Auggie Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I debated whether I should start a new topic or add to a dead thread, "Any reason I should not connect to Unraid via SMB on Mac?" http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=26844.0, as the gist of what I'm conveying really applies to that question. I decided on creating a new topic under the AFP forum since the other thread was within the General Forum. I believe under 10.9, SMB should be preferred over AFP because, unlike mrow's opinion: You won't cause problems using SMB on a Mac but using AFP will get you substantially better performance and if you want to use your unraid server as a Time Machine destination you need to use AFP anyway. The only time I access my server via SMB on my Macs is if I want to access a share set as hidden. AFP can't do this. ...my AFP performance is vastly inferior to SMB (specifically, SMB2 since that's what OS 10.9 appears to be using now). For example, I transferred a meager 100MB file to v5.0.4 UnRAID box via AFP and it took almost an hour to one of the user shares, whereas, I regularly had transferred 40GB+ (that's with a BIG "G") via SMB to the same machine when it was setup as a Media Server and those typically took ~45 minutes. There are other performance issues, such as creating new folders via AFP when there several hundred files/folders within the target folder on the UnRAID server but having to wait up to several minutes for the Finder to "refresh" showing the new "untitled" folder so that I could then rename it, and then waiting yet more time for the new name to actually take hold. I setup this separate UnRAID box specifically for automated Time Machine backups. I haven't yet reached the minimum number of drives to backup all the drives on my Macs, but now I'm worried about AFP performance and the time it will take to initially backup 15GB of data. Quote Link to comment
DaleWilliams Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 My experience is that BEFORE Mavericks and BEFORE unRAID 5.0.3, AFP was better/faster. But there were still all sorts of odd things happening and TM was very finicky. NOW, with Mavericks and unRAID 5.0.3,4,5 the ONLY thing I use AFP is Timemachine, and the changes in 5.0.3 have made the 'finicky' stuff nearly gone. My unRAID runs 24x7 as does my Mac (with sleep enabled.) Maybe once a month, I need to manually reconnect to the unRAID share that has TM...and usually its coincident with some sort of weird network activity of my own making. In short: SMB2 is great with OS X and unRAID 5.0.3+. AFP is only needed because TM still needs it...and its very stable. Quote Link to comment
Auggie Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 Yes, it all happened certainly with Mavericks. I am now booted into 10.8.5 Mountain Lion and although waiting for the folder directory to be loaded is a test of patience, AFP file operations are typically "normal;" that is, performance is as should be expected on network shares. This is with UnRAID 5.0.5. There are other finicky network file transfers even through SMB on Mavericks that frustratingly end in errors ("error -51" to be exact) but booting back into Mountain Lion I am able to successfully complete with no problems (which is currently why I'm booted in Mountain Lion to transfer a stubborn 35GB folder to a specific UnRAID disk that kept failing under Mavericks). I've been reporting these bugs constantly to Apple, but after several Maverick updates, they still haven't been addressed. If history is a guide, at this point in time, it doesn't seem they will ever be addressed until maybe the next major release (i.e. 10.10)... Quote Link to comment
clowrym Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I find this very interesting, I typically see Marginally better write & double read speeds via AFP w/ Maverick & unraid 5+ vs SMB. Just upgraded to 6.03b but havent had a chance to do any network speed tests, although in the few copies I have done (approx 4-5gb) it seems a little faster.... with that being said, I have no choice but to use SMB for Large transfers 100GB+ as AFP seems to error out around 75~80GB. My last Large transfer ~580GB said it would take 6.5Hr's w/ AFP, but ended coming in at 10Hr's w/ SMB on Maverick & Unraid 5.04 Quote Link to comment
Auggie Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 Just upgraded to 6.03b but havent had a chance to do any network speed tests, although in the few copies I have done (approx 4-5gb) it seems a little faster.... Off topic, have you had any deal-breaking issues since upgrading to 6.0 beta? Quote Link to comment
clowrym Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 everything has been working perfectly so far, Haven't tried out xen or any visualizations, Mainly use unraid for Media file storage & media streaming via plex. I did create my own 64bit plex pkg for the latest plexpass release, although I had no issues with the 0.9.8 version that was posted in the forums. I have 2 servers, one 24bay for my main & one 10bay as a server to play around with, so I may set up ironicbadger's Arch vm package and give it a go... Virtualization is very new to me, so I don't want to test this on my production server!! Quote Link to comment
mrow Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 What I wrote there was pre-Mavericks. Post-Mavericks the situation is different. Now-a-days I don't use AFP for anything since I don't use Time Machine. I haven't disabled it either though. Quote Link to comment
Auggie Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 What I wrote there was pre-Mavericks. Post-Mavericks the situation is different. Now-a-days I don't use AFP for anything since I don't use Time Machine. I haven't disabled it either though. I understand mrow, and I didn't mean to imply that your recommendation wasn't sound at all, but that it was not applicable to Mavericks from my experience; indeed, a further post I made indicated I had to boot into Mountain Lion and experienced no perceived issue with AFP. I wanted to provide a word of caution to anyone who may have come across that thread or this thread that there are severe performance issues with AFP under Mavericks since there previously hadn't been any reports of such issues. Quote Link to comment
speeding_ant Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 As I link all my music into iTunes from a share, I found SMB does not work very well. Apple haven't really optimised a lot of their applications for SMB yet. For that reason alone, I'm still sticking to AFP. Once these issues have been resolved, I'll be moving straight to SMB. Quote Link to comment
clowrym Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 I'm not sure if it was the latest OSX update or not, but something has severely screwed up my smb transfers to the point where i can't typically do more then 3-4gb file size max... Quote Link to comment
dgaschk Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 I'm not sure if it was the latest OSX update or not, but something has severely screwed up my smb transfers to the point where i can't typically do more then 3-4gb file size max... This is a known issue: https://discussions.apple.com/message/24563776#24563776 https://discussions.apple.com/message/23789259#23789259 Quote Link to comment
cbr600ds2 Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Sorry to piggy back over this thread but has anyone found a better way to write files to their server instead of cifs? I still get a lot of in use errors and the like. Quote Link to comment
DaleWilliams Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 I use Mavericks. And unRAID 5.0.5. I use AFP only for Time Machine. All other networking is SMB....and not CIFS. (I did use CIFS when Mavericks was first released...and with an early version of unRAID (5.0.1?),but not any longer) Other than an occasional issue (see dgaschk's comment above) SMB is faultless for me. TimeMachine in particular is now a blessing and not a curse. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.