Mount then add local OR add as samba source?
#1
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?
Reply
#2
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)
rPi 2&3 | android phones | fireHD8 | linux | win10 + NFS NAS w/ mySQL + props to...
libreElecyatse, titan, AELflexGet, context.manageTags (a zosky original)
Reply
#3
zosky, you don't have you NFS mounts in /etc/fstab?
Reply
#4
I've had stability issues when using samba ,so I've gone back to using NFS instead.

No need to remount if the server sharing is rebooted. Just use automounter.

apt-get install autofs

Smile
Reply
#5
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...
Reply
#6
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.
http://www.xbmcnerds.com - german xbmc community
Reply

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Mount then add local OR add as samba source?0