OS X LION with QNAP AFP

[peconi]

I upgraded to 3.4.3 and while Time Machine login dialog now passes without an issue (thanks to uams_dhx2_passwd.so being present in /usr/local/etc/netatalk/uams/), I still get an error in Lion:

It says: "The network backup disk does not support the required AFP features"...

So - logging in via AFP = fine, but Time Machine is still not supported

[bluevoice]

The cause of this problem is currently being discussed here:

http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=45644

I suggest to go on with this topic in that thread.

[peconi]

Thanks!

[thajeztah]

Hi guys,

If any of you can provide us the latest Lion BETA, please feel free to PM me. Thanks.

James

Just curious;
1) Are you a developer of QNAP? (Or working for)
2) If you are... this means that QNAP does NOT have a Apple Developer License? It's only $100 per year, how can QNAP support Mac OS X if they haven't got a developer license? Is QUAP really taking the Mac serious or should I consider buying another brand?

This might sound a bit harsh, but seriously: If QNAP says it supports Mac OS X, a basic developer-license sounds to me like the most basic needs for that

[schumaku]

This might sound a bit harsh, but seriously: If QNAP says it supports Mac OS X, a basic developer-license sounds to me like the most basic needs for that

it's so nice as useless warming-up old posts...

[celticwebs]

well lion will be before long and its still incompatible. they need to get a live on and sort things out quickly!

[ckeck]

QNAP Support,

We need an update here ASAP please. Lion is a few weeks away at most and this is a major issue with my TS-209 Pro system. Please provide some additional information - thanks.

[schumaku]

well lion will be before long and its still incompatible. they need to get a live on and sort things out quickly!

It's not uncommon you can't update some components to the lagtest and greatest operating system or application as it becomes available in an IT infastrcture because of other devices are not compartible yet.

Netatalk v2.2 is not available as a final release which will address the issues, it's still in Beta phase. The performance issue connectoing to shares is addressed:

FIX: afpd: generate mersenne primes for DHX2 UAM once at startup, not for every login

The mandatory AFP protocol support for TimeMachine on Lion is a part of thi Netatalk 2.2:

AFP 3.3 support

[mastermischke]

QNAP Support,

We need an update here ASAP please. Lion is a few weeks away at most and this is a major issue with my TS-209 Pro system. Please provide some additional information - thanks.

+1

Im running Lion and do NOT have access to my timemashine backups

[muitommy]

+1 for the support for both afp & TM in Lion.

[celticwebs]

I'm only interested in tm. I currently access my shares by smb which is fine. Not being able to backup is worrying!

[Riebesehl]

well lion will be before long and its still incompatible. they need to get a live on and sort things out quickly!

It's not uncommon you can't update some components to the lagtest and greatest operating system or application as it becomes available in an IT infastrcture because of other devices are not compartible yet. Netatalk v2.2 is not available as a final release which will address the issues, it's still in Beta phase.

Looks like there's more to it... Netatalk 2.2.0.

[pechspilz]

That's an interesting link, Riebesehl. According to that post, the Lion-compatible Netatalk version has been released almost a month ago, but since the current Netatalk maintainer made the latest release closed source (in violation with the licenses involved), QNAP can't use that version unless it decides to pay for commercial Netatalk support. Which they will have to because they're already locked in.

[schumaku]

It's not difficult to understand NetAFP and QNAP folks. However, in my opinion it's really narrow-minded approaching (and almost forcing on the OS X Lion release waves) the NAS vendors to become supporters or business partners - and leave the commercial Linux distribution makers like Oracle (which are a pain in the back woth thier JVM licensensing for everyone creating embedded systems), Novell/Suse, or Redhat out of scope.

As well, the "offer" to make Netatalk 2.2 open source again when gained enough funding is cheap. Either they should go clcosed source and taking a business risk (just as many have tried before - some suceeded, some failed). I wonder what will happen when somebody else (like a small team funded by NAS vendors and commercial Linux distributions) does start to contribute code to the Netatalk project now, making thier "business" efforts null-and-nil?

At the end of the day, NetAFP does just help Apple selling servers - if they have any server offerings in the class that's required by the large scale users of netatalk - including Apple.

What would happen, when Oracle tells the world to stop MySQL if they are not funded by the major hosting companies?

[ckeck]

Has anyone received any type of response from QNAP?