[realjobe]

Hi there.

Using Frodo Final 12.0 for Windows 7 64bit. Frodo in amazing, everybody knows that.

I'm having a small issue with watching .iso BlueRay movies, coming from NFS mechanism from Synology NAS.
Occationally playing pauses for buffering issues. This will take like max 2 secs for the system to fill the buffers.

How can I raise the network cache settings in Frodo. Isn't it suppose to be auto nowadays?
advancedsettings.xml?

[jhhoffma]

http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid...pid1355374

Which points to:

http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=Adv...network.3E

[realjobe]

Ok. I tested this "5242880" = 5M yesterday, with no efect. Debug log said "advancedsettings.xml" <cachemembuffersize> was consumed.

Maybe I'll raise it to ... 20MB? =(20971520)

[Kib]

5M is the default, so that should be exactly the same as you had before creating the setting

XBMC will use 3 times as much memory as you specify here (i guess there are three framebuffers)
I would raise it up by sensible amounts until the issues disappear. Try 20 first , then go to 25, 30 etc.
I guess you have plenty of RAM to spare.

[realjobe]

5M is the default, so that should be exactly the same as you had before creating the setting
XBMC will use 3 times as much memory as you specify here (i guess there are three framebuffers)
I would raise it up by sensible amounts until the issues disappear. Try 20 first , then go to 25, 30 etc.
I guess you have plenty of RAM to spare.

Thanx, 5M was the default.
I have over 3GB free mem, so there should be no problem here. I'll test these tonite with some BD .iso movies, through my 1Gbit LAN.

[realjobe]

Even 80MB cache does not seems to do it. Movie pauses from time to time and buffers...
Using DualAtom 1.8Ghz Zotac ID40 in 1GBit LAN with Synology NAS via NFS.

Is this feature even on in Frodo Final?

Code:

<advancedsettings>
    <network>
        <cachemembuffersize>83886080</cachemembuffersize>
    </network>
</advancedsettings>

[bimme]

why do u like to use NFS when you are on a windows client ?
i have a synology ds410, and used nfs for my old wdtv.
now with my windows htpc i have no problems using SMB.
what are the benefits of using nfs on the windows machine ?

[realjobe]

Isn't NFS quite more lightweight than Samba that has more overhead? The purpose is to use NFS is order to reduce the possible network pull impact..

[jhhoffma]

Isn't NFS quite more lightweight than Samba that has more overhead? The purpose is to use NFS is order to reduce the possible network pull impact..

Correct, but you can't use NFS with mounted volumes, AFAIK.

[realjobe]

mounted volumes? So are you saying that with SMB this is resovled?
I used before Samba and it worked great. In windows I Do not have mapped anything, I'm using the SMB://user:pass@srv/ in sources.xml.
Should I map it to OS as well and use the Mapped drive?

[jhhoffma]

What I mean is that if you mount a drive on a machine, that sharing that drive via NFS does not work.

I may be spitting B$, as I don't use NFS, but I seem to remember hearing that it wouldn't work. My drive-pooling software (StableBit Drivepool) can run via NFS because of this limitation.

[bimme]

that´s samba needs more overhead than nfs... but u are connected over Gbit-LAN ! so where is the problem to live with a little bit more overhead?

[realjobe]

that´s samba needs more overhead than nfs... but u are connected over Gbit-LAN ! so where is the problem to live with a little bit more overhead?

Your right.. seems a a bit ... stupid to use NFS. So, Is mapping a drive is OS and using it better that to use pure smb:// in sources.xml, performance/caching wise..

[bluray]

My wired network is running on Windows SMB as Bimme too, and I can playback the same movie (40+gb blu-ray size) on three HTPC's at the same time without buffer. I prefer classic workgroup-style networking instead of homegroup networking. I found that it is quicker....

[bimme]

set xbmc to use network share (SMB)....
u can map the drive to ur htpc if u want, but i wouldnt try to set xbmc to the mapped (local) drive, cause i don´t know if the right buffer size is applied this way... but it could work too, haven´t tried...