SMB claimed to be "slow"

Solution 1:

SMB might well be slower than some other file sharing protocols, and it might well be faster than some others. But that's not the important part.

Instead of making that the question/argument, can you find a way to move on from that and ask whether SMB is as fast (or as slow!) as it is supposed to be. For example, can you transfer a file using FTP between the server and a workstation that suffers from the slowness and see a marked jump in performance?

The vendor might be able to point you to reviews for the hardware, with Windows installed, that talk about file server performance.

In my experience, SMB is more than "fast enough" on my network. We're running a 10Gb network between the servers and we're very happy with file server performance using SMB and we have measured good performance jumps on the same hardware depending on whether we use the 1Gb or 10Gb NIC. SMB isn't a problem for us.

I'd certainly be looking at other things on your network - is the infrastructure outdated, is it configured optimally (e.g. server network cards all configured correctly for latest drivers, working properly at the best possible speed), are things like DNS and so-on all configured properly, is there a lot of "junk" traffic on the network causing a slowdown, is the antivirus configured in an overly paranoid manner (I've seen this cause some shocking slowdowns).

There's a lot that can cause bad file server performance and very little of it is the protocol choice.

Solution 2:

Whilst there are faster protocols than SMB it's not by any means inherently slow.

It is however perhaps a little more susceptible to outside influences than other protocols, these being saturated servers, saturated segments etc.

If I were a gambling man I'd suspect that your network could do with either a redesign or some investment as many company's regular office networks haven't been upgraded to take into account the huge increase in internet and intranet traffic seen over recent years. Also there's a reasonable chance that the server/s may need replacing or rework to get the best from them.

Either way I wouldn't put too much emphasis on SMB being the direct culprit, it's more than likely to just the fall-guy for bad/old network and server kit.