There have been quite a few posts over in the 5 beta threads stating there is a real need for NFS and AFP. Maybe I can understand AFP for Apple users but I am more puzzled why there is such an urgent need for NFS. I have been running 4.7 with 20x2TB drives using SMB for a long time. Never have a problem finding the shares from my Windows machines, get 100m read speads, typically 35-40 write (no cache drive). So why do I need NFS?

Perhaps you don't need NFS. In a pure Windows environment, SMB is it the protocol of choice. I use NFS for macs under version 4.7 but I'll switch to AFP for version 5. NFS performs better in a Pure Unix or mixed Unix-Mac environment. It comes down to the level of integration and performance for the mix of client  machines operating.

There have been quite a few posts over in the 5 beta threads stating there is a real need for NFS and AFP. Maybe I can understand AFP for Apple users but I am more puzzled why there is such an urgent need for NFS. I have been running 4.7 with 20x2TB drives using SMB for a long time. Never have a problem finding the shares from my Windows machines, get 100m read speads, typically 35-40 write (no cache drive). So why do I need NFS?

 

All my media players run better with NFS and they are all Linux based to begin with. NFS is logical.

 

There have been quite a few posts over in the 5 beta threads stating there is a real need for NFS and AFP. Maybe I can understand AFP for Apple users but I am more puzzled why there is such an urgent need for NFS. I have been running 4.7 with 20x2TB drives using SMB for a long time. Never have a problem finding the shares from my Windows machines, get 100m read speads, typically 35-40 write (no cache drive). So why do I need NFS?

 

All my media players run better with NFS and they are all Linux based to begin with. NFS is logical.

 

same goes for me

There have been quite a few posts over in the 5 beta threads stating there is a real need for NFS and AFP. Maybe I can understand AFP for Apple users but I am more puzzled why there is such an urgent need for NFS. I have been running 4.7 with 20x2TB drives using SMB for a long time. Never have a problem finding the shares from my Windows machines, get 100m read speads, typically 35-40 write (no cache drive). So why do I need NFS?

 

All my media players run better with NFS and they are all Linux based to begin with. NFS is logical.

What media players are you referring to?

 

I am using both Dune and Zyxel media players and don't have any performance issues using SMB. That is there is no real need for me to switch to NFS eventhough this is the "native" linux protocol.

 

My boxee box will buffer every minute or so when I try to stream any file over 20gb typically.  SMB works fine for tv shows and smaller sized 720p/1080p movies around the 10-15gb range.

My boxee box will buffer every minute or so when I try to stream any file over 20gb typically.  SMB works fine for tv shows and smaller sized 720p/1080p movies around the 10-15gb range.

I use SMB for my complete movie collection, which includes 40+ GB blu-rays and speeds of 50+ Mbps.

 

I never needed to change SMB because of performance issues, but it might be a media player limitation. I guess it depends on what hardware you have.

As previously stated nfs for native unix -> unix.

 

My boxee box will buffer every minute or so when I try to stream any file over 20gb typically.  SMB works fine for tv shows and smaller sized 720p/1080p movies around the 10-15gb range.

I use SMB for my complete movie collection, which includes 40+ GB blu-rays and speeds of 50+ Mbps.

 

I never needed to change SMB because of performance issues, but it might be a media player limitation. I guess it depends on what hardware you have.

 

+1

There have been quite a few posts over in the 5 beta threads stating there is a real need for NFS and AFP. Maybe I can understand AFP for Apple users but I am more puzzled why there is such an urgent need for NFS. I have been running 4.7 with 20x2TB drives using SMB for a long time. Never have a problem finding the shares from my Windows machines, get 100m read speads, typically 35-40 write (no cache drive). So why do I need NFS?

 

All my media players run better with NFS and they are all Linux based to begin with. NFS is logical.

What media players are you referring to?

 

I am using both Dune and Zyxel media players and don't have any performance issues using SMB. That is there is no real need for me to switch to NFS eventhough this is the "native" linux protocol.

 

I have a Dune Prime 3.0 and a Popcorn Hour A210. Both work better when using NFS protocol. When using SMB I constantly get pauses when watching high bitrate content. My network is a 1000mbit all the way. All switches, all NICs, and the wire is all rated too. Why one protocol works better than the other, beats me. I could probably spend days trying to figure it out and get no where.