PDA

View Full Version : SMB2 is the new default protocol for sharing files in OS X Mavericks


Sky Blue
Jun 10, 2013, 03:42 PM
SMB2 is replacing AFP as the default sharing protocol.

SMB2
SMB2 is the new default protocol for sharing files in OS X Mavericks. SMB2 is superfast, increases security, and improves Windows compatibility.
• Efficient. SMB2 features Resource compounding, allowing multiple requests to be sent in a single request. In addition, SMB2 can use large reads and writes to make better use of faster networks as well as large MTU support for blazing speeds on 10 Gigabit Ethernet. It aggressively caches file and folder properties and uses opportu- nistic locking to enable better caching of data. It’s even more reliable, thanks to the ability to transparently reconnect to servers in the event of a temporary disconnect.
• Secure. SMB2 supports Extended Authentication Security using Kerberos and NTLMv2.
• Compatible. SMB2 is automatically used to share files between two Mac computers running OS X Mavericks, or when a Windows client running Vista, Windows 7, or Windows 8 connects to your Mac. Mavericks maintains support for AFP and SMB network file-sharing protocols, automatically selecting the appropriate protocol
as needed.

cclloyd
Jun 10, 2013, 04:35 PM
But can 10.8 at least read SMB2 so sharing isn't broken for older computers?

Risco
Jun 10, 2013, 04:39 PM
About time, although what routers support it?

cclloyd
Jun 10, 2013, 04:43 PM
About time, although what routers support it?

Open source dd-wrt supports everything.

Bear
Jun 10, 2013, 04:44 PM
But can 10.8 at least read SMB2 so sharing isn't broken for older computers?10.9 also supports AFP and SMB for compatibility with older operating systems.

oatman13
Jun 10, 2013, 04:47 PM
SMB is really slow. I hate being restricted to about 80MB/s... Does Windows Server support SMB2?

Mirai 11
Jun 11, 2013, 04:48 AM
Super Mario Brothers 2....?
:rolleyes:

mdgm
Jun 11, 2013, 07:10 AM
So does Mavericks use SMB2 for Time Machine backups to a Time Capsule? Or does it still use AFP?

Bear
Jun 11, 2013, 07:16 AM
So does Mavericks use SMB2 for Time Machine backups to a Time Capsule? Or does it still use AFP?It doesn't look like the old Time Capsules support SMB2 from what I could see.

So I guess it depends on if the new (ac) Time Capsule supports SMB2 or if they release new firmware for the old Time Capsules with SMB2.

Sky Blue
Oct 4, 2013, 10:37 AM
I would've thought connect to server would default to SMB, but in the GM it still defaults to AFP...

katmeef
Oct 4, 2013, 10:43 AM
About time, although what routers support it?

Why would you need a different router? To the router it's all IP traffic regardless if you are using AFP or SMB2

Weaselboy
Oct 4, 2013, 11:16 AM
Why would you need a different router? To the router it's all IP traffic regardless if you are using AFP or SMB2

I think what he means is to use SMB2 or AFP with a USB drive attached to a router, the router would need to support that protocol for USB disk access. This is why many (most) routers won't work for external USB disk Time Machine backups... they don't support AFP that TM needs.

katmeef
Oct 4, 2013, 12:00 PM
I think what he means is to use SMB2 or AFP with a USB drive attached to a router, the router would need to support that protocol for USB disk access. This is why many (most) routers won't work for external USB disk Time Machine backups... they don't support AFP that TM needs.

Wouldn't that be more of a NAS than a router?

FrancoisC
Oct 4, 2013, 12:03 PM
Super Mario Brothers 2....?
:rolleyes:

Of course! There's a little plumber that takes your data throught network tubes and bring it to it's destination! :D

Weaselboy
Oct 4, 2013, 12:08 PM
Wouldn't that be more of a NAS than a router?

Not really... lots of very low end routers now have a USB port that supports external drives and even AFP for Time Machine.

katmeef
Oct 4, 2013, 12:17 PM
Not really... lots of very low end routers now have a USB port that supports external drives and even AFP for Time Machine.

I work with commercial grade Cisco routers and I would certainly not consider NAS functions and router functions to be one in the same thing.

spaceballl
Oct 4, 2013, 12:22 PM
Time Machine will continue to use AFP.

Weaselboy
Oct 4, 2013, 12:27 PM
I work with commercial grade Cisco routers and I would certainly not consider NAS functions and router functions to be one in the same thing.

I honestly don't know what your point is.

Look at this Asus (http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/31841-asus-rt-ac66u-80211ac-dual-band-wireless-ac1750-gigabit-router-reviewed) router for example. You can plug a USB drive into it and see that drive on the network just like a dedicated NAS device would do. The question was will a device like this need to be updated to support SMB2, and the answer is yes. That was all that was being mentioned.

I suppose we can argue about whether that makes this router into a NAS, but I don't see what that has to do with the original question.

katmeef
Oct 4, 2013, 03:35 PM
I honestly don't know what your point is.

Look at this Asus (http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/31841-asus-rt-ac66u-80211ac-dual-band-wireless-ac1750-gigabit-router-reviewed) router for example. You can plug a USB drive into it and see that drive on the network just like a dedicated NAS device would do. The question was will a device like this need to be updated to support SMB2, and the answer is yes. That was all that was being mentioned.

I suppose we can argue about whether that makes this router into a NAS, but I don't see what that has to do with the original question.

The question was not if a "device like that" would need to be upgraded, rather if a "router" would need upgraded.

A NAS may need an upgrade but a router by definition would not. You're right that a device which *combines a router and NAS* may need an upgrade ..

Weaselboy
Oct 4, 2013, 03:49 PM
The question was not if a "device like that" would need to be upgraded, rather if a "router" would need upgraded.

A NAS may need an upgrade but a router by definition would not. You're right that a device which *combines a router and NAS* may need an upgrade ..

From the wording of Risco's question it sounded like he was referring to routers that would be impacted by this, and routers that handle file transfer to external USB drives would potentially need an update to handle SMB2. That is all I was trying to say. Why you want to turn this into an argument is completely beyond me. :confused:

Risco
Oct 4, 2013, 04:20 PM
I just installed this and my share on WD MyBook Live is still connecting via afp?

matthewadams
Oct 4, 2013, 04:30 PM
I believe as long as NASes and other devices keep announcing AFP only via Bonjour all OSX does is connect via AFP. If the vendors slowly start introducing SMB2 to Bonjour over time, OSX might choose SMB2 over AFP.
Just a thought though..

Update: I was wrong. Even with SMB over Bonjour it still defaults to AFP (same with connecting to other 10.9 Macs).

roobieroo
Oct 8, 2013, 12:19 PM
Is this still Apple's screwed up SMBX version that they created for Lion and Mountain Lion or is this going to be back to a version of SMB that actually works well with Windows like it did in 10.6 server? It's hard to imagine having more problems and a worse implementation than SMBX in 10.7 and 10.8 so I really have my fingers crossed.

photosmike
Oct 8, 2013, 01:52 PM
Help me out. I can't seem to find where/how SMB service is started. I have file sharing checked with the SMB option set, but no love. Any ideas appreciated.

RabidMacFan
Oct 8, 2013, 01:54 PM
Help me out. I can't seem to find where/how SMB service is started. I have file sharing checked with the SMB option set, but no love. Any ideas appreciated.

Not sure what you mean. Enabling file sharing and checking the SMB option is exactly how you are supposed to start the SMB service. You are done.

photosmike
Oct 8, 2013, 02:11 PM
I am trying to connect to my iMac from an iPad using an app called FileBrowser that uses SMB. It gives me a message that SMB is not active on my iMac and when I look at the Activity Monitor, it is missing. It's probably the app anyway.

Thanks

RabidMacFan
Oct 8, 2013, 05:49 PM
I am trying to connect to my iMac from an iPad using an app called FileBrowser that uses SMB. It gives me a message that SMB is not active on my iMac and when I look at the Activity Monitor, it is missing. It's probably the app anyway.

