Posts: 9
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
0
Is there any advantage to setting up a video/music source as an NFS source (i.e. nfs://<server>/path) versus simply pointing XBMC to a mount point in the file system that happens to be an NFS share? Is it treated any differently?
Posts: 2,770
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
95
I've used both methods interchangeably and never seen any difference. I prefer the OS mount because it allows me to manipulate the files outside of XBMC (e.g. if I'm comskip-ping something, or for renames and moves), but that's all.
Posts: 350
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation:
7
I tried both and found a race condition meant XBMC started before the OS mounts were complete, leaving directories empty.
I moved them into XMBC-controlled NFS mounts and had no issue.
(not saying that's the right way about it - just what I encountered.)
Posts: 19,982
Joined: May 2009
Reputation:
451
nickr
Retired Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 19,982
I understand that native NFS is more efficient/faster than the XBMC implementation. This is info I have picked up from lurking here, and I have no firm figures. Native NFS uses a kernel implementation while XBMC uses libnfs, a userland library. In any event either should cope with the bitrates on media files.
If you want to use a centralised library database via MySQL the XBMC method might be better as every client on every OS will have the same path to the file, whereas mounting to the file system on linux will result in a different mountpoint than on windows. Still path substitution may be able to cope with that.
If I have helped you or increased your knowledge, click the 'thumbs up' button to give thanks :) (People with less than 20 posts won't see the "thumbs up" button.)