From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 14 08:30:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA20806 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:30:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.follonett.no (nic.follonett.no [194.198.43.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id IAA20800 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:30:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nic.follonett.no (8.8.3/8.8.3) with UUCP id RAA13633; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:28:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from oo7 (oo7.dimaga.com [192.0.0.65]) by dimaga.com (8.7.5/8.7.2) with SMTP id RAA06341; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:29:41 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970114172941.00a79ae0@dimaga.com> X-Sender: eivind@dimaga.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:29:42 +0100 To: dennis From: Eivind Eklund Subject: Re: IPFW + Samba -> performance problem Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 10:27 AM 1/14/97 -0500, you wrote: >Using "SAMBA" and "Performance" in the same sentence is poor >english. I've found tweaked Samba to usually have acceptable performance (>90% of network bandwidth as transfer speed.) The problems that are present seems to be mainly related to client bugs. Some of them trigger on Samba not doing the exact same things as WindowsNT og LANmanager - as an example, Win3.11, Win95, WinNT 3.51 and WinNT 4.0 all have *different* bugs in the code for handling unencrypted passwords. (And I know these to be bugs - I wrote the code to go around them myself.) Anyway; what SMB-manager for UNIX do you suggest, for best performance? Or what other system, for connecting WinNT 4.0 clients? Commercial systems is also of interest. (I'd like something with support for being a Primary Domain Controller - but will probably wait for Samba 2.0) Eivind Eklund / perhaps@yes.no / http://maybe.yes.no/perhaps/