Samsung Revs Its In-Kernel SMB3 Server Focused On Fast Performance, New Features

[miquels]

Forget SMB, it's 2021 and everything is in the cloud. Can someone get a high performance DAVfs implementation going. The current FUSE implementation is slow as molasses.

https://github.com/miquels/webdavfs uses fuse as well, but it's faster than davfs2. If you use it with https://github.com/miquels/webdav-server-rs, you'll get partial-write support as well (instead of downloading the whole file, updating, and re-uploading it). Disclaimer: I'm the author of both of em, so I'm not impartial.

[mppix]

Try that again with many small files. I highly doubt webdav even get near the performance of smb.

I really would love to see a webdav successor with a similar security profile

I did not try it but I did not have issues either with small files.

Anyhow, smb is also not the solution when high iops is the target. Block based network storage tends to outperform it by a significant margin.

So, not sure what smb solves in 2021.

... of course webdav with better caching would be nice

[mppix]

Indeed the largest problem with webdav is, it has a horrible overhead when dealing with large IOPS counts and concurrent file operations. Moreover the fuse/davfs2 implementation is pretty awful, it doesn't do aggressive caching which makes all file system operations dog slow. For instance running 'df' might take 5 seconds, depending on your network latency.

That is one slow network and/or slow storage

[flower]

I did not try it but I did not have issues either with small files.

Anyhow, smb is also not the solution when high iops is the target. Block based network storage tends to outperform it by a significant margin.

So, not sure what smb solves in 2021.

... of course webdav with better caching would be nice

On my 2.5g ethernet smb gives me around 260mb/s transfer speed for big files and around 100mb/s for small files.

With webdav i only get 130mb/s for big transfers and around 40mb/s for many small files.

The reason is the protocol overhead of webdav is insane. And if you work on files on a webdav share it is really annoying that webdav doesn't support partial updates.

This afternoon i have to restore a 4tb customer backup. And j am very glad that i have smb installed on my private nextcloud instance.

[mppix]

On my 2.5g ethernet smb gives me around 260mb/s transfer speed for big files and around 100mb/s for small files.

With webdav i only get 130mb/s for big transfers and around 40mb/s for many small files.

The reason is the protocol overhead of webdav is insane. And if you work on files on a webdav share it is really annoying that webdav doesn't support partial updates.

This afternoon i have to restore a 4tb customer backup. And j am very glad that i have smb installed on my private nextcloud instance.

Not sure what server you use and how you map drives - could be a software thing. I have not looked at nextcloud in a while (used to be slow when I tried it a long time ago - it likely improved but never tried again). I use truenas (local) + google cloud (backup + remote).

Among other things, I have ~8TB stored in gdrive mapped to gnome/shares and I only connect to when needed (afaik this is webdav).
It used to be unusable for these data sizes but works quite well since Gnome 40 (possibly before). Of course large folders need a moment to initialize after (re-)connection when I'm connected via WiFi or cellular (did not observe lag over . After that is like browsing local.