Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider using another samba support library instead of jcifs #255

Open
icstreispe opened this issue Mar 28, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Consider using another samba support library instead of jcifs #255

icstreispe opened this issue Mar 28, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@icstreispe
Copy link

icstreispe commented Mar 28, 2022

We tried to use SI with the default library jcifs version 2.1.28 but the performance was very poor. We first thought might be a buffer size problem and tried to class shadow some internal spring and spring integration classes in order to boost performance but to no succes. Transferring a 200MB file took 13minutes+ no matter what. In the end we gave up using some SI components, build a custom component for file transfer to samba based on hierynomus/smbj library version 0.11.5 and our time transfer fall down to below 1m for 200MB.

@icstreispe icstreispe changed the title Consider using another library instead of jcifs Consider using another samba support library instead of jcifs Mar 28, 2022
@artembilan
Copy link
Member

Sure! Having a new Spring 6 era I guess we are free to make radical changes in this Spring Integration SMB module as well.
Feel free to contribute such a fix: https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-integration/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.adoc.
Kinda start version 2.0, based on Spring Integration 6.0 and so on.

Thanks

@GregBragg
Copy link
Contributor

GregBragg commented Mar 28, 2022

I have been using this library for over 2 years in Production now and I have never experienced the performance issues that you mentioned... have you profiled that it is JCIFS causing the slowdown?

We could move this to another SMB library, however that would be a radical change I would imagine and we would need to make sure that all the functionality of JCIFS is reflected in SMBJ. Are you willing to take on this work?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants