samba - Feb 2006 - smb/cifs or nfsv3: which is "cheaper"

I will soon be implementing a Fedora Core 4 (or 5), 2.8MHz Xeon, 1GB 
RAM, 2.5TB storage, gigabit ethernet server which will hold backup 
copies of about 200 DVDs.  These DVDs will be played through a gigabit 
LAN to another Fedora Core 4 (or 5) workstation using xine which will 
then output video to the projector in my living room.

I am not asking to start a competition or war on the list.

My question is, which is "cheaper" both in terms of processing power
and
network overhead: nfsv3 or smbfs or cifs?  I'll also take information on 
nfsv4, though that is not my current setup.

I use Samba for tons of Linux <--> Windows things, but since this is a 
Linux <--> Linux thing, I wasn't sure which way to go in order to 
minimize the use of the new processor and minimize unnecessary network 
traffic.

I am asking on this list as some Samba experts may already know the 
answer or could point me in the right direction (and I do not subscribe 
to any nfs lists).

Thanks in advance.  -Anthony

-- 
My Website: http://messinet.com
My Online Gallery: 
http://messinet.com/modules.php?name=Web_Links&l_op=visit&lid=3

Anthony Messina wrote:
> 
> My question is, which is "cheaper" both in terms of processing
power and
> network overhead: nfsv3 or smbfs or cifs?  I'll also take information
on
> nfsv4, though that is not my current setup.
I'd expect NFS to be the better option for Linux <-> Linux sharing. 
In
particular, because the daemon is in the kernel, it should perform better.

Of course, since NFS is similar in security to samba with 
security=share, you should be able to have both running, and their 
configurations will be very minimal.  If NFS doesn't do it for you, you 
can try samba fairly easily.