SMB versus AFP steel cage deathmatch

mjdamico · 01-12-2004, 12:03 PM

Hi everyone,

I've been struggling for LITERALLY an eternity (a couple months) to determine what protocol to use that will provide the most convenient cross-platform file-sharing in this department. I've got a Windows 2000 Server providing several shared folders serving approximately half Macintosh clients and half Windows clients. Several of the Macintosh clients are still running pre-OS X, and I'm attempting to get everyone up to speed as much as is possible. Probably with 10.3 but I haven't ruled out 10.2.

I'm having a problem deciding whether or not to advise Macintosh clients to connect via SMB or AppleShare. Each seems to have its merits and drawbacks. The biggest reason I can see to want to go with SMB is the fact that it recognizes long filenames that would cause AppleShare to choke. And considering the restrictions on filename length in both OS X and Windows are far more generous than AppleShare's restrictions, it would seem that cross-platform compatilibity will be best attained with SMB.

Then again, with AppleShare you get the convenience of it recognizing resource forks, a greater range of filename characters, greater stability, speed, and the MSUAM that allows for password management and NTLMv2 encryption. Additionally, AFP connections are made by default when a server name or IP is entered into the Connect to Server dialog.

So here's where I need advice. Given this particular scenario, how should I go about setting these people up? They're not a technically-savvy group, so I can't in good conscience leave it up to them. I toyed with the idea of populating everyone's Favorite Server list with both an SMB and an AFP shortcut and telling them to play around and use what they prefer. However, I can't figure out how to automate this in AppleScript. I tried copying afploc and inetloc shortcuts into each user's Favorites folder at logon, however after this is done the SMB address doesn't show up (even though manually copying it to Favorites works). I could probably get away with putting icons on each user's desktop, however.

OK, thanks for caring enough to read about my struggles. And thanks in advance to anyone that can provide any insight.

-Mike D.

trinitrotoluene · 01-12-2004, 01:28 PM

If I had to choose one or the other in a mixed environ, I'd go with SMB.

Kshell · 01-06-2006, 09:47 AM

Hello Mike!

We are in the process of cleaning-up and adding more space to our servers, and we are trying to evaluate whether we should use SMB or AFP as well. I am a Mac operator, but our network services both Mac and PC. At the moment, the PC folks use SMB and the Mac folks use Appletalk.

I had to do some testing on this, and speed-wise the SMB was a faster then AFP.

The downfall, as you mentioned, is the losing of the resource forks.
If you create something in:
-AFP, it keeps its resource fork whether you have an extension or not (you can double-click and it will open in the proper application) in AFP.
-SMB, it keeps its resource fork whether you have an extension or not (you can double-click and it will open in the proper application) in SMB. And, it will also open in AFP with a dbl-click as long as it has an extension.

However, if you toggle between the two. You will certainly run into the resource fork issue, especially if extensions aren’t used, or if you are going from AFP to SMB.
Note: going from AFP to SMB: as long as the AFP file has its’ extension, it can be opened through the application or by dragging it to the application icon (if you double-click it (an .eps or .tif), it will open in Preview, instead of Photoshop or Illustrator).

Our issue, is that we have lots of existing files that were created using appletalk. Along with our new server space, we are going to start fresh and move things to the new server space as we need them. Therefore, I think we are moving towards using the AFP for one year, making sure when we add files the extension are present, then consider SMB.

This is only from a Mac Operator’s perspective. Let me know if anyone else has further insight.
Hope it helps someone!
Kirsten

AHunter3 · 01-06-2006, 10:53 AM

You can get better, more robust AppleShare services on a Win2K Server via 3rd-party AppleTalk stacks such as Extreme Z-IP or Computer Associates' (formerly Miramar) MacLan. Including support for file names as long as OS X will tolerate on the Desktop. (or at worst possibly also limited by Win2K native filename limitations, unsure about that).

macminicooper · 01-08-2006, 11:38 AM

Where I work we have the Macs connecting via SMB. We did this because of the problems associated with switching between AFP/SMB. We only have 4 Macs out of about 150 PCs so it was easy to teach the Mac ops how to mount the shares.

dweingart · 01-10-2006, 10:02 AM

In our mixed environment, we found that ExtremeZ-IP works much better for OS X clients than Services for Macintosh.

The combination of ExtremeZ-IP, and making sure the Mac clients connect via AFP, not SMB, has pretty much solved all the x-platform issues we were having on our network.

Thomas G. Madsen · 01-14-2006, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kshell


	Our issue, is that we have lots of existing files that were created using appletalk. Along with our new server space, we are going to start fresh and move things to the new server space as we need them. Therefore, I think we are moving towards using the AFP for one year, making sure when we add files the extension are present, then consider SMB.

We have the exact same issue at work at the moment. We have recently bought a Windows 2003 server and I need to move existing files from our OS X server - created using AFP from our OS X client machines - to the Windows 2003 server.

