FTP vs SMB
 

Setup a NAS using an old p3 pc and freenas.

Atm its only got a couple small IDE drives in since i'm waiting on a Sata card.

Thought id do a couple of test transfers.

noticed that FTP is quicker than Samba (windows shares) for transferring files any perticular reason.

I can push around 40 - 60mbit/s on average over samba.

On ftp its pushing 70+ mbit/s

Any perticuallar reason for this?

This was from my desktop pc running windows vista, across a 8port 100mbit belkin switch.

I'd imagine transfers from the other pcs on the network would be a LOT slower since they'd have to over wi-fi and homeplugs to get to the server.

Re: FTP vs SMB
 

The answer is in the question

FTP stands for "File Transfer Protocol" which is a protocol specifically written to transfer files.

SMB stands for "Server Message Block" which is protocol written to do a number of tasks, like broadcasting share information as well as transfer files.

This means FTP will usually be the fastest method to transfer files over an IP network simply because that is all it was created to do.
As well as this, SMB is also using up bandwidth by polling for other SMB info on the network and broadcasting share information.

HTH

Re: FTP vs SMB
 

Thats why i prefer the NFS i think.No transfer times with a mounted share.:)
I`ve really only got Freenas on an old p3(700Mhz,256Mb) just to try it out but i actually quite like the thing.It would need a proper home though....(wfa??)
Saying all that,i think it`s also quite probably overkill for our needs at the moment.

I currently(pre-freenas)have a 40G partition on one of my own desktops two drives given over to NFS,hence the kids all have easy access to our shared videos & stuff from their own pc`s if needs be.
I`ll only even start the nfs server daemon/portmapper if someone needs access though and it`s not exactly a constant need.

A whole machine needing left on just so the young un`s have constant access to their videos & junk seems a wee bit much.Still a great idea though...as well as being a good recycling solution of course:)

Re: FTP vs SMB
 

Not sure if mine will be running freenas much longer, sata card arrived this morning quickly popped it in and freenas wasn't seeing it.

Not sure if the card i bought has its own Bios or not, as i got it on ebay, was a cheap card didn't want to spent a lot on one as i don't know if it would work in that pc.

i believe the chipset should be supported by freenas / linux its a via VIA VT6321a


Might go for a linux server install if i can't get the card working in freenas, was thinking of either debian or centos.

Assuming I get the card working the box will make a nice server, I did have a NAS caddy thing but it kept locking up all the time and was slow :td:

Only really had a couple minutes spare to shove the card in and boot the system so haven't yet played about. will do later.

Re: FTP vs SMB
 

Pushing 95 - 100mbit/s now on both ftp and SMB :-)

Copy to Sata drive on sata PCI card in the server.

Server is running debian etch.

Re: FTP vs SMB
 

Good stuff!!:)

Re: FTP vs SMB
 

I did wander about a 1Gbit/s nic but I'm not sure the System would keep up with it.

Re: FTP vs SMB
 

As long as all our nic`s are all managing 20Mb`s then i dont give two hoots about 100Mb ftp speeds:)

Re: FTP vs SMB
 

How many you got ;)

Re: FTP vs SMB
 

:confused:

20MB sacm > desktop currently acting as router/firewall/gateway(2 nic`s) > 8 port switch >laptop(1 nic)/freenas laptop(1 nic)/desktop(1 nic).

1Mb stb > sons desktop(1 nic):angel:

Recently he`s been on the 20Mb though seeing as it finally made it`s appearance.He knows the score though.

After the phonebill he gave us recently he wants to know the bloody score:)

EDIT:thats not counting the spares i checked during the 20Mb`s elusive period,just making sure it was`nt just my end that could`nt cope with a measly 20Mb.

Re: FTP vs SMB
 

Oh i thought you ment 20megabytes/s rather than megabits ;)