Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There are a couple of reasons you might do this, the first is an exploit.

The second is potential locking and corruption issues with legacy flat-file databases. There is a performance penalty in doing this - but how noticeable is it? What other reasons are there for not disabling SMB2 (assuming the security vulnerability is fixed) ?

share|improve this question
    
Just updating to say that the corruption issues mentioned above were solved with Server 2008 SP1 and Windows 7 SP1, therefore SMB2 should absolutely be left in the default enabled state on the server. –  Alan B Sep 13 '11 at 13:10
    
Just a note here (in case someone stumbles across this question in the future) to confirm that the issues with SMB2 were absolutely NOT resolved in Windows Server 2008 SP1 and Win7 SP1. Access databases work fine, FoxPro databases will suffer constant corruption with SMB2 enabled, and less frequently with SMB oplocks enabled. –  EKW Mar 24 '12 at 12:32
    
I dispute this - is there any supporting evidence? I deal with a multiuser VFP 9 application installed on hundreds of sites, quite a few of which will now be Windows Server 2008 SP1 / Windows 7 SP1 and we are not experiencing any corruption. –  Alan B Mar 24 '12 at 17:59
    
I deal with a FoxPro ODBC-based app on a few hundred sites. Sites which are pure-XP don't experience any issues, sites which are a mixed client environment (XP, Vista/7) or pure-Vista/7 experience issues until SMB2 directory caching is disabled (Server 2003/XP hosts), or SMB2 and oplocking are disabled (Server 2008/Vista/7 hosts). –  EKW Mar 24 '12 at 18:22
    
When you say ODBC-based, do you mean it's a non-VFP application accessing the VFP data via ODBC? –  Alan B Mar 25 '12 at 18:13
show 4 more comments

3 Answers

up vote 0 down vote accepted

"The second is potential locking and corruption issues with legacy flat-file databases." Please explain this issue a little bit more, e.g. what do you mean with flat-file databases? thx ice

share|improve this answer
    
Well, MS Access and Visual FoxPro would be two example. In the case of the latter it is often necessary to turn off Opportunistic Locking on the server to alleviate multiuser file access and locking problems. This is done by setting EnableOplocks to 0 in the registry under HKLM\SYSTEM\CURRENTCONTROLSET\LANMANSERVER\PARAMETERS. However under Windows Server 2008 you can't turn that off without first turning SMB2 off. –  Alan B Nov 23 '09 at 10:15
add comment

I would not disable SMB2. The only reason would be the flat-file databases which Microsoft doesn't recommend to use in the future.

If the application-client resides on a XP or W2K3 there is no SMB2 in action, even if the flat-file is stored on W2K8.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Flat file databases are: Microsoft access db placed on a server Microsoft Excel sheet open in shared mode on the server etc.

So what replacement Microsoft offers? Cloud? It could be deleted when somebody places "invalid" content to it...

share|improve this answer
1  
If you're talking purely Microsoft, they have offered plenty of alternative for many years in the form of SQL Server, including the Express version if you don't want to spend any money. That's before we get to MySQL, Postgres, etc, etc ... –  Alan B Feb 2 '12 at 13:24
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.