Choosing a file-sharing protocol for a home NAS can become a research project before any files move. XDA writer João Carrasqueira found a simpler rule for his setup: use SMB while it meets the workload, and add NFS only when a specific application needs it.
In his account, SMB was the natural starting point because his home still included Windows computers. Linux and macOS also detected the network shares with little setup, leaving one username and password as the main requirement for access.
One protocol covered most everyday jobs
Carrasqueira used SMB to add media to Jellyfin and later attached an SMB share as storage for a Nextcloud virtual machine. He says streaming and ordinary file access worked well enough that any speed difference was not noticeable in his routine.
That routine matters. His NAS is mainly a backup destination for files he accesses infrequently, and much of the access happens over Wi-Fi. Maximum protocol throughput was therefore less important than a share that worked across several operating systems without additional maintenance.
NFS still solved a real exception
SMB was not sufficient for everything. When Carrasqueira moved to a split Proxmox and Synology setup, mapping Immich's data storage to an SMB share did not work. He created an NFS share for that application, and says Immich then ran correctly.
NFS can offer stronger performance on Linux and may suit server-to-server workloads, large transfers, automated file operations and self-hosting projects that depend on its behavior. Permissions can also take more care to configure. Those differences become important when a workload exposes them.
The practical lesson is not that SMB wins every comparison. It is that a mixed-device home with modest storage needs may not benefit from optimizing for a theoretical bottleneck. Starting with the broadly compatible option and adding NFS for a demonstrated requirement can keep the setup simpler without pretending the protocols are interchangeable.
