[drzoo2]

And why can't he use both? NFS for all *nix environments and Samba for the occasional windows fix?

You need to have all of your users on each box exactly the same(including uuid and guid) for all nix boxes. This will keep your file permissions and ownerships transparent.

z

[JackieBrown]

I prefer sshfs. It requires no configuration and you get the added benefit of security and full access to your media over any internet connection.

I use ssh as well. And sshfs for mounting.

[MidnightWatcher]

For wireless shares, does NFS offer any advantage over smb?

YES. My 1080p content struggled to play without stuttering when using SMB. With NFS it streams perfectly fine over WiFi (802.11n @ 300 mbps -- I use two EnGenius 9752 routers, one in Router mode in the basement where my media server is, and the other in Repeater mode two floors up with the HTPC connected directly to the router via ethernet).

[dan1son]

I run both... NFS for my media streaming. SMB to my mac and windows boxes for file sharing. Also SMB is used when someone brings a machine over to the house.

I also have a UPNP server running for the occasional random media device that flow into and out of my house. UPNP is actually the fastest for media streaming, but unfortunately XBMC currently can't handle it for library use. I'd use it if it did.

[X3lectric]

NFS all the way, smb sucks eggs.

problem is setting up autofs. who the hell can decipher the man page and ubuntu deserves a medal.

[darkscout]

NFS all the way, smb sucks eggs.

problem is setting up autofs. who the hell can decipher the man page and ubuntu deserves a medal.

Edit /etc/autofs.master

Add the line:
/nfs /etc/auto.nfs

Restart autofs.

Navigate to /net.

What else do you need to know?

[JackieBrown]

This guide worked on debian
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Autofs
The only addition to make it work is you have to chattr +i the directory that will be auto-mounted

[FishOil]

NFS all the way, smb sucks eggs.

Why would you call something that works flawlessly for the VAST majority "sucks eggs"?

Would you care to enlighten us as to the error of our very well working ways?

I can have a database / library setup, scanned and playing a movie just as quick or quicker than anything else including NFS and with far less effort.


OR


Did you just feel the need to contribute some worthless accusation without anything or reason to back it up?

[FishOil]

YES. My 1080p content struggled to play without stuttering when using SMB. With NFS it streams perfectly fine over WiFi (802.11n @ 300 mbps -- I use two EnGenius 9752 routers, one in Router mode in the basement where my media server is, and the other in Repeater mode two floors up with the HTPC connected directly to the router via ethernet).

Well I thought I might do a simple wireless N test.

NFS wireless can play a 30 Mbps 1080p bluray rip mkv for 19 seconds until the buffering point.

SMB wireless plays the same file for 25 seconds before buffering.

The results are consistent.

It would seem in my case SMB is faster than NFS on MY wireless network.

This is only with high bitrate Bluray rips.

Other 10 Mbps type 1080p movies play fine either way.

----------------------

Edit:

I stand corrected. After more testing it would appear that they are erratic and maybe even NFS gets the edge.

[X3lectric]

http://bit.ly/fO3aFq

[pumkinut]

http://bit.ly/fO3aFq

Which shows what exactly? Oooooh a google search where most of the top hits are years old. Nice.

[FishOil]

http://bit.ly/fO3aFq

Your link is meaningless and not relevant to XBMC. Those are server end problems and would be better resolved in a windows forum.

XBMC LIVE (a linux operating system) works flawlessly out of the box with SMB and ZERO setup required. Lemmie say it again, ZERO setup required.
XBMC SMB has no problems and provides all the function needed from the very moment you boot up.

You cant argue that fact. It works

[FishOil]

Here is a post by one of the Team XBMC guys describing the setup of SMB.

http://forum.xbmc.org/showpost.php?p=450134&postcount=1

Notice the lack of reference to XBMC setup directly in it. Its ALL windows configuration (server side).

He even uses the words "MS is making it more and more difficult to share using SMB in Windows"


These are not XBMC problems. These problems happen even without XBMC involved. Thats why your link is meaningless.

[AndyE]

There is ALOT of misinformation here:

Nobody's saying "SMB sucks for this", folks. There are studies that detail the relative performances (http://www.hob-techtalk.com/2009/03/09/n...fs-aka-smb), but there are several points that have been put forward for NFS:

* In a *nix-only environment, NFS has a clear edge in ease of setup, transparency to the client (XBMC just sees a local filesystem), and performance

Ummm, cifs/smb mounting has been supported for years

* In a *nix-only environment, autofs+NFS is a spectacularly easy way to go especially if you have devices that connect/disconnect from the local network a lot

autofs also works with samba. Additionaly there is fusesmb that lets you mount a smb tree onto the local filesystem. It's as trivial as running

Code:

fusesmb ~/net

* Setting up SMB server in *nix is not the easiest thing in the world, especially if the user is relatively new to *nix

This is perhaps true. But like anything when you have it set up once it's easy to do it a second time.

[Zakkieboy]

A few thoughts from me, running XBMC 10 - Revo 3610/Server 2008 R2/FreeNAS/Synology all over gig. ethernet with a few files..... lets say quite a few...

Playing any movies is not a problem, as such - directory listings/start times are the biggest problem (not the biggest fan of the library)

Some random Stats from my testing across all the devices above, not all super scientific! :

SMB - Dir Listing, Longest - Start time of a 700mb Avi was average 14seconds from NAS,
NFS - Dir Listing: Quicker - Start time of 700mb Avi was average 3 Seconds,
uPNP - Dir Listing: quickest - Start time of 700mb Avi instant

Also the delay from pressing STOP to returning to XBMC varied....

My Choice is NFS for now, uPNP was quick, but with large amounts of files it crawls (well the synology NAS does)

just a few thoughts