[ghostwolf]

Anyone using the NAS for the file sharing across the WinXP and Mac Platform? It is because I want to get one in my home for several computers (including WinXP & Mac). Do anyone use the Buffalo LinkStation Pro "http://www.buffalotech.com/products/product-detail.php?productid=152&categoryid=34#"? Is it good for Mac in using samba? Or any limitation on the file size while transferring?? Thanks in millions.

[RevEvs]

If you want to use it for the Mac and PCs then you will probably have to format it as FAT32 - the catch there is you cant use files over 4GB.

Yu could however format it as HFS for the Mac, and have MacDrive running on the PCs.

[hinxworth]

I've just bought a NAS device - HD160LAN1 from Broadband Buyer (it's manufactured by Buffalo). I have a PC and a MAC on a wireless network. So far the PC end is working fine (storage, backup, network printer).
The MAC side is not so good so far. I can back up files using Silverkeeper software from the MAC. Other than this I'm struggling to get other than read-only access to the product and I can't print to the network printer from my MAC.
Broadband Buyer say that the product is compatible with PC, MAC and Linux - but Buffalo Support say that they don't have the expertise to support MAC and Broadband Buyer shouldn't be advertising MAC support.

Can anyone help with this please

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by RevEvs

If you want to use it for the Mac and PCs then you will probably have to format it as FAT32 - the catch there is you cant use files over 4GB.

Yu could however format it as HFS for the Mac, and have MacDrive running on the PCs.

No you don't.
Most NAS use either ext3 or reiserFS -- both common Linux file systems. NAS use networking protocols such as smb (Windows), nfs (unix) or sometimes even afp (Apple). OS X is fluent in all three of them.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No you don't.
Most NAS use either ext3 or reiserFS -- both common Linux file systems. NAS use networking protocols such as smb (Windows), nfs (unix) or sometimes even afp (Apple). OS X is fluent in all three of them.

Most but not all-my CoolMax CN-550 natively supports only FAT32 (that's the format IT uses to prep the drive, and there doesn't seem to be any option for using a pre-formatted drive).

This would be a Great Thing® for everyone, I think. I'll have to look into whether my CoolMax NAS can be "convinced" to use a different format.

By the way, ghostwolf, it's "network ATTACHED storage."

[OreoCookie]

Thanks, ghporter.
Up until now, I thought all of them used one of the usual Linux filesystems. AFAIK Buffalo's Terastation uses XFS and I have read that ReiserFS is quite popular (e. g. SimpleTec's SimpleShare uses it), too.

In any case, the filesystem does not matter as long as you don't connect the NAS via USB -- then it's just an external harddrive.

[griesgrube]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No you don't.
Most NAS use either ext3 or reiserFS -- both common Linux file systems. NAS use networking protocols such as smb (Windows), nfs (unix) or sometimes even afp (Apple). OS X is fluent in all three of them.

Thanks for the hints above. One more question: can the MAC and the Windows PC both share the same file on a NAS? Is the structure of the file itself different on the Windows system than on the MAC? How can I learn more about MAC and windows compatibility with various NAS OSs?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by griesgrube

Thanks for the hints above. One more question: can the MAC and the Windows PC both share the same file on a NAS? Is the structure of the file itself different on the Windows system than on the MAC? How can I learn more about MAC and windows compatibility with various NAS OSs?

MacOS X uses the same software for Windows networking as NAS. (By the way, it's Mac, not MAC.)
You can share the same files, if you want.

[ghporter]

You probably cannot actively manipulate the same file at the same time from two different network computers, whatever their platform. This would be Bad, because a change made by one computer could cause data loss for the other computer. You can share, but you must take turns, too.

[kevina]

Originally Posted by hinxworth

I've just bought a NAS device - HD160LAN1 from Broadband Buyer (it's manufactured by Buffalo). I have a PC and a MAC on a wireless network. So far the PC end is working fine (storage, backup, network printer).
The MAC side is not so good so far. I can back up files using Silverkeeper software from the MAC. Other than this I'm struggling to get other than read-only access to the product and I can't print to the network printer from my MAC.
Broadband Buyer say that the product is compatible with PC, MAC and Linux - but Buffalo Support say that they don't have the expertise to support MAC and Broadband Buyer shouldn't be advertising MAC support.

Can anyone help with this please

Do not buy a Buffalo device. they claim to support Mac protocol but they don't. I made the mistake and bought one after they claimed o support mac. Until it had it's first problem and they then claimed they do not support mac since it's a PC based NAS. If you do buy one, everything must be ran and updated using a PC, it will not work on Mac. Also the AFP protocol they use is much older version and it is not compatible with Mac OSX. Beware, Beware, Beware.

