Re: Large Read/Write Patch
"M. D." <[email protected]> Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:58:08 +0200 (EET)
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.samba.java |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello, I also confirm that read/write operations with the patch applied are significantly faster. However, I think there is a problem with the patch: According to the official SMB documentation: http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/5/E/95EF66AF-9026-4BB0-A41D-A4F81802D92C/[MS-SMB].pdf ... sections 2.2.4.5, 2.2.4.5.2: "Capabilities (4 bytes): A 32-bit field providing a set of server capability indicators. This bit field is used to indicate to the client which features are supported by the server. Any value not listed in the following table is unused. The server MUST set the unused bits to zero. The client MUST ignore these bits.". The CAP_LARGE_WRITEX flag that is part of the Capabilities (4 bytes) field is responsible for: "The server supports large write operations. This capability affects the maximum size, in bytes, of the server buffer for receiving an SMB_COM_WRITE_ANDX client request. When this capability is set by the server (and set by the client in the SMB_COM_SESSION_SETUP_ANDX request), then the maximum server buffer size of bytes it writes can exceed the MaxBufferSize field. Therefore, a client can send a single SMB_COM_WRITE_ANDX request up to this size.<34> When signing is active on a connection, then clients MUST limit write lengths to the MaxBufferSize value negotiated by the server, irrespective of the value of the CAP_LARGE_WRITEX flag." ... so it is true that we can safely ignore the MaxBufferSize and send larger chunks of data UNLESS signing is active on a connection. Therefore, I think checks for signing should be added to the patch. Hope that helps! Best regards, M.D >-------- Оригинално писмо -------- >От: Robin Jansohn >Относно: Re: [jcifs] Large Read/Write Patch >До: [email protected] >Изпратено на: Понеделник, 2014, Декември 15 09:08:49 EET > > >No, I'm using a Maven repository and although I explicitly excluded the >package it somehow did not work as expected. The test itself is run in a >simple Main class, no webapp or similar large application. > > > >-- >View this message in context: http://samba.2283325.n4.nabble.com/Large-Read-Write-Patch-tp3674893p4677877.html >Sent from the Samba - jcifs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >