Login at Kodi Home

FishOil · (This post was last modified: 2011-11-09, 23:41 by Ned Scott.)

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

Thats like saying

"I dont like the way my Porsche gets me to work. I would rather walk."

By not using the library mode you have created your own problem.

Zakkieboy · 2011-01-07, 17:57

Just because my car come with Cruise Control doesnt mean I have to use it does it? Rolleyes

I was giving an idea of dir. load times, and what various factors can make a difference - If I had an issue I felt needed addressing with the file access speed I would use a seperate post, not Hijack this one.... Laugh

FishOil · (This post was last modified: 2011-11-09, 23:40 by Ned Scott.)

Zakkieboy Wrote:Just because my car come with Cruise Control doesnt mean I have to use it does it?

No it doesn't but when you say something with words to the effect of "Porsche comes standard with cruise control and and a free 5 year gas card so I'm not a big fan of it". Thats kinda silly.

You have created your own problem on purpose by not doing it the preferred way. The designers have a method in mind when they built XBMC. Its all about the library mode. But suit yourself. Its all about freedom too.

bigdog66 · 2011-01-07, 19:22

Zakkieboy Wrote: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

WOW....I have a stock refurb Revo 1600 hooked up to a $18 5 port no name gb switch.....serving up my media over SMB is a unraid server
and a 700mb file takes no where near 14 sec to start up....maybe a couple sec's at worst

sorry....I am not debating any of this ....just really my own observation of my stuff....but other than my new unraid server components eveything else is good enough but prob low end

that is all....lol

Zakkieboy · 2011-01-07, 20:07

bigdog66 Wrote:...and a 700mb file takes no where near 14 sec to start up....maybe a couple sec's at worst

that is all....lol

I agree, Im trying to move from a XBMC multi-source (w2k8 R2 box - lots of disks )to a single RAID 5 source (synology/freenas), but no one elses SMB implimentation seems to quite meet speed of the native 2008 R2 option... But thats for another thread.....maybe Laugh

GJones · 2011-01-08, 00:07

Zakkieboy Wrote:I agree, Im trying to move from a XBMC multi-source (w2k8 R2 box - lots of disks )to a single RAID 5 source (synology/freenas), but no one elses SMB implimentation seems to quite meet speed of the native 2008 R2 option... But thats for another thread.....maybe

That is more than likely because the 2008 box had a better processor and more memory than any stock NAS solution.

**CASHMON3Y** · 2011-01-10, 06:01

This thread seems pretty useless to me. Its just bickering back and forth. SMB was created with Windows in mind, and Samba is really a nix port of it. It is normally used as a simple way for multiplatform companies to share files easily. NFS is primarily used on nix boxes, with some support for Windows in later OS's (Vista and 7 provides native support iirc). NFS usually has the edge on SMB in terms of speed, but SMB has the edge in terms of usability and cross platform support. Its not too difficult setting either one up, so I would just recommend trying them both and see what works best with your setup. Personally I use Samba just because I have a windows netbook, mac desktop and linux mediacenter.

kaiser423 · 2011-01-10, 06:41

SMB Just ate my Baby!!!

No, it actually did. For some reason, after 6 months of SMB working great it's had decided to go tits-up and not want to come back alive. From what I can tell it's because one other computer on the network went Windows 7, and froze something up.

XBMC was just continually not resolving the FreeBSD smb share.

Turned out to be easier/faster to just use nfs and re-scan my whole library (150+ movies, 50 TV seasons) rather than deal with this stuff.

X3lectric · 2011-01-10, 12:24

CASHMON3Y Wrote:This thread seems pretty useless to me. Its just bickering back and forth*snip

I agree with you, less and less posts have any real value especially when trolls just insist on provocation and bickering...

Give them negative feedback and report their posts, job done.

Just for your comment I will rep you +1 (scales icon).

FishOil · (This post was last modified: 2011-11-09, 23:38 by Ned Scott.)

X3lectric Wrote:I agree with you, less and less posts have any real value especially when trolls just insist on provocation and bickering...

Give them negative feedback and report their posts, job done.

Just for your comment I will rep you +1 (scales icon).

LOL.........you're funny. Did you read the posts you made in this thread?

Should I compile them in a quote for you? LOL

X3lectric · (This post was last modified: 2011-01-10, 16:23 by X3lectric.)

FishOil Wrote: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.

after you posted this you can quote and compile all that the queen said for all I care. mind the bolded and colored part. your words not mine.

And I'm removing my subscription to this thread asap, before I get trolled somemore

gnif · 2011-01-12, 03:35

Here is my 2c.

I was using SMB for XBMC, but i think people have lost the plot here, the original poster was asking about NFS or SMB, for NFS it has to be a unix/linux system that is hosting the files, so he is talking about the GNU Samba server, which I completely agree with the OP, its a PITA.

I moved to NFS due to the poor throughput of SMB, it was not causing an issue on XBMC, but when transferring large files I was getting on average ~10MB/sec.

I setup a NFS server instead and mounted them and instantly my throughput jumped to ~45MB/sec when transferring files, this shocked me so I did further research and discovered that there are some default samba settings that hurt throughput if not configured, which is default under Ubuntu & Debian.

socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192

I now run both NFS and SMB servers on my machine simply so my mates who use windows are able to pull files from me. I find the transfer rate of both now configured correctly is roughly equal, but NFS seems to have somewhat lower latency in retrieving many small files.

**bossanova808** · 2011-01-14, 05:07

Using NFS to serve files from Windows to XBMC is pretty easy.

I have recently done just this and (for whatever reason) find this significantly quicker (and more robust on low quality networks) than SMB. Versus Camelot, I have found Dharma significantly more temperamental with SMB sharing - resulting in buffering issues - I presume it's something to do with underlying lucid/SMB code but I really don't know - just know that NFS is definitely working better.

zener · 2011-01-14, 09:33

I'm using NFS for mye XBMC clients, even though I have samba running on the server so the Windows PC's in the house can mount home directories and the video/audio repository. NFS is more efficient that SMB in a UNIX to UNIX.

I don't bother using the automounter for my video/audio files since the path is pretty much static. I've used the automounter (and keeping the auto.master under NIS/YP) for software.

Rachel · 2011-01-15, 16:03

HTTP :-)

I never did get SMB working, but then as it's Linux/Mac (server) to Linux (xbmc) there was never much point.

I did have NFS working for a while, again, with both Linux and Mac on the server end. It *mostly* worked, but I had some problems which seemed to be latency-related.

In the end I installed Apache (on Linux, already installed on Mac) and symlinked /media/Vault to /var/www/Vault (later switched to a Directory directive when I needed Apache to do something else as well and needed to be clean about it), and have been happy since. Streaming seems to work more reliably over HTTP than NFS. I don't have any numbers to back that up; it's just what I tried when I had latency issues on NFS, which I'd been otherwise happy with, and it seemed to solve them.

It's not entirely perfect: For some reason XBMC parses some filesizes as 0b when the Apache HTML listing shows a normal number clearly enough. (Not using library mode in XBMC, just file listings.) It might be possible to resolve that by using dav_fs and mounting the HTTP share as a filesystem on the XBMC box, rather than just using XBMC's HTTP client, but it hasn't bothered me enough to go to that trouble. :-)