Topic: Relax Vs. Smb (Read 44 times)

openwindow · « **on:** April 03, 2003, 08:29:00 PM »

I've found SMB to be a bit buggy, and the performance of Relax to be much better.

X-ace · « **Reply #1 on:** April 04, 2003, 02:58:00 AM »

I use relax too, and cautioning tales have had me layh off SMB for a while. Come version 2.4 I am guessing this will be more stable and I will be ready to try.

X-ace · « **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2003, 12:30:00 PM »

Well the other thing is just what you started with. I got XNS from the getgo, and I feel comfortable with that. Now I am reluctant to switch as i am having no problems adn won't actually get anything else than what I already have.

essox · « **Reply #3 on:** April 04, 2003, 02:16:00 PM »

Sorry , ive just found the answer,,, and ps Im not really Bill Gates

opjose · « **Reply #4 on:** April 04, 2003, 02:57:00 PM »

SMB support requires access to a local and properly configured browse master.

These "bugs" which people report seem to revolve around the location of the browse master.

Relax is told what the IP address of the target streaming server is, so it doesn't have to fiddle with searching your network for the proper share.

As a result it normally shows an XBMS or other streaming server very quickly.

I've had numerous problems, in that the XBMS streaming server gets "out of sync" in Linux.

If you exit the XBMP app (and I've checked this on the logs) the XBMS server keeps "looking" at the last folder it was in.

The next time you go to the XBMP app on your Xbox, you will only see the contents of the last folder you were looking at. This remains until you restart the XBMS server. Ugh.

Jaxstream does this too.

ccxstream will not compile for me.

However SMB is not prone to this as it searches for the shares each time it is used.

X-ace · « **Reply #5 on:** April 05, 2003, 05:06:00 AM »

thanks opjose, that was really helpful. Explains why relax is such plain sailing for me.

Author Topic: Relax Vs. Smb (Read 44 times)