I would like to vote for incuding support for AFP (Apple File Protocol) into the unRAID kernel. It is just as easily as including the module and then downloading the afp package from the slackware distribution. Everyone running a Mac will be thankful, and then all the other NAS boxes out there support AFP and configuring it is just a matter of clicking a button!

 

+1

That horse has taken it's beating all over the forums.  It is definitely a known item for you 15% running apple hardware.

 

It is something Tom wants to get working smoothly but not at the expense of SMB.

I thought it was as simple as including the hooks in the compiled kernel in order to be able to installpkg the AFP package?! Thanks!

From reading the forums, I've gotten the impression that it's a little bit more complex - primarily trying to merge the management aspects of users and shares.

 

But I'm personally up for any protocol that works!  (as long as it doesn't break others)

 

Rob

I would integrate it in two steps, as in the big OS'es and software projects out there. Just compile in the hooks so that advanced users may install whatever else is needed and play with the betas and then make the UI stuff for all the others based on feedback and so.

(I'm speaking for myself here.  Tom can speak for himself.)

 

I think from reading the forums that Tom is still trying to keep unraid an appliance type situation.  Supporting 40 protocols all with their own configuration pages would not be in the interest of an appliance.  From his posts, I got the impression that he'd like one set of users, one set of shares, one set of permissions for all supported protocols.  SMB's needs - especially as currently implemented - don't line up as well with AFP and NFS as we all hoped.  I was also under the impression that in 5.0 he was going to try to address that.

 

I know nothing but what's on the forums.  I'm a customer.  But Tom's got the plan in his head.

 

Rob

Yes, but SMB is too limited and it can't do more than 25-27 MB/s... This is why people are asking about NFS, AFP, etc. SMB isn't able to reconnect...

On your box.  Some of us get 35-60 on SMB.  YMMV.

This is why people are asking about NFS, AFP, etc. SMB isn't able to reconnect...

 

As already pointed out, others are getting significantly higher throughput using SMB. As I see it, if they absolutely need other protocols before Limetech can include them, they're always able to compile their own kernel or install under a full Slackware (12.2, 13.0, Current) with their own modified kernel. Nothing is preventing this.

I don't see how a protocol such as AFP takes away from the appliance like nature of Unraid. AFP isn't just some protocol either, nor do I see how implementing AFP for user shares would impact SMB (which seems to work ok). Getting AFP to play nicely with user shares is probably an area that needs development time.

 

SMB works fine for me in my all Mac environment, but it is not as seamless as AFP would be.

Yes, but SMB is too limited and it can't do more than 25-27 MB/s... This is why people are asking about NFS, AFP, etc. SMB isn't able to reconnect...

 

Not all people, I know of a few who do this for the seamless unix permission control among a network of machines.

Using NFS and automount helps provide a seamless tree.

I had allot of difficulty with automount, smb/smbmount and permissions.

On your box. Some of us get 35-60 on SMB. YMMV.

 

And I get 95MB/s from AFP and NFS, full GigE saturation, so, it is pretty obvious why I absolutely don't want to be bothered with either SMB (nor Win*).

This is why people are asking about NFS, AFP, etc. SMB isn't able to reconnect...

 

As already pointed out, others are getting significantly higher throughput using SMB. As I see it, if they absolutely need other protocols before Limetech can include them, they're always able to compile their own kernel or install under a full Slackware (12.2, 13.0, Current) with their own modified kernel. Nothing is preventing this.

 

Even if some are getting 35 and 40MB/s out of SMB, this is just a joke for GigE. But, thanks! I guess I didn't knew that unRAID maybe instaleld under full Slackware?! Can you post any pointers? I think I would consider doing this or recompiling the kernel (already found some links for doing so).

from past experience I wouldn't expect AFP to be much faster than SMB on the same platform.

from past experience I wouldn't expect AFP to be much faster than SMB on the same platform.

 

Diffulct to be said probably without trying it out. I was using SuSE on a box and it had significantly better AFP performance than SBM.

SMB works fine for me in my all Mac environment, but it is not as seamless as AFP would be.

 

Exactly this is the point and one of the reasons I do NFS instead of SMB, however I would prefer to use AFP with my Macs.

SMB works fine for me in my all Mac environment, but it is not as seamless as AFP would be.

 

Exactly this is the point and one of the reasons I do NFS instead of SMB, however I would prefer to use AFP with my Macs.

If you mean by seamless that it shows up nicely in your Finder sidebar, you can just use Avahi (Zeroconf) for that. If you read my tutorials on how to install and enable this, Samba works very well in (Snow) Leopard. It's just limited in speed by the old Samba client on OSX. That's why I bothered to install Netatalk (AFP), just to improve speeds.

 

Using AFP in the current configuration, however, doesn't make it more seamless... AT ALL! There are some serious permission issues that are caused by the way Samba/unRAID is setup. Sometimes, I have to telnet to my unRAID box and fix permissions to be able to move/delete files. The upside is that I get about 60 MB/s on reading, instead of the 30-35 MB/s I got when using Samba.

 

If Tom finds a way to fix or circumvent these issues, AFP will be a nice extra to have. Until then, I'll stick with Samba for file management and will only use AFP when copying large files to my computer.

Do user shares show up in the Finder sidebar with Avahi, or just the disks themselves?

 

Do user shares show up in the Finder sidebar with Avahi, or just the disks themselves?

 

 

Everything.

Good morning,

 

I went away from any Windows machine a while ago and I´m quite happy with that (...and with me some more people...)

 

Since that time I also thought about a backup and data security solution. So I was looking for a NAS to cover basically 2 items:

 

• Consolidate Time Machine backup for 3 Mac
  
• Save media data (UPnP)
  

 

I like the flexibility of unRAID a lot and was watching the all the beginners videos. I also was setting up my USB memory stick and tried to implement a couple of things (my Netbook was playing the unRIAD server role) while waiting for my NAS hardware e.g. Avahi, Mediatomb etc.

 

With the help of all the great people here in the forum all installations went perfectly fine - so thanks for that. I do believe that as soon as the hardware will arrive I just boot from my memory stick I prepared without any hassle.

 

However the AFP is important to my understanding for us Mac OSX users (speed is not my most important item). I´m a noob and my understanding is that you can instal AFP via Netatalk (how on unRAID??) and you can just backup - the restore is the issue - correct?

 

So because point #1 - the Time Machine backup - is REALLY important to me I´m just asking myself if unRAID is the right solution for my environment or if it would be better to implement FreeNAS instead....

 

Cheers

Oliver

I can assure you that unRaid is probably better for you as FreeNAS in one or more ways, especially if you are prepared to learn something new. Keep in mind that all NASes run more or less the same free software, they just have more or less packages installed. If you want an off the shelf product with best software, then get a Qnap, like the 509 which even has excellent performance. If you want to build something, than probably unRaid is the best way to go.

 

Having said that it is a nobrainer to mount the AFP share containing the Backup on all of the NASes (and perform the Restore on your Mac), also on unRaid, even if they are not "TimeCapsule" compatible. You just boot from CD, start Terminal, mount the share, sent and event to finder and "Restore from TimeMachine" becomes instantly an option in the menus. Apple is just an unix box and a lot is possible.

+1

 

One vote for AFP. I looked at quite a few alternatives and may not have gone with unRAID had I not seen the "how-to" by dlmh on adding AFP support.

from past experience I wouldn't expect AFP to be much faster than SMB on the same platform.

 

I was under the impression that the version of samba that ships with OSX was pretty damn old, hence the performance decrease we see compared to others, and hence the desire for AFP. Personally the speed isn't an issue, as mostly I just stream....

+1

Add me to the vote for AFP

+1