NFS...SMB...lost

[tinpanalley]

There seem as many opinions about this as there are on audio forums about whether 24-bit audio files are worth having for music.
I've been using SMB shares forever to access media on my desktop with devices connected to my TV/stereo only because I thought it was the only way. As I've gotten more and more into building my raspberry pi 2 running OSMC, I find people professing their love for NFS, claiming it's more reliable, faster, "better" whatever that ever means, and I need to know because searching online is pointless in this area. What's NFS as compared to SMB, is it more suited to my media center needs and does anyone have any info on exactly what is done to connect an NFS share because that seems to be something everyone skips over in their NFS vs SMB wars. Thanks!

 

[mikeymikec]

AFAIK:

NFS and SMB are both protocols for sharing files over a local network. NFS has its roots in UNIX-variant operating systems, SMB is an MS protocol.

Since this question is with regard to a raspberry pi 2, which I assume has (or can have) both an smb and nfs client, I guess this comes down to two questions:

1 - What resources do you have available for transferring files to it? If you only have a Windows box then that might just clinch it for SMB for convenience's sake.

2 - I would look for benchmarks performed on the pi 2 to ascertain whether it performs better with its nfs or smb client ('performs better' could be measured in lower general system resource usage during the network data transfer which would be important if you want to do stuff on it while the transfer is happening, and/or higher network throughput).

 

[XavierMace]

For a home media server, it really doesn't matter. I'd just go with whatever you're familiar with. Most of the people I see arguing NFS is faster (for this usage type) are people trying to setup SMB on a Linux box and not knowing what they are doing.

I'm running everything over SMB on my Win Server 2012r2 file server without any issues at all.

Edit: Given we are talking a Raspberry pi2, it's entirely possible NFS will be faster, but that's more a matter of it's implementation of it, not the protocol itself.

 

[tinpanalley]

Edit: Given we are talking a Raspberry pi2, it's entirely possible NFS will be faster, but that's more a matter of it's implementation of it, not the protocol itself.

I guess my problem, though, is that in the options for adding a video folder to my Openelec's Videos menu, I see NFS and click it but nothing happens. So, I'm not actually sure what one has to do to even TRY NFS. SMB is simple, clicking it takes me to the devices on my network, I choose my desktop, go to the folders I want and link them to the RPi2. But with NFS, as I said, I don't even know what to do to try it for myself. and the lack of instructions online tells me I'm not doing it right or not thinking about it right.

 

[sdifox]

So why do you need from NFS that SMB is not doing for you?

 

[tinpanalley]

So why do you need from NFS that SMB is not doing for you?

You need to read my first post again.

 

[sdifox]

You need to read my first post again.

You are on SMB, it is working for you. You need to find a justification for switching to NFS. So what is your payback for doing that work? I don't see it.

Switching file systems just because one is supposed to be better than the other for some stuff is a waste of time. Bottom line, unless you have a specific need that is not being met by SMB but is addressed in NFS then you should contemplate switching. NFS has its own shortcomings.

 

[Gryz]

If I had the option between NFS and SMB, I'd pick NFS, without a second hesitation.

I find SMB harder to configure. I use SMB for my dvd-player to connect to my PC, so I can play local files. It's a pain to get right. And once in a while my PC stop advertising my shares. It also had the habit of adding C:\Users\Gryz to the advertised list. Big surprise, opening your files to the world. (Of course I am not fully exposed, as I am behind a NAT-box/firewall). I also find configuring permissions and users a pain on Windows.

So that's why I would pick NFS. Easier to configure. More predictable. And I am familiar with it (I used to be a Unix admin in the early nineties). But to be honest, I don't know what the latest news on security with NFS is. It used to be bad, then we got secure NFS, which had its own quirks. No idea about the current situation. But then again, I don't need that much security at home.

But if you are running SMB, and it is working for you, don't bother changing. Once it's running, I don't think there's much difference in performance. Certainly not for a home-theater box as client.

 

[XavierMace]

If I had the option between NFS and SMB, I'd pick NFS, without a second hesitation.

I find SMB harder to configure. I use SMB for my dvd-player to connect to my PC, so I can play local files. It's a pain to get right. And once in a while my PC stop advertising my shares. It also had the habit of adding C:\Users\Gryz to the advertised list. Big surprise, opening your files to the world. (Of course I am not fully exposed, as I am behind a NAT-box/firewall). I also find configuring permissions and users a pain on Windows..

So really, you're just not familiar with what you're doing when it comes to SMB.

Nothing wrong with that but that doesn't make NFS better. It just means you're more familiar with NFS. He's already got it running with SMB, unless the Raspberry Pi 2 just does an abysmal job of SMB, there's zero reason to switch.

 

[jardows]

If you are running Unix/BSD/Linux server and client, use NFS. NFS works better in an all *nix environment, is faster, more secure, easier to configure. NFS is native, so no 3rd party clients needed to use it on those systems, as there is with connecting or serving SMB.

If anything in the mix is Windows, use SMB. SMB is the native protocol for Windows servers and clients. Windows does not play nicely with NFS. Finding and configuring NFS client for anything but Windows 7 Ultimate/Windows Enterprise is going to end in frustration. It will be easier to configure your *nix servers and clients to use SMB than to configure a Windows client to use NFS, unless you have Ultimate/Enterprise editions.

 

[tinpanalley]

You are on SMB, it is working for you. You need to find a justification for switching to NFS. So what is your payback for doing that work? I don't see it.

For one simple reason: to learn how. That's the only way I've ever learned anything with computers over the past 25 years. Sometimes people in fprums can be all about nothing but the end result. I wanna learn this because I can and because I might learn something. Call me crazy, I find that interesting.

 

[sdifox]

For one simple reason: to learn how. That's the only way I've ever learned anything with computers over the past 25 years. Sometimes people in fprums can be all about nothing but the end result. I wanna learn this because I can and because I might learn something. Call me crazy, I find that interesting.

Then why bother asking? Just create a linux vm and go at it.