February 12, 201412 yr I’m cool with NFS v4, but PLEASE don’t remove AFP yet! I know it sucks, but TimeMachine was one of the reasons I got UnRAID. I promise I’ll update to OS X 10.10 when it comes out which will hopefully release TimeMachine from AFP.
February 12, 201412 yr I have yet to be able to connect to an Nfs share from Maverick....but likely its something I am doing wrong..... I do prefer AFP currently, but only because I typically get double read speeds with AFP vs SMB.. once i figure out what i'm doing wrong with nfs.... I might change my tune though!! Bascially I only use AFP for file transfers, so if it disappears, i would be a little disappointed..... but not enough to really com pain about it!!
February 12, 201412 yr I am good with NFS v4 and dropping AFP.. The option for Time Machine is nice, but I find a local USB 3.0 external disk is much faster than a network backup... I have yet to be able to connect to an Nfs share from Maverick....but likely its something I am doing wrong..... I do prefer AFP currently, but only because I typically get double read speeds with AFP vs SMB.. once i figure out what i'm doing wrong with nfs.... I might change my tune though!! Bascially I only use AFP for file transfers, so if it disappears, i would be a little disappointed..... but not enough to really com pain about it!! What issue are you having with NFS on Maverick? I am using it and find it is the fastest out of the 3 protocols on OSX that I have tested.
February 12, 201412 yr I am good with NFS v4 and dropping AFP.. The option for Time Machine is nice, but I find a local USB 3.0 external disk is much faster than a network backup... What issue are you having with NFS on Maverick? I am using it and find it is the fastest out of the 3 protocols on OSX that I have tested. I did actually figure out how to mount it tonight.. but they only seem to mount read only, even though i have my security set to public..
February 12, 201412 yr I am good with NFS v4 and dropping AFP.. The option for Time Machine is nice, but I find a local USB 3.0 external disk is much faster than a network backup... What issue are you having with NFS on Maverick? I am using it and find it is the fastest out of the 3 protocols on OSX that I have tested. I did actually figure out how to mount it tonight.. but they only seem to mount read only, even though i have my security set to public.. Tom posted in the beta 3 forum, you have to make it Private and the following to the Rule: *(sec=sys,rw,insecure,anongid=100,anonuid=99,all_squash) And that should make it writable..
February 12, 201412 yr I am good with NFS v4 and dropping AFP.. The option for Time Machine is nice, but I find a local USB 3.0 external disk is much faster than a network backup... What issue are you having with NFS on Maverick? I am using it and find it is the fastest out of the 3 protocols on OSX that I have tested. I did actually figure out how to mount it tonight.. but they only seem to mount read only, even though i have my security set to public.. This is a known bug work around is share security: Private paste the following in the box: *(sec=sys,rw,insecure,anongid=100,anonuid=99,all_squash)
February 12, 201412 yr A vote here for moving to NFS v4. Please don't remove AFP support though, I'm another Time Machine user. I'm assuming it would only be dropped in v6 (remain in v5) so the recommendation would be to run a VM with AFP support, but personally I'd still prefer it native in unRAID until Apple moves to something newer.
February 12, 201412 yr A vote here for moving to NFS v4. Please don't remove AFP support though, I'm another Time Machine user. I'm assuming it would only be dropped in v6 (remain in v5) so the recommendation would be to run a VM with AFP support, but personally I'd still prefer it native in unRAID until Apple moves to something newer. +1 in all respects. I, too, am a TM user. I have multiple Macs backing up to unRAID and I'd hate to go back to individual USB drives for them. Apple is clearly working to drop AFP, its just a matter of time. Unlike the NFS v4/3 debate, where you can't effectively have 'either' you must choose one, the issue with AFP seems simpler, you either have it or not. The current implementation of AFP in unRAID has been extremely stable for me since 5.0.3. I'd like to see AFP in unRAID v6 at least until Apple finally kills it off.
February 12, 201412 yr Please drop AFP and NFSv3, they create so many problems it is just unbelievable!
February 12, 201412 yr Agree that keeping AFP is necessary until Apple makes Time Machine work with SMB. Time Machine support is pretty much a must have feature of any modern NAS.
February 12, 201412 yr I dont get it where did Limetech say AFP was being proposed to be dropped? Is this a case of Chinese whispers?
February 12, 201412 yr In a separate post I'm going to float the idea of eliminating AFP support entirely. This is why people are speaking up in regards to AFP. I have AFP dependencies with unRAID. Tom, I have waited patiently for the upgrade to AFP 3.x in unRAID (right now 3.1.0 or 3.0.7) that you promised you would take that up in v6 of unRAID. You were left alone to fix other things and now started up v6 betas, so please add it already, its been way too long waiting on this. With time you probably will not need to upgrade/maintain it past 3.0.7/3.1.0 and drop it altogether in another version of unRAID, but some of us have been waiting and waiting and now to hear talks about eliminating entirely without ever delivering is not cool. P.S. there's no disagreement that its crap, but the peace of sh^t of a protocol is needed (upgraded) for now.
