Re: Samba

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve

That's good input. I think some of us would still say, it might not be 
SMB that is the issue.

SMB is a protocol.

QNTC is an implementation of SMB.

Samba is an implementation of SMB.

So the poor performance you report may be due to the implementation, not 
to the protocol.

Many of us have reported poor performance with QNTC. So IBM have now 
brought out Samba, and that promises to be faster. Richard actually made 
a Samba wrapper that performs very well compared to QNTC.

But when I was at RJS, we stopped recommending QNTC and focused on NFS 
for file transfer, which worked better than QNTC for sending files to a 
Windows or Linux server.

I believe your statement about SMB being poor over a WAN is better 
stated as the QNTC implementation is poor over a WAN.

Hope I was making sense!! On a Saturday early!!

Vern

On 4/3/2015 5:22 PM, Steve Landess wrote:
> 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