I have used DAVE at a few clients... and it definitely had its issues. Lot of "try this beta and see if it solves your problems". Contrast that with EZIP, which was pretty solid. EZIP is expensive, but they had excellent support, although to be fair I haven't worked with it since Group Logic's acquisition, so no idea if the support is still as good since the purchase by Acronis.

we just migrated 16TB of data and 300 or so users to a ExtremeZ/IP box and have had a bunch of problems, the spotlight search has a memory leak and the server starts disappearing off the network when it uses over 3GB of memory for that one process. It was faster than SMB and very nice in UAT with only 4TB of data and smaller set of users, so hopefully they fix this problem soon.

Windows Server 2012 R2 and SMB3 seem to be working with 10.10.3

Share settings:
Everyone: Read
Authenticated Users: Change, Read
Administrators: Full Control, Change, Read

Security (NTFS) settings:
SYSTEM: Full Control (Applies to "This folder, subfolders, and files")
Local or Domain Administrator: Full Control (Applies to "This folder, subfolders, and files")
CREATOR OWNER: Everything except Full Control, Change permissions, and Take ownership (Applies to "Subfolders and files only")

On Server Manager, go to File and Storage Services > Shares
Uncheck "Allow caching of share"
Check "Encrypt data access"

Despite not letting Creator Owner have full control, the defined user account ends up getting full control anyways. I think the idea for setting restrictions on the share permissions is to circumvent full control. Windows admins typically prefer to set everyone at full control and then have everything secured at the NTFS level. That method just doesn't seem to work well when os x clients are involved. Securing authenticated users at the share level might prevent them from having full control or weird ACL issues.

"Share permissions and NTFS permissions are independent in the sense that neither changes the other. The final access permissions on a shared folder are determined by taking into consideration both the share permission and the NTFS permission entries. The more restrictive permissions are then applied."

In our case, the share settings actually are the more restrictive permissions for our users.

We'll be testing with this setup. It's encouraging to see that we can actually use SMB3 now. Is anyone else using SMB3 with Windows Server 2012 R2 successfully?

Note: I have Access Based Enumeration disabled.

This is a cross-post from Jamf 10168 , I'm just hoping I can get more feedback from others if we run into issues. Screen shots are attached on that thread.

I'm also interested in feedback for other admins who have adopted SMB with Windows Servers and 10.10.x.

We are testing now to see if we can ditch extremezip on our file servers.

Was going to post a new thread but saw this one, and it's only a couple years old :)

We're having major issues with our NAS system (Nasuni) and mac's, the windows machines work fine. Browsing the smb shares is very slow, and working in adobe apps takes a crazy amount of time. Mainly as it has to resolve the linked files.

We're interested in using a different system. What kind of network file systems is everyone using?

Ours is cloud-based using AD permissions.

We did try Acronis at one point, and also all the standard nsmb.conf tricks, nothing seems to work. At my last place we had over 1k mac's connecting to windows virtual servers and did not have these kinds of problems, but it's claimed here that they 'tried that' and it didn't work.

Forgot to mention we're running 10.12.x (slowly going to 10.13) and SMB 3.0.

Any and all thoughts, suggestions and replies are welcome.