What file server works best for Leopard clients? Openfiler? NASLite? FreeNAS? Which protocol: NFS or SAMBA? Any locking issues with multiple clients?
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Robert La Ferla <robertlaferla@...> wrote: > What file server works best for Leopard clients? Openfiler? NASLite? > FreeNAS? Which protocol: NFS or SAMBA? Any locking issues with multiple > clients? AFAICT NFS and SAMBA are both very much supported by Mac OS X, what's the desired OS for the file server? -- -- Best Regards, John Musbach
On Aug 17, 2008, at 10:39 PM, John Musbach wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Robert La Ferla > <robertlaferla@...> wrote: >> What file server works best for Leopard clients? Openfiler? >> NASLite? >> FreeNAS? Which protocol: NFS or SAMBA? Any locking issues with >> multiple >> clients? > > AFAICT NFS and SAMBA are both very much supported by Mac OS X, what's > the desired OS for the file server? Linux file server. Anyone here use Openfiler, NASLite or FreeNAS? OpenFiler http://www.openfiler.com NASLite http://www.serverelements.com/naslite-2-usb.php FreeNAS http://www.freenas.org
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Robert La Ferla <robertlaferla@...> wrote: > Linux file server. Anyone here use Openfiler, NASLite or FreeNAS? Sorry never heard of any of those products, however since you are planning to share files via a Linux file server I recommend looking into netatalk (http://netatalk.sourceforge.net/) and SAMBA as a alternative if you don't find netatalk suitable (although netatalk would probably be the best bet). -- -- Best Regards, John Musbach
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:24 AM, John Musbach <johnmusbach1@...> wrote: > Sorry never heard of any of those products, however since you are > planning to share files via a Linux file server I recommend looking > into netatalk (http://netatalk.sourceforge.net/) and SAMBA as a > alternative if you don't find netatalk suitable (although netatalk > would probably be the best bet). I have to respectfully disagree. I've used both Samba and Netatalk and found that Samba is the most stable solution. I was just checking to see if there had been updates since my last trial of netatalk and ... no. The last update was 2005. 3 years is a long time in networking. If you need fine granularity in your ACLs, you're best off not using Samba, but if you're after something fairly straight-forward and easy to implement, Samba is good enough. -- -- Jared Earle :: There is no SPORK jearle@... :: http://jearle.eu Hosting :: http://cat5.org Blog :: http://blog.23x.net
At 9:14 AM +0100 19/8/08, Jared Earle wrote: >On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:24 AM, John Musbach <johnmusbach1@...> wrote: >> Sorry never heard of any of those products, however since you are >> planning to share files via a Linux file server I recommend looking >> into netatalk (http://netatalk.sourceforge.net/) and SAMBA as a >> alternative if you don't find netatalk suitable (although netatalk >> would probably be the best bet). > >I have to respectfully disagree. I've used both Samba and Netatalk and >found that Samba is the most stable solution. > >I was just checking to see if there had been updates since my last >trial of netatalk and ... no. The last update was 2005. 3 years is a >long time in networking. > >If you need fine granularity in your ACLs, you're best off not using >Samba, but if you're after something fairly straight-forward and easy >to implement, Samba is good enough. Netatalk is useful if you have old macs hanging around, and in a few other circumstances. And you can get it working OK if you have to. However, it is a pain to deal with under Leopard. First, you need to compile it from source. There is some sort of retarded legal dispute between openssh and debian that means you can't have netatalk debian distributed with proper encryption compiled into the distribution, and even if you felt like going all insecure and sending passwords in the clear, Leopard won't let you.(Continue reading)
Hi Robert (et al.), Good question. On 18/08/2008, at 9:20 AM, Robert La Ferla wrote: > What file server works best for Leopard clients? MacOSX Server or Time Capsule using AFP? I'd be wary of anything else preserving all the metadata (and even somewhat wary of AFP but I don't know enough to check). Now if you meant which NAS would be best I would say Time Capsule using AFP ... I'm sure NFS and SAMBA work well but it all depends on how you define best. Cheers, Ashley. -- Ashley Aitken Perth, Western Australia mrhatken at mac dot com Skype Name: MrHatken (GMT + 8 Hours!)
Quoting Robert La Ferla <robertlaferla@...>: > What file server works best for Leopard clients? Openfiler? NASLite? > FreeNAS? Which protocol: NFS or SAMBA? Any locking issues with > multiple clients? A Mac running Leopard makes a very nice one. You can run Leopard Server to get fine grained ACL permissions but that's another $500. On Leopard Client get a copy of . . .drat, can't remember the name of it but it lets you enable full ACLs on a volume, set default permissions for files created in a share and generally gives you the file sharing power of Leopard server (at least for medium numbers of clients). This also works just fine with Tiger on the server . . . so if you've got an old G3 or G4 Mac laying around it will do the trick nicely. -- -- There are only three kinds of stress . . .your basic nuclear stress, cooking stress, and A$$ho1e stress. The key to relating them is . . . Jello. neil
On 18 Aug 2008, at 02:20, Robert La Ferla wrote: > What file server works best for Leopard clients? Openfiler? > NASLite? FreeNAS? Which protocol: NFS or SAMBA? Any locking > issues with multiple clients? I've personally never run any SAMBA servers because the protocol was designed for Windows file-systems, and so doesn't support things like permissions, file owners, etc that are part of any UNIX file-system. I suppose that could be an advantage if your setup is simple, but I've also never managed to get the whole workgroup / domain thing that comes with windows sharing working flawlessly. I think it's a bit broken. I have good experiences with NFS served from Linux boxes, but I've also had flakey NFS servers cause Mac OS X to hang. Resource forks become hidden files starting with '._'. I've not needed to store more metadata than that (i.e. extended attributes). AFP servers tend to work best, with Mac OS being the best of those. Linux serving AFP is pretty good, but the directory on the Linux side is full of weird stuff, but if you're accessing it only from Macs then it's not a problem. Paul
RSS Feed