[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.
Mike
More information about the mythtv-users
mailing list