If I try to "push" them over from our OS X server to the Win2003 share via AFP, the OS X server chokes on file names that are too long causing it to drop the mounted Win2003 share, and it seems as an overwhelming task to rename them all (there are more than 500 files with long file names out of several thousands spread out in lots and lots of directories).

SMB seems faster than AFP and with SMB I can push those long file names over, but I'm in doubt whether SMB will give us lots of headaches in the future. We have 12 OS X clients (11 running 10.3.9 and 1 PowerBook running 10.4.4) and 5 WinXP Pro SP2 clients. We produce news papers with Adobe Creative Suite.

Regards
Thomas G. Madsen

Thomas G. Madsen · 01-16-2006, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas G. Madsen


	SMB seems faster than AFP and with SMB I can push those long file names over, but I'm in doubt whether SMB will give us lots of headaches in the future.

Well, the first headache has already arrived.
I picked SMB but now it takes an eternity to find files (Command + F) on our Win2003 share. If I connect to it via AFP instead, we can find files significantly faster, so it seems that I have to go back to AFP.

Regards
Thomas G. Madsen

hayne · 01-16-2006, 07:34 AM

As I think has been pointed out above, you should perhaps investigate using some 3rd-party implementation of AFP on your Windows server - I've heard that these are often better performing (e.g. long filename support) than the version supplied by Windows. But I have no personal experience with this.

asiddiqui · 01-04-2009, 10:43 PM

"If I try to "push" them over from our OS X server to the Win2003 share via AFP, the OS X server chokes on file names that are too long causing it to drop the mounted Win2003 share, and it seems as an overwhelming task to rename them all (there are more than 500 files with long file names out of several thousands spread out in lots and lots of directories)"

My post is more for Mr. Thomas Madsen, but perhaps others can benefit as well.

We had the same issue on our campus with AFP vs. SMB. We decided to ultimately go with AFP. Naturally, we had the same issue with long filenames and the arduous task of renaming several hundred files. Two FREE and easy-to-use utilities came very handy for our Mac users in this regard: Classic31 and NameMangler.

Classic31 (http://blog.tice.de/software.php?page=Classic31%20engl) lets you instantly count filename characters for several files at once, and alerts you if any filename is longer than 31 characters. Very handy for Mac users to use before transferring files with long names to our Windows2k3 file server. They were able to easily locate all the files with long filenames within a few minutes and then rename them as well instantly through the Classic31 program. The program can be downloaded from here:

NameMangler (http://manytricks.com/namemangler/) lets you easily do 'batch' renaming of several files at once on Mac OS X. There are several batch file name renamers (for Mac OS X) available for download on the internet but NameMangler seemed the best one. Name Mangler is a free download for Mac OS X Leopard (i.e. 10.5.x) users only. Pre-Leopard users can use the previous version of Name Mangler called File List which is also available as a FREE separate download from the above link.

Conclusion: Some would say that using these two utilities and going with AFP over SMB is more like winning the battle and not the war. Well, at least I won the battle! IMHO, going with SMB instead of AFP would not be a better alternative; I think the pros of AFP over SMB outweigh the cons considerably.

01-12-2004, 12:03 PM	#1
mjdamico Prospect Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 1	SMB versus AFP steel cage deathmatch Hi everyone, I've been struggling for LITERALLY an eternity (a couple months) to determine what protocol to use that will provide the most convenient cross-platform file-sharing in this department. I've got a Windows 2000 Server providing several shared folders serving approximately half Macintosh clients and half Windows clients. Several of the Macintosh clients are still running pre-OS X, and I'm attempting to get everyone up to speed as much as is possible. Probably with 10.3 but I haven't ruled out 10.2. I'm having a problem deciding whether or not to advise Macintosh clients to connect via SMB or AppleShare. Each seems to have its merits and drawbacks. The biggest reason I can see to want to go with SMB is the fact that it recognizes long filenames that would cause AppleShare to choke. And considering the restrictions on filename length in both OS X and Windows are far more generous than AppleShare's restrictions, it would seem that cross-platform compatilibity will be best attained with SMB. Then again, with AppleShare you get the convenience of it recognizing resource forks, a greater range of filename characters, greater stability, speed, and the MSUAM that allows for password management and NTLMv2 encryption. Additionally, AFP connections are made by default when a server name or IP is entered into the Connect to Server dialog. So here's where I need advice. Given this particular scenario, how should I go about setting these people up? They're not a technically-savvy group, so I can't in good conscience leave it up to them. I toyed with the idea of populating everyone's Favorite Server list with both an SMB and an AFP shortcut and telling them to play around and use what they prefer. However, I can't figure out how to automate this in AppleScript. I tried copying afploc and inetloc shortcuts into each user's Favorites folder at logon, however after this is done the SMB address doesn't show up (even though manually copying it to Favorites works). I could probably get away with putting icons on each user's desktop, however. OK, thanks for caring enough to read about my struggles. And thanks in advance to anyone that can provide any insight. -Mike D.

