On 14 Oct 2013, at 15:59, Ryan Bair <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been running netatalk for my OS X clients with great success. The > performance isn't as good as Windows to Samba, but its a HUGE improvement > over any version of OS X with any SMB server. 30 seconds with wireshark will > tell you why OS X's browsing performance is so horrible.
This is good news. I'm attempting to get Netatalk 3 up and running but am struggling to link the authentication into the Samba4 setup. On a slightly different note, I've been advised by an Apple Premium Reseller and Systems Integrator here in the UK that they recommend people use NFS in their Linux / Mac environments. I'd be interested to hear the voice of experience on that one if anyone care comment? > Another point of OS X/Samba misinformation is that Apple dropped Samba which > is an SMB server. OS X's SMB client never shared any code with Samba any did > not change as a result of the Samba purge. Thanks for the clarification. Hopefully this thread will help dispel myths that I've obviously come across out there in internet land. > Here's hoping 10.9's SMB driver is as improved as Apple is claiming it to be. >From my testing with my chosen problematic directory of 80 images, I found >directory listing times to be : 10.8 - about 60 seconds (very laggy scrolling) 10.9 (pre-release) - about 3 seconds, scrolling is fine 10.8 running Dave from Thursby, - near instant and no issues with scrolling Apple should clearly buy the technology from Dave and implement it in their OS. Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
