As above I agree do your own tests:

More info:
https://totusoft.com/lanspeed

https://www.google.com/search?q=nfs+vs+ ... erformance

I can only say:
Try it and then read our two comments again

@MMuser2011, and @Peke,

Thanks for your prompt reply.
I do have quite a fast NAS / Network (1Gbps), but I'm still nervous about mounting via iSCSi. The client was first introduced in Windows Server 2008, so over 10 years ago. Probably about time for me to take a leap.

Hi,
I agree mostly with MMuser2011 with exception that for me NAS -> PC in Wired environment works as fast as Local HDD (M.2 and SSD excluded). My main difference is that I have NAS connected to SWITCH over 4GBit LACP (4x1Gbit LAG) connection so I have Fastest possible speed around 120MBytes/s. Otherwise I agree fully.

My own experience (Februar 2019):
Using the MM.DB on a NAS is the slowest possible solution at all.
Whatever you use (SCSI, SATA, Filesystems as ext4, NTFS) you will never get the speed you would like to have.

My conclusion:
Never ever use your MM.DB on a NAS.
(Of course you can save your music or a copy of MM.DB on your NAS.)
But never use the MM.DB from a NAS to directly load/search/edit your tracks if speed is something that is important for you.

The fastest possible solution I have found so far:
Use the MM.DB on a internal SSD attached to the fastest possible port you can find (currently a M2 SSD, directly attached to a modern computer motherboard).

Dear Media Monkey Users,

Hello. I'm moving my Music collection from a USB drive to my new NAS. I've heard that transfer speeds can be almost double when connecting from Windows 10 to the NAS via iSCSi versus older SMB or NFS shares. I've also heard that if the iSCSi can't connect at Windows boot time, that it can cause hangs or crashes on the client. I'm curious of other's experiences using a Media Monkey DB on a NAS. Has anyone yet tried connecting via iSCSi? Any noticeable improvements from Media Monkey's point of view?