OS X LION with QNAP AFP

[schumaku]

They do care for sure. However, there is always a risk when running early beta, public pre-test, or developer early access releases of a new OS, regardless OS X, Windows, ... you simply can't expect immediate support for new restrictions or protocol changes.

[garethi]

I tried the work around listed on the last page and was indeed now able to select the QNAP for back up.

However when it began the back up it said looking for back up disk then eventually failed and said the selected disk does not support certain AFP features.

A different messege from before but still a Fail.

I hope QNAP sort this pretty soon, I need my data backed up and I like being on the seed.

[ton123]

Solving this problem is only usefull if they solve the other OSX problem (ext. HD formatted HFS+) at the same time.

Otherwise there will be a catch-22 situation.

[schumaku]

Otherwise there will be a catch-22 situation.

As logical as every SAMBA user must use NTFS on the external drives.

Do you talk of the issue that some HFS+ disks are not correctly mounted and detected, or the issues caused by Apple using features i.e. in iPhoto which are not implemented in netatalk?

[ton123]

Otherwise there will be a catch-22 situation.

As logical as every SAMBA user must use NTFS on the external drives.

Do you talk of the issue that some HFS+ disks are not correctly mounted and detected, or the issues caused by Apple using features i.e. in iPhoto which are not implemented in netatalk?

Don't understand the "As logical as ...." part. First because we are talking about using AFP which implies Mac clients. Second there is no obligation to use NTFS on external drives just look at the Qnap menu which allows formatting to HFS.

What I do know is that I cannot update to the latest release since then my external (to the Qnap) HD's with HFS+ formatting are unaccessible. See also:

http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=1 ... fs#p193708
http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=1 ... fs#p189616
http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=2 ... fs#p189615
http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=1 ... fs#p188355
http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=1 ... fs#p186981
http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=1 ... fs#p185620

Resumee:

[schumaku]

Perfectly mistaken! There are two (or even more on the HFS side) issues QNAP has to address. It's you binding together AFP and HFS, not me. Ref. catch-22: There is absolutley no reason why both issues the AFP for the not-yet-production-level OS X Lion and HFS/HFS+ must fixed together, because of there is no dependancy at all.

There are about three complete different issues reported on HFS/HFS+ recently. Not every post that contains HFS does report the same, aside of the users who can't resist double posting all over:

- HFS+ file system is corrupted after mounted and used on the NAS, and asks for repair on OS X.
- HFS+ disks formatted and regualrely used on OS X are not detected and mounted automatically.
- Some applications can not make use of HFS+ journaling and other features (as used i.e. by Retrospect or iPhoto) over the network as when connected locally on an OS X system.

Backup to HFS+ disks formatted on the NAS is not an issue in my opinion- wasn't for a long time. You could consider to write tha backups to NTFS formatted disks - what is also readable on OS X for example.

It's much more likely OS X Lion AFP encryption can and will be added so the NAS can be used to share AFP from this future release again. Certainly long before than the closed Apple protocols and file systems can and will be fully re-engineered. You might not like it: While Microsoft is actively supporting the SAMBA development, Apple does not want to hear and help the netatalk community at all.

What's wrong now?

[ton123]

I'm not binding anything together, I am just being logical.

1. Presently it is not possible to upgrade to the latest version of the Qnap OS when the externar HD is HFS formatted.

2. For Mac users (and Nas says it is compatible with Mac) it is pure logic to format the external HD in HFS.

3. Up and until the previous version the above worked fine with no problem.

a. I don't care who is the cause of the breakup. I use the hardware, am a customer and simply use the stuff.


4. From this thread it is clear that apparently the Nas OS does not function with the present. So Qnap needs to get their stuff in working order.

b. Logic says that when a system OS is upgraded (unimportant whether it is called OSX, Windows, whatever) the subdevices should (if necessary) be upgraded at the same time.

Resumee: Qnap should follow an OS and not vice versa.


"Backup to HFS+ disks formatted on the NAS is not an issue in my opinion- wasn't for a long time. You could consider to write tha backups to NTFS formatted disks - what is also readable on OS X for example."

Sorry, but that is really ridiculous. First of all it has worked so why going backwards and how do you think that can be done in real life.

If NTFS gives a problem are you going to propose to retard to FAT32 or even FAT?????


Let's get serious. Qnap should have solved the HFS directly after it popped up. It is a problem that ought not have happened.

[schumaku]

1. Presently it is not possible to upgrade to the latest version of the Qnap OS when the externar HD is HFS formatted.

Aha. We're backing up some TB daily to HFS+ formatted 2 TB drives. The drives wer swapped in dialy and weekly sequence, and are always reliably detected. Probably my operators has done soemting badly wrong.

2. For Mac users (and Nas says it is compatible with Mac) it is pure logic to format the external HD in HFS.

Well, see answer 1.

b. Logic says that when a system OS is upgraded (unimportant whether it is called OSX, Windows, whatever) the subdevices should (if necessary) be upgraded at the same time.

