best way to share for windows and macos

[atomicrabbit]

I'm new to freenas and I need to setup a share with AD permissions. I have both a macbook, iMac and multiple windows computers. What is the best practice for this type of scenario? Do I just use SMB?

 

[Chris Moore]

Do I just use SMB?

Yes

 

[atomicrabbit]

Thanks for the reply. I read on the official docs that NFS is faster for this type of multi-OS sharing, provided I have Windows Pro (which I do):

• Unix (NFS): Network File System shares are accessible from macOS, Linux, BSD, and the professional and enterprise versions (but not the home editions) of Windows. This can be are a good choice when the client computers do not all run the same operating system but NFS client software is available for all of them.

...

• SMB: Server Message Block shares, also known as Common Internet File System (CIFS) shares, are accessible by Windows, macOS, Linux, and BSD computers. Access is slower than an NFS share due to the single-threaded design of Samba. SMB provides more configuration options than NFS and is a good choice on a network for Windows systems. However, it is a poor choice if the CPU on the FreeNAS® system is limited; if the CPU is maxed out, upgrade the CPU or consider another type of share.

 

[Chris Moore]

Thanks for the reply. I read on the official docs that NFS is faster for this type of multi-OS sharing, provided I have Windows Pro (which I do):

You didn't share anything about your hardware, but normally the network speed, 1Gb network interface for example, is the limiting factor. If you have many simultaneous users accessing the server or you have 10Gb network infrastructure, there could be an advantage to NFS, but for most purposes, especially if you want to integrate into an Active Directory environment, SMB is the way to go.

 

[Chris Moore]

PS. Here are links to a couple resources created by one of the developers at iXsystems:

https://forums.freenas.org/index.ph...-configure-share-permissions-freenas-9.35276/

https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/methods-for-fine-tuning-samba-permissions.50739/

 

[spotcatbug]

I agree, SMB for Mac/Windows environments.

 

[atomicrabbit]

You didn't share anything about your hardware, but normally the network speed, 1Gb network interface for example, is the limiting factor. If you have many simultaneous users accessing the server or you have 10Gb network infrastructure, there could be an advantage to NFS, but for most purposes, especially if you want to integrate into an Active Directory environment, SMB is the way to go.

It's a Dell T110 II with Xeon E3-1230 V2 and 32GB of RAM running ESXi.

FreeNAS 11 is running in a VM with 8GB RAM and 2 vCPUs. I have four 8TB WD Reds connected to an 9211-8i chip (flashed with IT mode) connected in pass-through mode directly to the VM.

I also have a separate NIC with 2 gigabit ports which I plan to use with link aggregation ... but I haven't done that yet.

 

[Chris Moore]

I also have a separate NIC with 2 gigabit ports which I plan to use with link aggregation ... but I haven't done that yet.

Link aggregation is of limited usefulness. This is an oversimplification, but it basically just gives you the ability to have two clients at full 1Gb speed, not double the speed to one client.

 

[atomicrabbit]

Link aggregation is of limited usefulness. This is an oversimplification, but it basically just gives you the ability to have two clients at full 1Gb speed, not double the speed to one client.

Yep I understand what it does.

 

[Chris Moore]

Yep I understand what it does.

Many people come here thinking that it will give them 2Gb connectivity. If you understand it, you are among a minority.

 

[seanm]

Many people come here thinking that it will give them 2Gb connectivity. If you understand it, you are among a minority.

But wouldn't it? I mean, as long as the clients also had a sufficient aggregate connection to a supporting switch. ex: new 10 GbE iMac <-> 10 GbE switch <-> 2 x 1 GbE LAG to FreeNAS.

Or do you mean atomicrabbit's disks and RAM will be the bottleneck first?

 

[Chris Moore]

Or do you mean atomicrabbit's disks and RAM will be the bottleneck first?

Disc access can be a bottleneck, but usually not for 1Gb networking which usually has a maximum transfer rate of around 108 MB/s which is less than the speed of the average hard drive. Transfer of small files can be slower, because they are small files, but large, sequential transfers are usually quite quick.
The problem with a LAG group on the server is that it allows for two simultaneous, full speed, connections to two different computers IF each connection is over a different port, but there is no guarantee that will happen, but a single transfer only utilizes ONE port, not both. This is well documented on the forum because we get someone here asking about it every few months.