Originally posted by Zan Lynx
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Big CIFS/SMB3 Improvements Head To Linux 4.19
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by ermo View Post
I was under the impression that 9p / styx was already invented? But maybe that doesn't count?
Thanks
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by gmturner View PostAs for cifs, I'm not sure why it's so terrible... Is there a competing, superior network file system protocol against which samba compares poorly?
I have yet to find anything that cuts much mustard in home or business environments....
Perhaps there should be a better network filesystem but somebody has to invent it first?
But Wireguard appeared out of nothing too, so why not a new network filesharing protocol?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by gmturner View PostPerhaps there should be a better network filesystem but somebody has to invent it first? If I'm wrong, by all means please clue me in, I'd love to discover that I missed something and am way off base about this..
The Styx protocol
Styx's place in the world is analogous to Sun NFS or Microsoft CIFS, although it is simpler and easier to implement. Furthermore, NFS and CIFS are designed for sharing regular disk files; NFS in particular is intimately tied to the implementation and caching strategy of the underlying UNIX file system. Unlike Styx, NFS and CIFS are clumsier at exporting dynamic device-like files such as /dev/mouse
(source)
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jpg44 View Post
You must being facetious. Ever heard of FUSE? People use filesystems all the time without it being in kernel.
As for cifs, I'm not sure why it's so terrible... Is there a competing, superior network file system protocol against which samba compares poorly? NFS... always seemed pretty wierd to me but probably performed marginally better for linux<->linux FS sharing (but that was just my subjective impression from ages ago). "distributed-block devices" seem to work but are a patently ridiculous way to achieve file system sharing (kind of analogous to solving security/resource partitioning with emulators). Otherwise... I have yet to find anything that cuts much mustard in home or business environments....
Perhaps there should be a better network filesystem but somebody has to invent it first? If I'm wrong, by all means please clue me in, I'd love to discover that I missed something and am way off base about this..
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ermo View Post
Depends on your expectations I guess?
I run a Samba 4.7.x server @home that shares a SnapRAID media library through a MergerFS mount point. Despite the fact that MergerFS is implemented with FUSE, I can saturate a single GbE link in that configuration with the server running a Ph II X6 1090T.
So what you are implying is not what I'm seeing. But maybe my requirements for "usable" differ from yours.
That's a processor that performs like a modern i3, you could still game on that CPU. Also, FUSE mostly degrades random access speed and latencies, not top transfer speed.
Anyway, as a comparison I can saturate a GbE link with a RAID1 ext4 mdadm array with NFS, from a Zyxel NSA325 nas using a pretty meh Kirwkood SoC (ARMv5 1.6ghz, singlecore) running Debian ARM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostWhat people, what filesystems?
FUSE is mostly used for NTFS (and exfat) support on Linux, and its performance is kinda bad, it exists only for interoperatibility with Windows.
Samba is a resource pig already, if you add FUSE to the party it's going to be unusable.
I run a Samba 4.7.x server @home that shares a SnapRAID media library through a MergerFS mount point. Despite the fact that MergerFS is implemented with FUSE, I can saturate a single GbE link in that configuration with the server running a Ph II X6 1090T.
So what you are implying is not what I'm seeing. But maybe my requirements for "usable" differ from yours.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caligula View Post
Many iPad apps implement their own custom network sharing protocols. People love them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by EarthMind View PostI hope they put their focus on SMB-Direct more, because that's a killer high performing feature that Samba doesn't properly support yet. Having full support for it would be great for Synology NASes, so I can say goodbye to low performing ISCSI connections.
Leave a comment:
-
I hope they put their focus on SMB-Direct more, because that's a killer high performing feature that Samba doesn't properly support yet. Having full support for it would be great for Synology NASes, so I can say goodbye to low performing ISCSI connections.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: