[Bug 208130] smbfs is slow because it (apparently) doesn't do any caching/buffering

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208130

--- Comment #3 from noah.bergbauer at tum.de ---
(In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #2)

>SMB1 has known security problems, [...] It might be best to use something other than smbfs.

True that. But what else is there? At least in this particular case I'm forced
to choose between Samba, FTP, SFTP and WebDAV. This is all I'm given. The
kernel has no SSHFS (judging by how the protocol works, performance probably
wouldn't be too great either) and last I checked davfs was awfully slow. Let's
not even talk about FTP. This leaves me with smbfs as my only choice.

Fun fact: The cloud storage provider in question was (as far as I remember)
actually running FreeBSD on their storage servers as of ~2 years ago and
probably still is today.


The handful of times I tried to play around with NFS (a few years ago) I got
disappointing performance even on loopback/tap links (bhyve VM), especially
considering how complicated it is to work with. Right now I'm just not
confident that I could properly secure an NFS server.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.