×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Rob -
SMB is "chatty" and has a lot of overhead over a WAN.
I'll need to locate the stats on the benchmark we did to give you specifics,
BUT:
What we found was that when copy a large file from an IBM i 7.1 system via
QNTC to a local Windows server here in Fort Worth it only took a few
minutes.
When copying the same file from an IBM i system located in Europe over the
wide-area network via QNTC to the same windows server in Fort Worth it took
several hours.
When using FTP to copy the same file from either system took a few minutes.
-sjl
wrote in message
news:mailman.2507.1427713705.14083.midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx...
And SMB affects both NetServer and Samba, right? And is not specific to
either one?
And the point of that is what?
- Advise having distributed local servers?
- Suggesting another technology, such as NFS?
And why does it perform horribly over WAN?
- Is it generally because of the large volume of data in BLOB stream
files?
- Is it because of some default blocking size often set in WAN's?
- Is it because of some difference between local blocking size and that of
ISP's?
Steve, not jumping on your case, really. Just trying to get the most
benefit out of such a broad statement.
Rob Berendt
midrange.com
