4

I currently work a Mac client enviorment, where all users have macs, but they insist on running windows servers.

they are currently running acronis file sync to avoid smb, but since they are going to create a new office with a new server, they cannot use it due to DFS replication from head office server.

SMB has proven to have horible performance on mac, and SMB 3.0 dosent seem to have fixed any of the performance issues.

Are there any good alternatives to this?

current setup:

  • Mac osx 10.13 running on macbook pro's and imac's
  • Win server 2012 R2
Roy olsen
  • 41
  • 1

2 Answers2

4

As a possible alternative you can create a stretched cluster with FileServer role between two locations using StarWind VSAN. Then you can share the data using NFS protocol instead of SMB.

Here is some manuals about it.

Stretch clustering: https://www.starwindsoftware.com/resource-library/starwind-stretched-clustering

Configuration guide: https://www.starwindsoftware.com/resource-library/starwind-virtual-san-2-node-stretched-hyper-v-cluster-on-windows-server-2016

NFS share creation: https://www.starwindsoftware.com/blog/creating-esxi-vms-on-the-windows-based-nfs-share

batistuta09
  • 8,981
  • 10
  • 23
0

SMB has proven to have horible performance on mac, and SMB 3.0 dosent seem to have fixed any of the performance issues.

I'd be investigating this a bit more. Is it bad SMB performance from macs specifically, or just bad SMB performance in general. Have you tested a Windows client to see if it has good SMB performance on the same network?

The reason I say this is because SMB performance on OSX should not be that bad. I've seen OSX easily saturate entire gigabit connections copying over SMB.

Troubleshoot your issue with SMB performance on the macs, and then you can go with DFS/SMB to your hearts content, and happier users to boot.

(Note: It could be a misconfiguration on the client side, or a misconfiguration on the server side. It might not be OSX's fault, which is why I suggest using a Windows machine on the same network to see if it's any faster).

Mark Henderson
  • 68,823
  • 31
  • 180
  • 259