[mythtv-users] Samba 3 better than NFS 3 for recording over Ethernet

Michael T. Dean mtdean at thirdcontact.com
Thu Dec 29 11:00:04 EST 2005

Greg Oliver wrote:

>SMB versus nfs and smb being faster is impossible IMO.
This is one case where you shouldn't fall for the "invented by 
Microsoft" trap.  Actually, performance on a properly tuned SMB share 
(both client and server tuned) will quite possibly be greater than on a 
properly tuned NFS share (client/server tuned).  /However/, properly 
tuning an SMB share is extremely difficult compared to tuning an NFS 
share, so in the real world, you're likely to never see a properly tuned 
SMB share (at least when either the client or the server is not 
Microsoft-based, and with both client and server running MS, other 
issues--like differences in cp/copy--are likely to obscure testing 
results)--meaning SMB will typically appear less performant than NFS

Note, also, that a server tuned for NFS will likely have poor SMB 
performance and vice-versa because the required options are very different.


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list