[mythtv-users] Samba 3 better than NFS 3 for recording
ylee at pobox.com
Thu Dec 29 01:12:44 EST 2005
Greg Oliver <goliver at cistera.com> says:
> What mount option are you passing to the nfs share..
I've been using the nfsvers=3, tcp, and 32K read/write buffers options
someone else mentioned in my home network NFS setup since long before
taking up MythTV. Believe me, I'd still much rather use NFS--I'm a
*lot* more comfortable with fiddling with NFS export and mount options
than with smb.conf--but Samba works and works well.
> SMB versus nfs and smb being faster is impossible IMO.
Again, speaking as someone who's had a lot more hands-on experience
with NFS than Samba, I know very well that modern Samba is as fast as,
if not faster than (and certainly a lot more interoperable across
platforms) than NFS. Many found NFS pre-v3 to be noticeably slower
than Samba, for example, and although as I've mentioned I've always
used NFS v3 the notion that today's Samba is faster--or at least more
efficient in some way I haven't figured out yet on my particular
setup--than NFS is hardly a strange one.
N.B. - To be completely accurate, I'm actually using cifs, as smbfs has
a 2GB file limit which I only discovered after mythbackend kept
crashing with no error messages whatsoever after a certain point in my
Yeechang Lee <ylee at pobox.com> | +1 650 776 7763 | San Francisco CA US
More information about the mythtv-users