February 12, 201412 yr OK thanks for that I missed it completely. Lets leave it until that separate post turns up then. I dont care about AFP and i am sure lots of NFS people like me have no interest in reading about AFP in the NFSv4 thread
February 12, 201412 yr I'm also in the boat of "once apple drops AFP for time machine, please get rid of AFP"
February 12, 201412 yr I'm also in the boat of "once apple drops AFP for time machine, please get rid of AFP" Me too. 2 Macs backed up to unRAID over here with TM.
February 13, 201412 yr As far as I know, Vmware ESXi still does not support NFSv4. Since I'm running Unraid as a VM and using a few shares as datastore (for my ISOs and backup), I would like to have the option to choose between NFSv3 and NFSv4
February 13, 201412 yr Author As far as I know, Vmware ESXi still does not support NFSv4. Interesting.
February 13, 201412 yr As far as I know, Vmware ESXi still does not support NFSv4. Since I'm running Unraid as a VM and using a few shares as datastore (for my ISOs and backup), I would like to have the option to choose between NFSv3 and NFSv4 I immediately thought to myself this is nonsense but hard as it is to believe you seem to be right. I am less concerned about ESX as with the improvements NFSv4 brings ESX will eventually support it. And really unRAID is not the right product for a ESX datastore. But its definately the first reply to this thread that made me doubt the merits of dropping v3
February 13, 201412 yr Maybe the ESXi issue makes a stronger case for v6 going forward with NFS v4, and leaving v5 in the dark ages for those that want to use it that way?
February 13, 201412 yr Maybe the ESXi issue makes a stronger case for v6 going forward with NFS v4, and leaving v5 in the dark ages for those that want to use it that way? I would agree with this.
February 14, 201412 yr For ESXi sharing I have a FreeNAS VM, works great and is fast! It has its own passthru controller card and keeps me from worrying that I'll screw up my media storage somehow. Cheap media players? They will ALL work fine with Samba, it's what I've used on my unRAID since day one for XBMC and I have zero issues. Time machine however is a biggie, it's one of the big reasons I setup an unRAID server for a friend as a Christmas gift - not yet being used for TM but will be. Keeping them on old software won't hurt but there's demand for TM whether AFP is desired or not. NFSv4 sounds fine to me but don't be surprised if right after v3 is dropped we discover things that break (shrug). Worth a shot I think! Heck, I might even try using NFS for a change :-P Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
February 16, 201412 yr A vote here for moving to NFS v4. Please don't remove AFP support though, I'm another Time Machine user. I'm assuming it would only be dropped in v6 (remain in v5) so the recommendation would be to run a VM with AFP support, but personally I'd still prefer it native in unRAID until Apple moves to something newer. +1 in all respects. I, too, am a TM user. I have multiple Macs backing up to unRAID and I'd hate to go back to individual USB drives for them. Apple is clearly working to drop AFP, its just a matter of time. Unlike the NFS v4/3 debate, where you can't effectively have 'either' you must choose one, the issue with AFP seems simpler, you either have it or not. The current implementation of AFP in unRAID has been extremely stable for me since 5.0.3. I'd like to see AFP in unRAID v6 at least until Apple finally kills it off. +1 From Me too as AFP is now only use for timemachine network backups it will only be a matter of time before they move over to SMB2 which hopefully will be more compatible and stable with problems like network stability, connectivity and the like. So in essence Yes prepare to remove AFP but just not yet or possibly make it only available as a time machine option. One thing I have been doing via a modified config is to push all the .AppleDB cache files to the cache drive. This effectively then does not pollute every folder that the afp share has available and seems to be generally faster for large file access. YMMV Regards Loophole
February 17, 201412 yr In a separate post I'm going to float the idea of eliminating AFP support entirely. This is because netatalk solves this problem by maintaining a frigging database to perform the "persistent number" to file mapping, and this set up is very fragile. The time has come to abandon obsolete technology and that includes obsolete protocols. Do you think Apple wants to drop AFP? No, they recognize it's severe limitations as well. MY 2 cents. Dropping AFP would kill my use of unRaid. Some Apps I and others use everyday just won't work or work correctly with SMB... And not everyone is willing to upgrade to the latest OSX since doing so could cost thousands in software upgrades and it takes Apple and Developers too long to get Apps working the way they should.
February 18, 201412 yr In a separate post I'm going to float the idea of eliminating AFP support entirely. This is because netatalk solves this problem by maintaining a frigging database to perform the "persistent number" to file mapping, and this set up is very fragile. The time has come to abandon obsolete technology and that includes obsolete protocols. Do you think Apple wants to drop AFP? No, they recognize it's severe limitations as well. MY 2 cents. Dropping AFP would kill my use of unRaid. Some Apps I and others use everyday just won't work or work correctly with SMB... And not everyone is willing to upgrade to the latest OSX since doing so could cost thousands in software upgrades and it takes Apple and Developers too long to get Apps working the way they should. What software are you using that won't run under 10.9?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.