so, as they made a policy decision not to use any GPLv3 code. Which is their right to do so, of course. Apple have been moving to only permissively licenced code for a while now.
- KolenCh 5y ago
  Sorry, a genuine question: it seems that they have to move as GPLv3 is anti-tivolization and Apple is TiVo-like (namely macOS are only licensed on Apple hardware.) So in this case apple’s action is a direct response to FSF’s decision to be anti-tivolization? Ie they are forced to either change their model to comply, or not use GPLv3 licensed softwares?
  - jra_samba 5y ago
    Well for Apples motives you would have to ask Apple. But from an external view of Apple, yes - this does seem to be a direct response to the GPLv3 anti-tivoization clause. Again, this is perfectly within their rights so I don't want anyone to think I'm complaining about this (anymore:-). I'm more annoyed with the FSF over GPLv3 than Apple. At least Apple have the courage of their convictions, which cannot be said anymore of the FSF.