Posts: 446
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation:
2
any difference (performance / stability / function) between mounting a nas folder and then adding it as a local folder within XBMC
OR
adding a remote folder from within XBMC as a samba share?
is booting into XBMC any faster one way or the other?
Posts: 394
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
4
not sure there is any impact to speed & boot
im using NFS & if i reboot my NAS,
i have to drop to console & remount
for that reason i think samba is the better choicec
(xbmc should reconnect automatically)
Posts: 147
Joined: Oct 2006
Reputation:
4
zosky, you don't have you NFS mounts in /etc/fstab?
Posts: 300
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
14
Personally, I would mount the drives and access them from there, rather than directly in XBMC. There is more flexibility in this approach, should you wish to change things on the NAS/SMB side...
Posts: 299
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
3
donabi
Senior Member
Posts: 299
i had some problems with smb, too.
- dvd-images took very long to start (about 30 seconds)
- some mkv files stopped playing after 5 minutes (after restarting that file it worked flawlessly)
- and sometimes the smb-share wasn't available after boot. so i had to restart xbmc.
now i'm mounting nfs shares with the fstab.
no more problems.