From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jan 14 09:14:29 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA23522
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:14:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id JAA23510
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA02250; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:20:49 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970114121426.00a0ad40@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:14:28 -0500
To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@dimaga.com>
From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
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 05:29 PM 1/14/97 +0100, you wrote:
>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?

I suggest dumping LAN manager, because that is the problem. We use
Netcon's IPX server....

Dennis