If you need a NAS break down and get an Xserve it's the best of all world and it may cost a little more but the headaches are less and so is the down time. If ou have anything that needs to be used as crossplatform use an Xserve.

[ghporter]

kevina, welcome to the MacNN Forums! What kind of problem are you having with the Buffalo device? I don't see anything in their documentation that would indicate anything other than compatibility. I also don't see why you'd NEED to use AFP when SMB is built in to OS X and works fantastically.

As for breaking down and getting an Xserve, I'm running a mixed PC and Mac network using a Coolmax CN-550 with a 300GB drive in it. No problems at all-and almost zero admin required, too.

[kevina]

Originally Posted by ghporter

kevina, welcome to the MacNN Forums! What kind of problem are you having with the Buffalo device? I don't see anything in their documentation that would indicate anything other than compatibility. I also don't see why you'd NEED to use AFP when SMB is built in to OS X and works fantastically.

As for breaking down and getting an Xserve, I'm running a mixed PC and Mac network using a Coolmax CN-550 with a 300GB drive in it. No problems at all-and almost zero admin required, too.

The problem I am having was I was connecting to the Buffalo by afp because the smb would configure my mac files that did not have extension into a Unix exe file. I woulf then have to go into the file and put the extension in manually. The afp allowed me to read the files without doing this. However, when I called buffallo for support because the firm wear erased the afp protocol they informed me they do not support a Mac environment and I was lucky to have it work with Mac's.

[ghporter]

That's just goofy. AFP should work fine as long as they support all the standards they seem to claim to. I can't say whether my Coolmax box supports AFP because I've never tried to mess with it, and I haven't put any files without extensions on it anyway. Sorry you're having such problems.

[kevina]

Originally Posted by ghporter

That's just goofy. AFP should work fine as long as they support all the standards they seem to claim to. I can't say whether my Coolmax box supports AFP because I've never tried to mess with it, and I haven't put any files without extensions on it anyway. Sorry you're having such problems.

That is correct and true about sounding goofy. I did research about buffalo before I bought the drive. Everything pointed to them supporting Mac. I even called buffalo and asked. After I got the drive it worked fine in afp and smb but they updated the firmwear and thats when all the problems hit. I finished up support call this Friday with them saying that I was lucky to have it work on the Mac platform. The support person also told me that the current firmwear was not going to be compatiable with Mac based protocol, only smb. However, as I said the buffallo drive will convert you files that do not have extensions (like quark 7 and freehand) to unix exe file. that this is an issue they knew about and would not address since they do not support Mac's

[Tastannin]

If you don't have a need for RAID in your NAS, need lower power consumption of a NAS, or need a dedicated standalone (usually Linux) server built into your NAS, why not get a external FW400 (or FW800 if your Mac has it), hook it up to the Mac, share the drive over the network? You'll get pretty much the same speeds over your network, and yet on the Mac the drive is connected to, you'll be able to take advantage of the FW speeds.

I already have a FW400 external drive with hotswap trays, and it works just great for sharing files, and backing up. You can even do the same thing with some of the FW (and SATA) RAID boxes out there too.

Here is a comparision of speeds you'll see from various connections/interfaces (thanks to Wikipedia):

All of these numbers are theoretical maximums, and the real-world performance will be less than these numbers due to protocol overheads and other issues. There are some interfaces more optimized than others and will have higher throughputs.

Anyways, back to my point here, the fastest external drive you can get is eSATA. Next is FW800. Gigabit Ethernet NAS performance doesn't even come close to FireWire 400 for a variety of reasons - the main consensus being that the CPU's used in the NAS and cheapo (sub-$100) Gigabit Switches aren't up to par. One benchmark showed 12 MB/sec over Gigabit Ethernet. Some links discussing this issue are found at The Inquirer, Tom's Hardware Forumz, and the TextDrive Community Forum.

There will be those who want RAID or the capabilities of a standalone server, or lower energy consumption, that will fit the parameters of a NAS, but for me, with a Mac Mini that's already on 24/7, it can do everything a NAS can do (and more), and I can use the FW speeds of the external drive when I'm working on the Mini itself.

The external drives are much cheaper than a NAS unit (unless you have a old PC lying around lol). You can get a loaded FW RAID for the price of a barebones NAS RAID these days. Same goes for a single hot-swap FW drive, they're cheaper than a single drive NAS. IMHO, they're much more cost effective.

I do think there's a good use for a NAS - secure backup. You could concievably stash your NAS somewhere other than your computer area, and even if you lose your entire computer to theft, you'd be assured that you have a backup. But if you use hot-swap FW or SATA trays, you could also do the same thing, stashing a drive off-site.

