In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Maxim S. Shatskih <maxim@storagecraft.com> wrote: 
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I would not say that SMB slowdown on files >100GB is "substandard"
> for a mass market commodity OS.

Hmm. I think that if it supports files > 100GB, then it should support
them without surprises. Of course, if you say ''commodity'' = ''not
really for mission critical stuff'', then I can agree.

> This is a rare corner case in fact, with the image backup software
> being nearly the only users of it, and they can split the image to
> smaller files.

> Note that lots of UNIX-derived OSes still have 4GB file size limit :-)

I wouldn't know. Linux ext2/3 has a 2TB file size limit.

But that was actually not my point. My point is that if it is
supported, then it should be supported well. If it is not supported
that is better than if you think you can use it, but on actual usage
things start to go wrong. I believe this whole thread shows that ;-)

So ''substandard'' = ''the features are there but you should not
really use them to their limits'', a.k.a. ''we did it, but we did not
really do it right''.

Arno

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]