4 ms·
SMB is not that terrible to set up (has its quirks definitely), but apple devices don't interoperate well in my experience. SMB from my samba server performs ve
by fodkodrasz 1y ago
SMB is not that terrible to set up (has its quirks definitely), but apple devices don't interoperate well in my experience.
SMB from my samba server performs very well from linux and windows clients alike, but the performance from mac is terrible.
NFS support was lacking on windows when I last tried. I used NFS (v3) a lot in the past, but unless in a highly static high trust environment, it was worse to use than SMB (for me). Especially the user-id mapping story is something I'm not sure is solved properly. That was a PITA in the homelab scale, having to set up NIS was really something I didn't like, a road warrior setup didn't work well for me, I quickly abandoned it.
- hnlmorg 1y ago> SMB is not that terrible to set up Samba can be. Especially when compared with NFS > NFS support was lacking on windows when I last tried. If you need to connect from Windows then your options are very limited, unfortunately.
- Spooky23 1y agoWindows 10/11 have native support. Writes aren’t terribly performant iirc.
- chasil 1y agoWhich SMB? SMBv1 has a reputation for being an extremely chatty protocol. Novell ipx/spx easily dwarfed it in the early days. Microsoft now disables it by default, but some utilities (curl) do not support more advanced versions. SMBv2 increases efficiency by bundling multiple messages into a single transmission. It is clear text only. SMBv3 supports optional encryption. Apple dropped the Samba project from MacOS due to gplv3, and developed their own SMB implementation that is not used elsewhere AFAIK. If you don't care for Apple's implementation, then perhaps installing Samba is a better option. NFSv3 relies solely on uid/gid mapping by default, while NFSv4 requires idmapd to run to avoid squashing. I sometimes use both at the same time.
- p_ing 1y agoFor macOS, it doesn't matter which protocol version of SMB, it's just a poor implementation of SMB [client].
- fodkodrasz 1y agoI have SMB2/SMB3 with mandatory encryption. I'd use the Finder to browse files, and for that it is terribly slow. Also without extra config in SAMBA it does litter the whole disk with DS_Store crap. I remember it was very slow that way, but have set up extra config in SAMBA (pear extension I think). Its extreme slowness may also be related to the workarounds to avoid that crap being not fully correctly configured. Also copying is comically slow, to get 4 files totaling 50kbytes can take 20 seconds sometimes. Same from a windows laptop takes sub second time. Overall I'm underwhelmed by MacOS/iOS, this being one minor annoyance in the list. Windows and Linux both perform well and work well out of the box with my proven simple setup. (No AD) Samba in MacOS might speed up things, but I bought that machine to get stuff cone more effectively than from Linux, and so far it didn't prove its value. Right now I'll not bother with that, as I feel that would have even worse OS level integration. Thanks for the advice nevertheless, much appreciated.
- amaccuish 1y agoHave a look at https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/current/man-html/vfs_fruit.8.html https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/current/man-html/vfs_fruit....