4 ms·
I've found NFS to use much less cpu than SMB (on raspberry pis running XBMC at least)
by jameswyse 14y ago
I've found NFS to use much less cpu than SMB (on raspberry pis running XBMC at least)
- shrikant 14y agoI third this. I was attempting to set up my Raspberry Pi for sharing a big HDD that was plugged into it on my home network, and the NFS mounts appear to weigh lighter on my vanilla Raspbian setup. And fwiw, if there's some sort of error with the mount, the terminal lets me know right away.
- cowmix 14y agoI second this.. If you use any NAS device with a weak CPU and you have a choice of CIFS or NFS, the NFS transfer rates are normally 25% faster and the load is much less on the server.
- lobster_johnson 14y agoI believe NFS is a less chatty protocol with fewer roundtrips. SMB is not a particularly well-designed protocol overall. My only evidence is anecdotal. Back in ~1998 we had Samba running on our small Linux file server using Windows NT desktops via 10mbit Ethernet. It was dog slow, not just for browsing but on sequential things like file transfer. We installed NFS mounts on the same box, and it turned out to be lightning fast. I don't remember just how fast, but it made everyone go "wow". Nowadays, with NFS over fast 100mbps or gigabit Ethernet the latency difference probably is not significant enough to make a difference. I prefer NFS just because its more Unixy.