01-16-2006, 07:34 AM	#9
hayne Site Admin Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Montreal Posts: 32,473	As I think has been pointed out above, you should perhaps investigate using some 3rd-party implementation of AFP on your Windows server - I've heard that these are often better performing (e.g. long filename support) than the version supplied by Windows. But I have no personal experience with this. __________________ hayne.net/macosx.html

01-12-2004, 01:28 PM	#2
trinitrotoluene Triple-A Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 82	If I had to choose one or the other in a mixed environ, I'd go with SMB.

01-06-2006, 09:47 AM	#3
Kshell Prospect Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4	Hello Mike! We are in the process of cleaning-up and adding more space to our servers, and we are trying to evaluate whether we should use SMB or AFP as well. I am a Mac operator, but our network services both Mac and PC. At the moment, the PC folks use SMB and the Mac folks use Appletalk. I had to do some testing on this, and speed-wise the SMB was a faster then AFP. The downfall, as you mentioned, is the losing of the resource forks. If you create something in: -AFP, it keeps its resource fork whether you have an extension or not (you can double-click and it will open in the proper application) in AFP. -SMB, it keeps its resource fork whether you have an extension or not (you can double-click and it will open in the proper application) in SMB. And, it will also open in AFP with a dbl-click as long as it has an extension. However, if you toggle between the two. You will certainly run into the resource fork issue, especially if extensions aren’t used, or if you are going from AFP to SMB. Note: going from AFP to SMB: as long as the AFP file has its’ extension, it can be opened through the application or by dragging it to the application icon (if you double-click it (an .eps or .tif), it will open in Preview, instead of Photoshop or Illustrator). Our issue, is that we have lots of existing files that were created using appletalk. Along with our new server space, we are going to start fresh and move things to the new server space as we need them. Therefore, I think we are moving towards using the AFP for one year, making sure when we add files the extension are present, then consider SMB. This is only from a Mac Operator’s perspective. Let me know if anyone else has further insight. Hope it helps someone! Kirsten

01-06-2006, 10:53 AM	#4
AHunter3 Hall of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 3,032	You can get better, more robust AppleShare services on a Win2K Server via 3rd-party AppleTalk stacks such as Extreme Z-IP or Computer Associates' (formerly Miramar) MacLan. Including support for file names as long as OS X will tolerate on the Desktop. (or at worst possibly also limited by Win2K native filename limitations, unsure about that).

01-08-2006, 11:38 AM	#5
macminicooper Triple-A Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 51	Where I work we have the Macs connecting via SMB. We did this because of the problems associated with switching between AFP/SMB. We only have 4 Macs out of about 150 PCs so it was easy to teach the Mac ops how to mount the shares.

01-10-2006, 10:02 AM	#6
dweingart Prospect Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Weingart Posts: 6	In our mixed environment, we found that ExtremeZ-IP works much better for OS X clients than Services for Macintosh. The combination of ExtremeZ-IP, and making sure the Mac clients connect via AFP, not SMB, has pretty much solved all the x-platform issues we were having on our network.

01-04-2009, 10:43 PM	#10
asiddiqui Registered User Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1	"If I try to "push" them over from our OS X server to the Win2003 share via AFP, the OS X server chokes on file names that are too long causing it to drop the mounted Win2003 share, and it seems as an overwhelming task to rename them all (there are more than 500 files with long file names out of several thousands spread out in lots and lots of directories)" My post is more for Mr. Thomas Madsen, but perhaps others can benefit as well. We had the same issue on our campus with AFP vs. SMB. We decided to ultimately go with AFP. Naturally, we had the same issue with long filenames and the arduous task of renaming several hundred files. Two FREE and easy-to-use utilities came very handy for our Mac users in this regard: Classic31 and NameMangler. Classic31 (http://blog.tice.de/software.php?page=Classic31%20engl) lets you instantly count filename characters for several files at once, and alerts you if any filename is longer than 31 characters. Very handy for Mac users to use before transferring files with long names to our Windows2k3 file server. They were able to easily locate all the files with long filenames within a few minutes and then rename them as well instantly through the Classic31 program. The program can be downloaded from here: NameMangler (http://manytricks.com/namemangler/) lets you easily do 'batch' renaming of several files at once on Mac OS X. There are several batch file name renamers (for Mac OS X) available for download on the internet but NameMangler seemed the best one. Name Mangler is a free download for Mac OS X Leopard (i.e. 10.5.x) users only. Pre-Leopard users can use the previous version of Name Mangler called File List which is also available as a FREE separate download from the above link. Conclusion: Some would say that using these two utilities and going with AFP over SMB is more like winning the battle and not the war. Well, at least I won the battle! IMHO, going with SMB instead of AFP would not be a better alternative; I think the pros of AFP over SMB outweigh the cons considerably.