Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Mar 2011 02:00 UTC
Mac OS X When you run smbd -V on your Snow Leopard installation, you'll see it's running SAMBA version 3.0.28a-apple. While I'm not sure how much difference the "-apple" makes, version 3.0.28a is old. Very old. In other words, it's riddled with bugs. Apple hasn't updated SAMBA in 3 years, and for Lion, they're dumping it altogether for something homegrown. The reason? SAMBA is now GPLv3.
Thread beginning with comment 467992
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Netatalk
by s_groening on Sat 26th Mar 2011 15:44 UTC in reply to "OSX SMB goes from bad to worse?"
s_groening
Member since:
2005-12-13

If you already use Linux, consider using Netatalk to serve your Time Machine backups!

After a couple of years' stagnation, development has catched up nicely. Netatalk now supports ACL's (Posix from Netatalk 2.2 (currently a beta release) and NFSv4 with ZFS (FreeBSD + Solaris/OpenSolaris) since 2.1), AFP 3.3 (Netatalk 2.2), Time Machine backups as mentioned earlier, extended attributes and network connect/reconect.

If it's Mac OS X you wish to support from Linux, AFP might be as good as (or better than) SMB, anyhow ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Netatalk
by macUser on Sat 26th Mar 2011 15:51 in reply to "Netatalk"
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

If you already use Linux, consider using Netatalk to serve your Time Machine backups!

After a couple of years' stagnation, development has catched up nicely. Netatalk now supports ACL's (Posix from Netatalk 2.2 (currently a beta release) and NFSv4 with ZFS (FreeBSD + Solaris/OpenSolaris) since 2.1), AFP 3.3 (Netatalk 2.2), Time Machine backups as mentioned earlier, extended attributes and network connect/reconect.

If it's Mac OS X you wish to support from Linux, AFP might be as good as (or better than) SMB, anyhow ;)


That is good to know. Can netatalk be used to serve up network homes?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Netatalk
by theosib on Sat 26th Mar 2011 19:45 in reply to "RE: Netatalk"
theosib Member since:
2006-03-02

Just don't. You'll quickly find Netatalk to be a terribly disappointment.

I think I might trying NFS, but I was never able to get it working right.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Netatalk
by s_groening on Sun 27th Mar 2011 18:19 in reply to "RE: Netatalk"
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

Netatalk has worked very well for me for several years now, and it's been the main reason why Mac users at the office never notice they're dealing with a Linux server.

I haven't used it to serve home directories, but it works just fine for file sharing in general and I see no reason why it shouldn't work for home directories as well.

Integrating Netatalk in a Kerberos based SSO environment is also easily done.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Netatalk
by theosib on Sat 26th Mar 2011 19:45 in reply to "Netatalk"
theosib Member since:
2006-03-02

If you already use Linux, consider using Netatalk to serve your Time Machine backups!

After a couple of years' stagnation, development has catched up nicely. Netatalk now supports ACL's (Posix from Netatalk 2.2 (currently a beta release) and NFSv4 with ZFS (FreeBSD + Solaris/OpenSolaris) since 2.1), AFP 3.3 (Netatalk 2.2), Time Machine backups as mentioned earlier, extended attributes and network connect/reconect.

If it's Mac OS X you wish to support from Linux, AFP might be as good as (or better than) SMB, anyhow ;)


I tried using the latest version of Netatalk. I had two major problems. One is that it'll fail authentication randomly about once out of every 5 or 10 connection attempts. When I reported it, they told me they wouldn't look into unless a corporate customer had that problem. The second is that OSX will lock up hard if you put the machine to sleep in the middle of a TM backup. This is because Netatalk lacks Replay Cache, and thus, there is no solution. Without Replay Cache, the TM backup is likely to get corrupted if you sleep the machine during backup. (Unless you use sleepwatcher to unmount on sleep, which I do.)

Netatalk is NOT an option, because it's completely inadequate.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Netatalk
by s_groening on Sun 27th Mar 2011 18:24 in reply to "RE: Netatalk"
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

I wasn't aware that these problems existed with TM backups. Let's hope that Netatalk 2.2 and its reconnect features cure this problem once and for all.

Concerning the problems with authentication, I've used Netatalk for several years with Kerberos only authentication and I have yet to experience the trouble you describe.

Reply Parent Score: 2