Thanks

I'm guessing the app is not using SMB2. To enable the OLD SMB, you need to enable "Windows File Sharing". Heed the warning that doing so will store your account password in an insecure manner. NTLM authentication is used for Windows File Sharing and it is fairly easy to crack NTLM passwords.

mikerussellnz
Oct 9, 2013, 12:01 AM
I don't understand this, just enabling file sharing you can't see the machine under windows and OSX still uses AFP for connection.

Share files using SMB seems to still be off by default. You still need to enable windows sharing.

The mac then seemed to connect via SMB, but I would have thought if it really was meant to be the default, share via SMB would be on by default.

Still don't know about the windows file sharing option with the password thing, seems a relic that isn't very intuitive to what it does.

SlCKB0Y
Oct 9, 2013, 01:59 AM
I work with commercial grade Cisco routers and I would certainly not consider NAS functions and router functions to be one in the same thing.

They never said the functions were the same. The device is primarily a consumer router but has some token NAS functionality hence they referred to it as a router. It's not that hard to understand. :rolleyes:

----------

The question was not if a "device like that" would need to be upgraded, rather if a "router" would need upgraded.

A NAS may need an upgrade but a router by definition would not. You're right that a device which *combines a router and NAS* may need an upgrade ..

And everyone in this thread understood what he was talking about except for you.

Maybe next time he can call the device a "router/switch/wifi access point/nas/firewall/dns server/ntp server/ddns client" just for you. I love the way that rolls off the tongue, don't you?

katmeef
Oct 9, 2013, 02:13 AM
They never said the functions were the same. The device is primarily a consumer router but has some token NAS functionality hence they referred to it as a router. It's not that hard to understand. :rolleyes:

----------



And everyone in this thread understood what he was talking about except for you.

Maybe next time he can call the device a "router/switch/wifi access point/nas/firewall/dns server/ntp server/ddns client" just for you. I love the way that rolls off the tongue, don't you?

Or maybe just call it a NAS

madeirabhoy
Oct 9, 2013, 10:45 AM
The question was not if a "device like that" would need to be upgraded, rather if a "router" would need upgraded.

A NAS may need an upgrade but a router by definition would not. You're right that a device which *combines a router and NAS* may need an upgrade ..

but tbh what most of us call a router....

i have a router from my cable company. the tech guy who put it in called it a router, im sure it says router on the box. and it has a usb socket for a usb drive...it replaced my last different model of router, that definitely said router on the box and the engineer who fitted that called it a router...

----------

more importantly, will this affect my system, either positively or negatively?


i use SMB (which i admit i dont understand) so i share movies from my imac to my nintendo wii to play though the tv using WiiMC.

to get it to work, i was told before to use SMBup, which i do and it works fine.

does this mean i should continue to use SMBup when i install mavericks or i wont need to or..

katmeef
Oct 9, 2013, 11:20 AM
but tbh what most of us call a router....

i have a router from my cable company. the tech guy who put it in called it a router, im sure it says router on the box. and it has a usb socket for a usb drive...it replaced my last different model of router, that definitely said router on the box and the engineer who fitted that called it a router...[COLOR="#808080"]



You know what, you're absolutely right and clearly I'm a NAS for expecting anyone to know the difference between a router or a NAS.

Let's just call everything an electronic device.

vanhaakonnen
Oct 9, 2013, 01:47 PM
I have some problems with Mavericks and the SMB2 implementation. We have some EMC Isilon (http://www.emc.com/storage/isilon/isilon.htm) storages at our company with windows/cifs shares. Under 10.8 it was absolutely no problem to work with this shares - under 10.9 I canīt connect to them...

madeirabhoy
Oct 11, 2013, 10:31 AM
You know what, you're absolutely right and clearly I'm a NAS for expecting anyone to know the difference between a router or a NAS.

