For me, autofs did not change anything.- What would the benefit be compared to nfs?
Georg
Switching to system mounts increases speed on some setups, but this is not universal. In theory NFS is faster than SMB but for a large file transfer over a 100mb/s connection youâre probably not going to notice much. Your trying to play something that is very close to the full speed of your connection. If you switched over to a USB ethernet adapter you should more than double the bandwidth your getting now and your problem should go away.
I have a Powerline 600 Mbps connection between floors of the house. The upstairs is 100% wired GigE. Downstairs is 100% wired GigE. We avoid wifi.
When I first got the powerline network gear, I did some testing. On the same floor, between the hallway and a bedroom, it provided 220 Mbps. Between floors, only 60 Mbps. Actual, real-world, Powerline throughput is extremely dependent on the house wiring, but my belief is that 10% of whatever the box says is a reasonable expectation.
The color of the connection lights is about the protocol used, not the actual throughput provided.
autofs is just a different way to control mounts. fstab or mount are other methods. These are all system-level mounts. Each of them allow adding options which can be used to improve performance, especially for NTFS data partitions directly connected to the computer.
As for the performance difference between using autofs, fstab settings, or a mount command, there isnât any difference in performance, provided the same options are used.
Network performance will always be limited to whatever the slowest device between the 2 systems can support. Havenât GigE on the ends doesnât help if there is powerline limited to 60 Mbps in the middle. For a single 4k video stream, 60 Mbps should be fine. If two streams are transferred concurrently, then the video codec will matter, since it is possible for bad encoding to use 40Mbps or good encoding of the same video to use less than 15Mbps.
To any lurkers, please be 100% consistent when posting bandwidth numbers. Always use the same units, which are normally Mbps or MBps. Network equipment uses Mbps, so it is easiest to always use those units, but I can multiply or divide by 8 as needed for the conversion, assuming the correct units are actually written/provided.
Yes, I purchased a GB-Ethernet USB Adapter. Lets see how that works.
As the specs of the âoldâ Vero4k are nowhere to be found, I think I recall that the box has one USB 3 and one USB2 port. Is that correct? At least lshw shows USB3 capabilities in one port (I am currently not in front of the box).
Otherwise with 2 USB2 ports I could reach 480Mbps, which still should be enough for a 73G file.
Thanks for your help
Both ports are USB2. You will get about 200Mbps with an adapter
200MBit still doubles the current bandwidth, so I hope the movie will play fine.
Still, in the longer run Iâll be in the market for a 4k+ then (waiting for the next sales promotion). Or would you recommend waiting a little longer for the next iteration?
Cheers, Georg
The next model is a long, long way off.
Not if its an untouched Blu-ray ripâŚmany, if not most, will regularly surpass that.
All of my UHD rips are untouched. When I rip I only rip english audio and subs to reduce the filesize slightly. I can play every UHD rip without issues on my Vero 4K (not a + model)
Im not disputing that, more the fact that 60Mbps network speed will be enough to stream them without interruption.
An example is Goodfellas, it averages over 80Mbps iirc.
The official spec says 128Mbps max.
Yeah but a lot of studios dont use official specs and just mastering it how they want it to be 
Is that peak or average Sam?
It is on page 32
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Assets/Downloadablefile/White_Paper_General_4th_20150817_clean.pdf
Sorry, the idea of having a hugely inefficient video rip is so very foreign to me. It never crossed my mind that anyone wouldnât compress a bloated video file.
If I canât see any artifacts from my added compression while reducing the file size 8x, why not do it? It isnât like the disc is going anywhere.
BTW, just read that Netflix 4k streams are less than 20Mbps.
Different people have different requirements. Guess thatâs the only constant. 
For me, the around 6 hours that it takes to encode an hour of content isnât worth it. Drives are cheap now days. Sure, if I had a more powerful PC that could do the encode in an hour or so, Iâd probably do that to save space.
The way I see it With todayâs internet speeds storing a lot of stuff at home just costs money. Why store it at home if I can grab any 4k remux I want off the web while taking a shower. And if I want to rewatch it later and I happen to delete it by then I just grab it again. No fuzz with a nas or anything. All you need is a minimalist setup with maybe a tb of space and Fios
Just my 2c
Works perfectly with Ugreen GB-USB Adapter, many thanks!
In principle, you are right. But for many of us it has become a âhobbyâ of some sort, I guess 
Most of the hardware had been purchased when there was no Netflix, Prime etc. Also with Netflix costing 180/y and BluRays being sold for 5/pc (at least some of them). And 180/y is a 6TB hdd.
Youâre right with the requirements, mateâŚbut if im spending money on a certain quality product, then Iâm watching it at that quality, it completely defeats the purpose otherwise.
Same with musicâŚif I spend the money on lossless audio, im not converting it to mp3 to save a bit of disk space, which these days is cheap as shit.
Youâre right about Netflix, their 4k stuff is ok to watch, but its noticeably inferior to UHD BluRay quality.