SMB2 - Supported? Important?

[MrPete]

I'm a bit confused by the varying info I see on SNB and elsewhere about SMB2.

Simple first noob question: do any/all NAS support SMB2 yet?

My general impression, probably inaccurate:

* SMB2 is/will be great, but not supported everywhere yet (Linux will require Samba 4, Mac/OSX who knows...)

* Apparently, current Linux releases have a high performance implementation of Samba (3.5?) even without SMB2

SO....

a) Maybe SMB2 is less important than would otherwise appear?
b) If SMB is important, maybe SMB2 is still a big issue for NAS? I do see pretty slow SMB numbers here...

Thanks again for any insights. This is a great community!

 

[thiggins]

Good luck trying to find out the implementation status of SMB2.

Here is what I learned about what's important for high NAS throughput: How To Build a Really Fast NAS - Part 6: The Vista (SP1) Difference

 

[ntm1275]

That's a very interesting article Tim, and it explains quite a lot to me through the testing I have done on various Microsoft OS's with my Synology DS1010+

Vista SP1, SP2 and W7 have improved from what came before by a good margin
I could not believe how poor the results were from XP

Below are some graphs of my tests with the 1010+ with 2GB RAM, and my Intel i5 750 quad CPU, 4GB RAM and a Velociraptor drive using drag and drop with 349MB, 700MB, 1085MB, 6840MB files and a folder containing 1566MB of 241 mp3 files
I partitioned the drive in to 3, and had XP, Vista and W7 on it and tested each version before testing again with the Service Packs installed

These were the only OS's I had available to me at the time, but I would have loved to have had 64bit versions of each of them

 

[MrPete]

That's awesome info, ntm1275!

Tells me that these new high end NAS, whether or not they support SMB2, gain a huge benefit when one uses SMB2 on the client side. (e.g. Vista SP1+ and/or Win7)

THANKS!

 

[thiggins]

Thanks for posting that.

I don't think a 64 bit OS would make a difference in performance.