Let's just call everything an electronic device.

see at least we agree on something. unlike you, its a router. if i plug a usb drive into it you would have a point calling it a NAS but since it hasnt got any storage built in, its a router.

katmeef
Oct 11, 2013, 12:53 PM
Guess you missed the sarcasm in my post.

goonie4life9
Oct 13, 2013, 11:34 AM
Is there an error message (or any other information) that appears when you try to connect?

I have some problems with Mavericks and the SMB2 implementation. We have some EMC Isilon (http://www.emc.com/storage/isilon/isilon.htm) storages at our company with windows/cifs shares. Under 10.8 it was absolutely no problem to work with this shares - under 10.9 I canīt connect to them...

vanhaakonnen
Oct 13, 2013, 01:03 PM
in dmesg I can see something like this:

smb2_smb_read_write_async: IO Mismatched. Requested 65536 but got 2908
smb2_smb_read_write_async: IO Mismatched. Requested 65536 but got 2908
smb_iod_sendall: Timed out waiting on the response for 0x0 message_id = 9 state 0x1
smb2_smb_read_write_async: smb_rq_reply failed 60
smb_iod_sendall: Timed out waiting on the response for 0x0 message_id = 9 state 0x1
smb2_smb_read_write_async: smb_rq_reply failed 60
smb2_smb_read_write_async: IO Mismatched. Requested 65536 but got 2908
smb_iod_sendall: Timed out waiting on the response for 0x0 message_id = 9 state 0x1
smb2_smb_read_write_async: smb_rq_reply failed 60
smb_iod_sendall: Timed out waiting on the response for 0x0 message_id = 8 state 0x1
smb2_smb_read_write_async: smb_rq_reply failed 60
smb_iod_sendall: Timed out waiting on the response for 0x0 message_id = 8 state 0x1
smb2_smb_read_write_async: smb_rq_reply failed 60

There is no popup with an error message or something like this...

goonie4life9
Oct 13, 2013, 01:20 PM
That looks similar (but not identical) to some of the messages I was seeing. You might consider playing around with permissions on the server.

in dmesg I can see something like this:

smb2_smb_read_write_async: IO Mismatched. Requested 65536 but got 2908
smb2_smb_read_write_async: IO Mismatched. Requested 65536 but got 2908
smb_iod_sendall: Timed out waiting on the response for 0x0 message_id = 9 state 0x1
smb2_smb_read_write_async: smb_rq_reply failed 60
smb_iod_sendall: Timed out waiting on the response for 0x0 message_id = 9 state 0x1
smb2_smb_read_write_async: smb_rq_reply failed 60
smb2_smb_read_write_async: IO Mismatched. Requested 65536 but got 2908
smb_iod_sendall: Timed out waiting on the response for 0x0 message_id = 9 state 0x1
smb2_smb_read_write_async: smb_rq_reply failed 60
smb_iod_sendall: Timed out waiting on the response for 0x0 message_id = 8 state 0x1
smb2_smb_read_write_async: smb_rq_reply failed 60
smb_iod_sendall: Timed out waiting on the response for 0x0 message_id = 8 state 0x1
smb2_smb_read_write_async: smb_rq_reply failed 60

There is no popup with an error message or something like this...

mcaron1234
Oct 13, 2013, 03:04 PM
I had the same problem with FileBrowser and I emailed the devs. This was their response:

We spotted this problem too, and an updated FileBrowser has been submitted to Apple for approval just yesterday. The issue is caused by a small deviation in Mavericks from the SMB standards. Since FileBrowser has been coded from the ground up to the standards, we have introduced a workaround to make sure that FileBrowser can access all types of file server.

Thank you for using FileBrowser.

photosmike
Oct 13, 2013, 07:28 PM
When did you receive the message?

vanhaakonnen
Oct 14, 2013, 12:39 AM
It would be interesting to know where apples smb2 differs from the real smb2 standard...

It canīt be a permissions problem because I can connect with a Windows 8 PC to the shares without a problem... This is definitely a problem that was introduced with mavericks...

mcaron1234
Oct 14, 2013, 05:21 PM
When did you receive the message?

October 12th, so hopefully we will see the update sometime this week.