Posts: 3,720
Joined: Jan 2023
Reputation:
360
ultimately its going to be what works for you
i personally would never set up an ftp server for anything at all, not since the 90s
regarding Plex Media Server, Jellyfin, Emby, Mezzmo- if ftp were so good at video streaming vs http(s) then why is every single streaming platform using http instead, including premium services netflix, prime video, hulu and all the rest
take into account how many sites in general use ftp for anything - the last time i saw it in use was for little websites that could use cPanel to set it up and allow them to upload their site (10+ years ago)
the difference in NFS/SMB is platform - NFS is linux, SMB is windows but they are mostly functionally equals
UPNP/DLNA isn't even in the same category as it's a streaming protocol and the rest are actual filesystem protocols
Posts: 192
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation:
12
Thank you. I suspected as much but as Kodi lists it as a protocol I wanted some info on it's real-world use amongst Kodi users.
Posts: 3,720
Joined: Jan 2023
Reputation:
360
kodi tries to be as universal as possible so as long as people insist on using ftp it will remain there
Posts: 192
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation:
12
Makes sense. Thanks.
Mostly I prefer to use directly-attached storage but I've used a NAS in the past (Windows Home Server & CIFS) and have thought of going the NAS route again (probably not Win though.) Just want to keep abreast of best practices.
Posts: 5,435
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
378
I suppose in a Windows environment SMB has the option of mounting a remote folder to the local file system allowing access through the file system.
scott s.
.
Posts: 192
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation:
12
Thanks Jeff, I had been looking at the features page and forum of Mezzmo. It is undoubtably the most robust feature set of all the UPnP/DLNA servers. I don't even think Plex has such rich features (I also used PMS, Universal Media Server, TVersity, and Twonky - briefly - in the past.)
As I mentioned, I usually prefer directly-connected (SATA or USB) storage to my Kodi box. Largely because I have reverted to the terrible habit of "cold" storing media on separate 5TB USB ext. HDDs and swapping out content on the drive plugged into the Kodi box. Normally I would have a NAS and a ginormous central Kodi DB but I'm taking care of my increasingly memory-impaired Mother who has a hard time remembering all the movies that scroll by on even the subset of content on the drive connected to the Kodi box. There's no way we'd ever have time to watch anything if she had to pick from the 5,830 movies and 1,083 TV shows I have as I'd have to scroll back for her to see the previous 10 items that she'd likely already forgotten. But one day I will want to re-centralize my storage so I'm starting to think about storage separated over a LAN and not just a SATA-III or USB 3.0 connection.
Posts: 192
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation:
12
That is a great aspect of SMB. I mount my Kodi box's USB connected drive to my Win PC to add & delete content.
Posts: 192
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation:
12
That seems like the way to do it - Mezzmo with the Kodi addon is looking increasingly like the way forward for me.
Right now we have a single TV with a single Kodi box (NVIDIA Shield TV Pro 2019 model) with a USB 3.0 connected drive. I add & remove content from the box by SMB'ing into it from my PC over the LAN. I have several lists of my content on Evernote separated by movies & tv (& TV shows separated by genre) and associated HDD (e.g. drama/The Diplomat on 5TB HDD #10). I plug the needed ext. HDD into my laptop and delete or copy the video to the Shield's USB-connected drive. (I know, I know..don't judge). Not how I envisioned I'd be doing things but when I sold my old NAS I never got around to getting another in time as I moved in to my Mom's to care for her - so began to rely upon ext. HDDs until I got a new NAS - fast forward 8 years and here we are with ten 5TB HDDs that I use as "cold" storage and one "hot" or active drive that is plugged into the Kodi box. Not ideal of course but, as I've said, I will one day get another NAS and do things properly - and Mezzmo is looking increasingly like the video server for the middleware stack.
Posts: 192
Joined: Sep 2017
Reputation:
12
Thank you Jeff. I'll take you up on your generous offer of asking questions if/when I go that route.
Posts: 1
Joined: Apr 2019
Reputation:
0
Been using FTPS (not FTP) on kodi for at least 10 years and see no reason to stop using it now. I guess I feel that new does not always mean better and old does not mean bad.
I have tested the performance from over 2000 miles away using hotel public internet access and also locally from house lan. Both performed well ... BUT of course, if you haven't got the e3e bandwidth in the first place, its dead, Jim.
On my lan, KODI mapped to SMB shares actually takes longer to display a directory listing than the same sources mapped using FTPS (about 50% longer). This might be a consideration if you have a lot of files. The trade off is SMB is significantly faster at launching content than FTPS. I have experienced some FWD and RWD issues - definitely not smooth and a little unmanageable if targeting a specific resume point. Another odd thing is artwork / meta data. Basically the tv_series/seasons/episodes structure shows no tv_series description/artwork but does have art / descriptions for the actual episodes. Which one I use FTPS or SMB on my lan is based on the directory vs launch delays. Simple stated, I lean towards SMB on lan with a single source exception. For most people SMB is the way to go because KODI's feature operation is more consistent and overall app support is better. (I don't even bother asking questions on KODI FTPS as I know the general community response I will get.)
FTPS is one of the options if you want KODI access over internet. Its age and the number of instances world wide is not really the measuring stick to use, instead you should ask does it work for your purposes and are you willing to accept its limitations. I keep a ftp server running purely for internet access. I have discovered that some private routers that implement BW restrictions or FW rules seems to just pass FTP(S) through ... I guess because no one uses it, right? Another side benefit was a FTP server gave me remote access to non KODI content that my laptop likes eating. Add a 3rd party utility to map FTPS as a local drive makes it almost as good as being at home. I like to think with only 3 of us using FTP(S) in the world (well maybe 4) it is less likely to be a target for those with questionable intentions.
When I started investigating FTPS friends thought I was crazy to use such an old protocol. I got it set up and showed them my cell streaming content from home to KODI and now a couple of them are doing the same. Why do I keep FTPS? It is a simple, minimal and can be freely deployed on pretty much any OS, including those *nix inspired systems based on a much that older software concept. Give it a try.
