FTP, DLNA and Samba: which works best for which applications?

[TonyC]

I recently installed Samba on my 'Fox and started wondering about the different file transfer protocols available.

For transferring files from the 'Fox to a PC, I can use FTP, or Samba with Windows Explorer. They both seem to work equally well. Do either of them have any particular advantages / disadvantages I should know about?

For watching recorded programs on another device (for example an Android tablet), I could use DLNA, or Samba in combination with something like Kodi (XBMC) that can play files from a network location. Samba requires that the files have been decrypted in advance, while DLNA does it on the fly, but Samba seems better for "seeking" (FF/RW) - and perhaps puts less load on the 'Fox's processor? Any other particular features of these two protocols?

As always, many thanks to the people who wrote the CF, and those who take the time to help out those of us less technically knowledgeable...

 

[Black Hole]

It's a question of practicality. If the source material is encrypted, you have no choice but to access it by DLNA. I doubt many media players* have FTP access, so you will definitely provide SMB for them, and if you want to access recordings from another HD- or HDR-FOX you are better off using SMB (or NFS) because you get all the bells and whistles as if the recording was stored locally. For just copying, use FTP or SMB/NFS according to convenience.

* iOS media players, notably VLC for iOS, use FTP as a network access mechanism because of the iOS restrictions on apps.

 

[TonyC]

Thanks BH. I thought there might be some subtle-but-important differences between them I was missing, but it seems not.

 

[Black Hole]

Not really. FTP and SMB/NFS both access the file system "as is", DLNA is obviously streamed and therefore passing through some kind of filter which may have to decrypt - the Humax view of the data if you like - and will be slower particularly if there is decryption going on.