[phiyuku]

I am running a Windows Home Server 2011 with the included NFS Server as well as the included SMB Server. I heard that NFS is faster than SMB so I decided to go with that but after some stuttering I decided to take a look. I got onto another computer in the same Gigabit network. First copied from NFS to Hard Drive it copied at about 40-50MB/s which is slow from what I gather since I keep hearing about 80MB/s. Then I copied the same file and SMB is maintaining anywhere between 60MB/s and 80MB/s and peaking at 85MB/s which is even faster than what I hear people getting in NFS. So my question to you guys is if NFS is supposed to be faster than SMB what am I doing wrong. Is it maybe the Windows Home Server 2011 (Based off Windows 2008 R2) NFS server is crap or what I likely think is the case of the people who typically ran NFS ran it on Linux where SMB was probably way slower since I hear of appalling speeds of like 11MB/s. Right now all my XBMC machines are Windows so I will be sticking to SMB unless someone can tell me how to improve the NFS but if I ever get a Raspberry Pi I might check out how different things are on Linux.

[Memphiz]

If you want my opinion. NFS is fast on unix world. SMB is fast on windows world. Don't mix it

[bossanova808]

Serving from my Win7 box is vastly (and measurably) quicker using hanewin nfs vs. smb - it's particularly noticeable when listing very long lists of files, but just in general too.

But hey, if it ain't broke (and 60 to 80mb/s ain't broke), then why go for the more complex alternative? Just ust SMB if there's no benefit to you...

[kedda]

If you want my opinion. NFS is fast on unix world. SMB is fast on windows world. Don't mix it

+1