Hope this helps.

[wijgalt]

Here's what I've learned so far...

Buffalo Tech: the afp support is limited to filenames of only 30 characters or less on their Single Drive NAS devices and their Terastations. Why afp over smb? When you're attached to a smb share, laptops in particular will usually not go to sleep - if you force them to sleep, it freaks out the share, and you have to dismount and remount it. I'm running on a Macbook Pro and Powerbook G4 and both experience the issue with 10.4.7. A smb (cifs) mount to the buffalo tech also seems to have problems with certain characters in filenames. I tried a sync operation from my home dir to the nas share and not numerous filename errors. The Terastation .6TB had problem with properly recognizing USB drives as well. The Terastation was also discontinued. Too bad, if it delivered what it promised, it would have been great!.

I am using a Simpletech simpleshare, with a share defined with a RAID-1 Mirror setup with a external sb drive. It's slow. It hsd fs capabilities, but for some dumb reason the web gui doesn't take the checkbox for the option properly (nfs doesn't have the sleep problem either). The smb support seems to be ok, but again it's slow. It has a small processor and the mirroring to the external USB drive I think give it a real workout.

I'm at the stage now that my next move may be to buy a cheapo PC, and install Sun Solaris 10 on it, use ZFS on 3 250gb drives using Raid-Z to give me .5TB usable, and enable ssh, smb (samba), and afp on it. A number of threads are claiming that, "At work, we have a Sun box with a afp share that works great". Since I'm a unix guy anyway, this may be the way I'll go. It'll still suck though since I'll have yet another OS to mess with. As long as my wife's pictures and itunes are backuped though....

[cdovi]

This seems like a forum for experts but I will ask my question anyways. I had a PC (dell) and then just bought an iMac. I also own the Buffalo Linkstation HD-H160 that I could swear said on the box it was iMac compatible. A closer look at the documentation, however, says it is not.

I have all my pictures and documents that I copied from my Dell (I want to toss it but have not yet) that I had hoped to access from my iMac. When I put the Buffalo supplied set-up disk into my iMac nothing shows up on the screen. Is there any way for me to use this Linkstation with my iMac? I thought of transferring my pictures off the Dell again but to Mozy but they don't support iMac either. Any ideas? There must be hundreds of ways to solve my issue. I just want to be able to access all the files on the Buffalo Linkstaton from my iMac.

[MickeyZ]

I am also looking into buying NAS drive for 10/100Mbs network with Macs running 10.4.7. Reading Apple discussion boards and MacNN it appears to me that the only real option that gives full file/directory name support (characters used as well as the lenght of names) and reasonable speed is LaCie Ethernet Disk Mini after formating it to EXT3 (is it the same as HFS+?) and accessing it through AFP. I looked at the following drives:
- Buffalo Linkstation drives
- Simpletech Simpleshare
- Iomega StorCenter
- Maxtor Shared Storage Plus
but from what people are saying on the net they either have problems with file name handling or are slow over the ethernet (~1-2Mb/s). Did anyone get good results with any of the drives listed above with regard to filename handling and transfer speed?

[C.J. Moof]

I'd recommend the ReadyNAS NV from Infrant:

Infrant Technologies

I've deployed one in my office with 4x750 gig X-RAID, for just under 2TB or usable space, with hardware redundancy. It's only been online for 5 weeks, but so far, so good. These guys don't treat mac compatability as an annoying afterthought.

[MickeyZ]

While browsing Internet I came across Ximeta NetDisk (XIMETA INC.). It can be formatted in HFS+ (so no problems with file names and sizes) and has 10/100 ethernet and USB2.0 connections. When used in network/ethernet mode there must be a driver installed on every computer in order to access the drive, but for a small home network this shouldn't be a problem especially that it gives a significant performance improvement over standard NAS drives. Unfortunately, currently in Mac networks only 1 computer can have write access to the drive at any one time, but guys from Ximeta are saying that they are working to fix this (there is no such limitation in Windows networks). Anyone has any experience with Ximeta drives?

By the way, they have a Gig version in the works, supposed to be available in Q1 2007.

[bloodnok]

Originally Posted by kevina 

Do not buy a Buffalo device.

this is an accurate statement. even worse, because of the stupidity of its basic file handling, the linkstation silently declined to copy files with filenames longer than about 36 characters. unfortunately, i discovered this after i had thought i'd successfully backed up my music directories.

the best for last: source was a (now recycled) linux server, not my mac, and even though the barfalo is also running linux, it still failed to copy all my files. it does get uglier connected to a mac. plus it's a gruesomely noisy piece of work.

i'll be replacing this waste of dosh with something else and using its disk as a firewire/usb device, binning the rest of the machine ...

