Network share: Performance differences between NFS & SMB

You may also like...

14 Responses

  1. Jacky says:

    >>> “Sadly most Windows users are forced to use SMB.”

    SMB is more efficient than NFS protocol-wise. SMB is a stateful protocol, NFS is a stateless protocol. Once a connection is established, SMB has less overhead than NFS. However, SMB is more or less a Microsoft protocol. To get the best performance, you need to use Windows servers and clients. For Windows users, SMB is native and performs better than NFS, no real sadness.

    • Dear Jacky, you may be right that you get the best performance with SMB in a pure Windows only environment. In my opinion this is not realistic. Mixed environments like having Windows clients and Linux file servers or vice versa is not uncommon. In that case NFS shows a better performance.

  2. Synology! Benchmark! NFS and SMB!
    That’s just the information I’ve been looking for! Thank you!

  3. On ubuntu 14.04 I had the opposite experience, samba performed roughly 10% faster than nfs when reading a single (large) file. The network is 1GB/s, wired locally.

    I use the default configs for both, any idea why I don’t get 200% speedup by using nfs like your numbers say?

    • Did you see that the performance for large files is nearly the same with NFS and SAMBA?
      There is no big advantage. NFS is only better for small or medium sized files.

      Ferhat

  4. Janusz Kossek says:

    At our work, we regularly run tons of the tests involving SMB and NFS shares and SSD disks. We use these results to design very fast NAS applications for data recording (1GbE, 10GbE and 40GbE). In each of these tests for sequencial disks access (writes or reads or both) SMB each time outperforms NFS by 10%-20% depending on the test case. We use it with single, multiple streams, and IP aliasing to maximize storage throughput.

  5. Mike-EEE says:

    Would be useful to know how this stacks up now with SMB3.

  1. April 9, 2016

    […] file performance? – some threads suggest NFS is more efficient or serves faster with smaller files <= a few MB (which is […]

  2. October 10, 2016

    […] Network share: Performance differences between NFS & … – Both SMB and NFS are network protocols of the application layer, used mainly for accessing files over the network. Since SMB is supported by Windows, many … […]

  3. October 25, 2016

    […] Network share: Performance differences between NFS & SMB – Create folders inside /mnt (e.g. /mnt/smb and /mnt/nfs) before mounting. With the following commands you will mount an SMB share into /mnt/smb and an NFS share … […]

  4. November 23, 2016

    […] Network share: Performance differences between NFS & SMB – Network share: Both SMB and NFS are network protocols of the application layer, used mainly used for accessing files. See my performance comparison! […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.