"Arno Wagner" wrote in message
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
Well, that would explain it. Once again. MS is using substandard
technology.

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.

Nothing goes 'wrong', you babblebot moron, it only gets slow.

I believe this whole thread shows that ;-)

What this thread shows is that you don't know anything, babblebot, that you
are just feeding on others for information to badmouth MS, you Lunix zealot.


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''.

It's the OS showing it's limits, not the file system.


Arno