Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:04 Post subject: Anyone using NFS?
Hey all, I'm trying to do some speed test comparions between samba and NFS. I've installed the nfs-server package via ipkg -- I start portmap, rpc.mount and rpc.nfs, all seems to go well, but when I try to mount the nfs share from my mac, it tells me the directory isn't available. Anyone have nfs working? Any ideas?
I've tried many combinations of /etc/exports files and have yet to have any success. Permissions on /mnt and /mnt/data are read, write and execute for all users (777)
Also, I turned on the syslog. Each time I attempt to mount, the router's syslog shows the following:
Mar 16 11:28:41 Snaggle daemon.err mountd[19652]: Unauthorized access by NFS client 192.168.1.125.
Mar 16 11:28:41 Snaggle daemon.warn mountd[19652]: Blocked attempt of 192.168.1.125 to mount /mnt/data
Mar 16 11:28:47 Snaggle daemon.notice mountd[19652]: NFS mount of /mnt/data attempted from 192.168.1.125
Joined: 07 Nov 2008 Posts: 142 Location: Spring Hill, Fl
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 0:59 Post subject: Re: Anyone using NFS?
meatbiscuit wrote:
Hey all, I'm trying to do some speed test comparions between samba and NFS.
ive never tried nfs on dd-wrt, my experience is limited to windows and a wdlxtv media player, but hands down nfs is way faster, in my case the transfer rates almost doubled. Getting the config file is crucial. _________________ modem: arris tm1602
router: r7800 voxel 1.0.2.77sf w/ kamoj 5.3b12 addon
ap: wrt1900ac v1 bs 43136,dir-825 b1 bs41117
NAS: Iomega ix2-200 CE 4tb, Seagate 1tb usb drive
Wash your hands and DONT TOUCH YOUR FACE!!!
Joined: 31 Jul 2021 Posts: 2146 Location: All over YOUR webs
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:11 Post subject:
The R6800/R9000 have NFS (only ones I have tested for development) and so does obviously x86/x64 probably others do also.
Speed wise technically NFS is faster and lower overhead than traditional samba (userspace), against modern ksmbd its unknown, since DD-WRT is not in sync with upstream ksmbd because the minimum kernel ksmbd requires due to API's used is 5.4, we cant really make a determination one vs the other DD-WRT side.
In any case the bottleneck will be how shitty the USB implementation is on a given router, the type of drive used SSD/HDD and the USB2/3 whatever is used and the CPU power of the router and available resources.
I can say that on RT-AC68U the transfer speeds read/write with a USB3/2 caddy sporting a drive able to use the full gigabit pipe the speeds are abysmally slow no matter USB port using current DD-WRT ksmbd (again remember its not in sync with upstream). This routers USB3 implementation is utter crap and does not perform any differently than the USB2, the results during read/write transfers are comparable and fluctuate by huge peaks/valleys during any read/write, so posting final numbers here is not accurate it can hit 20MB/s and 5MB/s but only once or twice during a 100MB file transfer with valleys of 250KB/s and lower so end speeds the average is crap.
I don't want my router to be a NAS anyway, it just cant cut it, I have several dedicated file servers which both samba and NFS wise fill the Gigabit speeds on any operation, NFS is marginally faster on transfers but streaming NFS wins hands down, the servers are x64 and so is the media center all are Linux.
The R6800/R9000 have NFS (only ones I have tested for development) and so does obviously x86/x64 probably others do also.
I just discovered NFS as a GUI option on the xr700 yet the r7000 doesn't have it, any idea why?
I too am wondering the speed difference of samba and nfs. Recent builds samba has been really slow listing directories but proftp has been less buggy. Samba is significantly faster on the xr700 vs the r7000