Hello, I just wanted to check in on this list and see what folks know about the new severe performance problems with OS X 10.11.5. There's a comment on Reddit claiming that 10.11.5 is requiring SMB signing, but I haven't found documentation on that. I myself saw performance on my 10 GbE go from 800 MB/s on 10.11.4 to 60 MB/s on 10.11.5. My NAS is running Samba 4.3.6 on FreeNAS, which is a FreeBSD derivative. I'd love the reassurance that whoever can fix this is doing so--either the Apple developers or the Samba developers. Thanks in advance for any information you can provide. Seth Goldin
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 02:53:21PM +0000, Seth Goldin wrote:> Hello, > > I just wanted to check in on this list and see what folks know about the > new severe performance problems with OS X 10.11.5. > > There's a comment on Reddit claiming that 10.11.5 is requiring SMB signing, > but I haven't found documentation on that. > > I myself saw performance on my 10 GbE go from 800 MB/s on 10.11.4 to 60 > MB/s on 10.11.5. My NAS is running Samba 4.3.6 on FreeNAS, which is a > FreeBSD derivative. > > I'd love the reassurance that whoever can fix this is doing so--either the > Apple developers or the Samba developers. > > Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.Has anyone done any wireshark analysis of the difference between 10.11.4 (fast) and 10.11.5 (slow) ? With such a drastic drop 800 MB/s -> 60 MB/s there should be an obvious difference in the packet flow.
Hi, Am 26.05.16 um 16:53 schrieb Seth Goldin:> Hello, > > I just wanted to check in on this list and see what folks know about the > new severe performance problems with OS X 10.11.5. > > There's a comment on Reddit claiming that 10.11.5 is requiring SMB signing, > but I haven't found documentation on that. > > I myself saw performance on my 10 GbE go from 800 MB/s on 10.11.4 to 60 > MB/s on 10.11.5. My NAS is running Samba 4.3.6 on FreeNAS, which is a > FreeBSD derivative. > > I'd love the reassurance that whoever can fix this is doing so--either the > Apple developers or the Samba developers. > > Thanks in advance for any information you can provide. >from the apple discussions: https://discussions.apple.com/message/30259381#30259381 Apple changed some defaults and suggested to check if there is some update from any NAS etc vendor to solve that problem at the other side ... , as Apple added the change to protect against the Badlock-Exploits ... To add back the old defaults: sudo -s echo "[default]" > /etc/nsmb.conf echo signing_required=no >> /etc/nsmb.conf http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/OS-X-10-11-5-Abhilfe-fuer-SMB-Probleme-3222725.html HTH . Götz
I'm actually seeing from the Apple Support Communities thread that this might all be due to the fact that OS X 10.11.5 clients are requiring SMB signing. Curiously, I noticed that my SMB4.conf file on my FreeBSD server didn't even possess a `client signing` flag. Might all this be resolved if I just add a `client signing = auto` flag for the server's SMB4.conf file, so that the OS X client is talking properly to the server? Thanks, Seth Goldin On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 02:53:21PM +0000, Seth Goldin wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I just wanted to check in on this list and see what folks know about the > > new severe performance problems with OS X 10.11.5. > > > > There's a comment on Reddit claiming that 10.11.5 is requiring SMB > signing, > > but I haven't found documentation on that. > > > > I myself saw performance on my 10 GbE go from 800 MB/s on 10.11.4 to 60 > > MB/s on 10.11.5. My NAS is running Samba 4.3.6 on FreeNAS, which is a > > FreeBSD derivative. > > > > I'd love the reassurance that whoever can fix this is doing so--either > the > > Apple developers or the Samba developers. > > > > Thanks in advance for any information you can provide. > > Has anyone done any wireshark analysis of the difference > between 10.11.4 (fast) and 10.11.5 (slow) ? With such > a drastic drop 800 MB/s -> 60 MB/s there should be an > obvious difference in the packet flow. >