[ex-Windows-Fanboy]

Originally Posted by cdovi 

This seems like a forum for experts but I will ask my question anyways. I had a PC (dell) and then just bought an iMac. I also own the Buffalo Linkstation HD-H160 that I could swear said on the box it was iMac compatible. A closer look at the documentation, however, says it is not.

I have all my pictures and documents that I copied from my Dell (I want to toss it but have not yet) that I had hoped to access from my iMac. When I put the Buffalo supplied set-up disk into my iMac nothing shows up on the screen. Is there any way for me to use this Linkstation with my iMac? I thought of transferring my pictures off the Dell again but to Mozy but they don't support iMac either. Any ideas? There must be hundreds of ways to solve my issue. I just want to be able to access all the files on the Buffalo Linkstaton from my iMac.

Did anyone ever find a solution to this problem? I'm in a similar predicament where I can access the Linkstation but the Mac jjust doesn't "see" some of the files. Thousands upon thousands of pictures are on there, as well as all my music. Please help me access my data so I can move it to my Mac and rid myself of the Linkstation!

[besson3c]

Why not simplify things tremendously and run rsync on the Windows machine under cygwin? We backup terrabytes of data each day over rsync, I have no complaints with this mechanism. You can use whatever hardware you want that is attached to the disks you want to store the backup, filesystem type shouldn't be an issue here.

Would this be a viable option, or am I missing something?

[ex-Windows-Fanboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why not simplify things tremendously and run rsync on the Windows machine under cygwin? We backup terrabytes of data each day over rsync, I have no complaints with this mechanism. You can use whatever hardware you want that is attached to the disks you want to store the backup, filesystem type shouldn't be an issue here.

Would this be a viable option, or am I missing something?

I have zero experience in Unix so I'm a little scared of messing up some of my files. The problem I have is that my MP can see the NAS and access all of the files as well, unless they have file names longer than 30 characters. Is there anything I can do to get the MP to "see" these files so I can transfer them over to the MP's HD? Renaming thousands of files to get them under the 30-character limit is something I obviously hope to avoid.

Will the Unix programs you discuss above transfer all the files to my MP, even the ones the MP can't see right now? Even if they transfer, won't OS X have the same trouble seeing the files on the MP's HD as it does seeing them on the NAS?

[KatmanDu]

We're using the Linksys NSLU2 and two drives in USB enclosures for file serving and backup storage in a home office setup. Certainly decreased the temp in the server closet over having a dedicated PC.

[foo2]

Another alternative is just grabbing the free (beta) of WHS - Windows Home Server - and putting it on any old PC you've got lying around (with at least a Pentium 3 and 512MB of RAM, granted - and ethernet helps too!) -- it works flawlessly with Macs and PCs, is effortless to use, and gives you lots of nice features:
1. Backs up your PCs (only so far...) with an agent every night; if the hard drive then dies on the client PCs, replace the drive, boot with a CDROM, and have all your OS + Data restored in about 20 minutes
2. Remote access via Remote Desktop (Works w/Macs too) - so you can set up a WHS site (say, yourname.whsbeta.com) and then you can 'go to' your WHS device via remote desktop from anywhere on the public internet - and grab files from your WHS, or run programs on the WHS NAS, or whatever you want. And if you select multiple files, they'll be zipped together - very convenient!
3. Handy group or user based storage, easily managed and set up.
4. The console for this application/appliance runs in Parallels, or you can manage it with the Mac's Remote Desktop program.

Works great - I LOVE it - and it's free from connect.microsoft.com (use firefox to log in..) - mine will work for six more months, then I suppose I'll buy it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ex-Windows-Fanboy 

I have zero experience in Unix so I'm a little scared of messing up some of my files. The problem I have is that my MP can see the NAS and access all of the files as well, unless they have file names longer than 30 characters. Is there anything I can do to get the MP to "see" these files so I can transfer them over to the MP's HD? Renaming thousands of files to get them under the 30-character limit is something I obviously hope to avoid.

Will the Unix programs you discuss above transfer all the files to my MP, even the ones the MP can't see right now? Even if they transfer, won't OS X have the same trouble seeing the files on the MP's HD as it does seeing them on the NAS?

rsync is not a hardware driver, it is just a protocol for syncing files between two directories, one of them optionally being on a remote machine. Rsync uses a few different mechanisms for handling network transfers, the default being SSH.

If the sender and receiving machines both have both rsync and SSH installed and, in case of the latter, running, this should work.