 |
 |
 |
 |
| Servers & Networking Discuss any Fedora server problems and Networking issues such as dhcp, IP numbers, wlan, modems, etc. |

6th September 2012, 05:39 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Seoul, KR
Posts: 21

|
|
|
NFS vs Samba?
is NFS more stable and robust than samba? I have windows machine with torrent/file server/other windows exclusive stuffs and frequently share files via samba while I'm lying on my bed with my laptop. However Samba fails often and disappoints me, error messages like cant retrieve share, failed to mount network blabla. Moreover I use XBMC and if samba goes down, XBMC just hangs while trying to reach movie files and I have nothing to do unless I perform hard reset on my laptop, which should be avoided at all costs.
My idea is that if I install NFS on windows host, wouldn't it solve much of the problems?
|

6th September 2012, 06:31 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waldorf, Maryland
Posts: 6,105

|
|
|
Re: NFS vs Samba?
If you use approprate mount options...
Don't use hard mounts - this will hang the application attempting the file access in an uninterruptable wait - Using soft mounts permits the process to be interrupted.
Now that said, it is up to the application as to what it does when interrupted. Some can have "bad" things to happen - most of these are editing type functions, but anything that attempts to save state on the inactive mount can leave "write/readwrite" files in a bit of trouble.
For something that is mounted readonly this should cause no problem. I don't remember that XBMC does recording, but that would/could have a problem if it saves to an NFS storage.
|

6th September 2012, 06:37 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Seoul, KR
Posts: 21

|
|
|
Re: NFS vs Samba?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpollard
If you use approprate mount options...
Don't use hard mounts - this will hang the application attempting the file access in an uninterruptable wait - Using soft mounts permits the process to be interrupted.
Now that said, it is up to the application as to what it does when interrupted. Some can have "bad" things to happen - most of these are editing type functions, but anything that attempts to save state on the inactive mount can leave "write/readwrite" files in a bit of trouble.
For something that is mounted readonly this should cause no problem. I don't remember that XBMC does recording, but that would/could have a problem if it saves to an NFS storage.
|
Hi,
Would you please elaborate on hard/soft mounts?
|

6th September 2012, 06:52 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waldorf, Maryland
Posts: 6,105

|
|
|
Re: NFS vs Samba?
The manpage on nfs covers that information (man nfs, then search for "hard")
|

6th September 2012, 06:54 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Seoul, KR
Posts: 21

|
|
|
Re: NFS vs Samba?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpollard
The manpage on nfs covers that information (man nfs, then search for "hard")
|
thanks. I'll try to install NFS and take a loot at it. I just wanted to know whether NFS is better than Samba in general.
|

6th September 2012, 07:01 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Al Ain, UAE
Posts: 1,054

|
|
|
Re: NFS vs Samba?
FWIIW in general, I have less trouble with NFS and try my best to avoid Samba.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
Current GMT-time: 03:18 (Wednesday, 22-05-2013)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|