Thread: FTP vs SMB
View Single Post
Old 18-09-2007, 16:56   #3
xpod
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotlands biggest region
Services: TV,Phone & BB
Posts: 2,086
xpod has a bronzed appealxpod has a bronzed appeal
xpod has a bronzed appealxpod has a bronzed appealxpod has a bronzed appealxpod has a bronzed appealxpod has a bronzed appealxpod has a bronzed appealxpod has a bronzed appealxpod has a bronzed appealxpod has a bronzed appeal
Re: FTP vs SMB

Quote:
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.
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
xpod is offline   Reply With Quote