Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Urban Widmark (urban_at_TESTSTATION.COM)
Date: Thu Oct 03 2002 - 18:42:42 CDT
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> 2) Is the MaxBufferSize in the NegProt Response a hard-and-fast rule
> (ignoring, of course, the MaxRawSize field and the depricated raw
> read/write SMBs)?
The smbfs source has some old comments about some servers not respecting
the max size (I'm guessing OS/2 ...). But AFAIK more modern servers follow
I think the old internet-draft docs had a section about this being the
maximum allowed message size (you can probably find it in SNIA version
> 3) In the SNIA doc, in section 4.1.1, in the explanation of the
> Capabilities bits, it says:
> CAP_LARGE_READX 0x4000 The server supports large SMB_COM_READ_ANDX
> (up to 64k)
> CAP_LARGE_WRITEX 0x8000 The server supports large SMB_COM_WRITE_ANDX
> (up to 64k)
> The "up to 64k" doesn't make sense. We can already fit 64k-1 bytes
> into the normal buffer without using LARGE_READX/WRITEX. What is the
> maximum, however? My guess is that the max would be MaxBufferSize.
I have understood this as: Even if you negotiate a smaller size than 64k
as the maximum message size, a LARGE_READX can still read 64k (or whatever
the max is).
A client may want to have a smaller maximum since it can then pre-allocate
smaller buffers (one page is a nice round number) for the not un-common
case of short requests/responses. But when reading file data it could be
useful to read a larger chunk in one go.
Btw, 64k is considered a large allocation inside the linux kernel, 128k
is/was the kmalloc maximum.
Users Guide http://discuss.microsoft.com/archives/mailfaq.asp
contains important info including how to unsubscribe. Save time, search
the archives at http://discuss.microsoft.com/archives/index.html