OS X Lion is a developer preview version, not a ready to run OS for consumers who want to keep it simple. I doubt Apple does encourage normal endusers to install OS X Lion now. As mentioned before: I'm convinced this issue will be addressed. But it will come with a performance loss for AFP.

Resumee: Qnap should follow an OS and not vice versa.

Yes, all third party stuff should be ready and compatible once the OS version will be readily available. However, you can't expect a manufactuere to immediately follow all spleans, field tests of new and changed designscoming and sometimes going on developer releases. This is what the developer releases are for: To make the changes known and available beore public availability.

"Backup to HFS+ disks formatted on the NAS is not an issue in my opinion- wasn't for a long time. You could consider to write tha backups to NTFS formatted disks - what is also readable on OS X for example."

Sorry, but that is really ridiculous.

Just because you are just reading half of the quoted message. You stated HFS+ is fully supported because there is a format option for HFS+. Exactly these HFS+ drives perfectly work...

Curious: Do you have an OS X system on exactly the same OS and patch version as available at the time using HFS+ drives was "not an issue"? I'm almost convinced, Apple has changed a lot of stuff under the hood.

Hey, perfectly understand your view of course...

Regards,
-Kurt.

[ton123]

"ust because you are just reading half of the quoted message. You stated HFS+ is fully supported because there is a format option for HFS+. Exactly these HFS+ drives perfectly work...

Curious: Do you have an OS X system on exactly the same OS and patch version as available at the time using HFS+ drives was "not an issue"? I'm almost convinced, Apple has changed a lot of stuff under the hood.

Hey, perfectly understand your view of course...
"

I had a working combination Mac OSX + Nas 3.4.0 with on the Nas an external HD formatted (by the Nas) HFS. This was a working situation.

The Qnap came with the latest 3.4.2. After installing that (and no updating of OSX) the situation was broken. I checked the forum and read messages of several people with the same problem. The only solution was to revert to 3.4.0

This problem is still NOT solved.


So when OSX ia upgraded then Qnap will have to take care that their Nas continues to work. But they also have to take care that the ext. HD problem is solved. Otherwise a lot of people are going to be stuck with an old release of OSX and old release of Qnap OS. Similar to people have hardware that is extinct.


Comments like ".... migrating to NTFS ...." are useless and show that the problem clearly is not understood.
Also I do not care what is under the hood no matter the brand.

[franklahm]

Certainly long before than the closed Apple protocols and file systems can and will be fully re-engineered.

Nonsense.
http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/ ... ction.html
http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/ ... rence.html
http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/ ... n1150.html

You might not like it: While Microsoft is actively supporting the SAMBA development, Apple does not want to hear and help the netatalk community at all.

The problem's not Apple, but NAS vendors that do not want to hear and help the netatalk community at all.

[schumaku]

Hello Frank,
Nice to meet you here!

Certainly long before than the closed Apple protocols and file systems can and will be fully re-engineered.

Nonsense.

Slow down...I'm one step ahead. Can't speak for QNAP, for I have all these links in my bookmarks. The part I'm complaining about are the features Apple is using for iPhoto & Co. that do work or work reliably on a local disk (only?). Can you share some light of what additional functions Apple built iPhoto on then? Are these supposed to be workable over AFP?

The problem's not Apple, but NAS vendors that do not want to hear and help the netatalk community at all.

Can't disagree here - to many companies are making profit and don't provide backing support. One of the reasons is certainly the ignorace from the Apple side, too. But then (and I have some insight in several re-implementers of open source) it's often obvious that the know-how is limited in many areas.

Not a secret, it appears to me the Apple side of the NAS does not get the attention required at QNAP. The obscure and highly outdated or nicely spoken basic bonjour code of mDNSResponderPosix is a pain for every OS X user (and the NAS admin with all the individual host&service announcements. Then the inability or ignorance to follow-up and continously integrate the community developed code (like yours).

Any good suggestions on how to push QNAP to join your lines?

-Kurt.

PS. Had several discussions about the ignorance on long-term Beta programs - beeing Microsoft (i.e. Win 7 [> one year], Internet Explorer 9 [> 1 year]) or with Apple on the coming-up OS X Lion [public beta since October 2010 fromn what I know]. QNAP is simply waiting to long - far to long, and don't act before the ignorance is creating noise is in the community.

[franklahm]

The part I'm complaining about are the features Apple is using for iPhoto & Co. that do work or work reliably on a local disk (only?). Can you share some light of what additional functions Apple built iPhoto on then?

None. To iPhoto it's all just a filesystem.

Are these supposed to be workable over AFP?

Yes. If it doesn't it's probably a bug in Netatalk.

-f

[QNAPJames]

Hi guys,

The latest firmware (v3.4.3) should have solved this compatibility issue. Please feel free to let us know if any problems, ok?

Thanks,

James

[ton123]

Afaik, it works now. Thanks for the info.

[schumaku]

James,

Yes, we see the Lion-mandatory uams_dhx2_passwd.so is now part of the v3.4.3 firmware. Interesting, this is not mentioned in the release notes.

Was there any change about the HFS+ issues some nasty OS X users are reporting?

TIA,
-Kurt.