#Drobo dashboard osx el capitan mac os x#
#Drobo dashboard osx el capitan mac os#
#Drobo dashboard osx el capitan pro#
#Drobo dashboard osx el capitan code#

The Synology NAS is set to spin down the disks after 20 minutes of inactivity and wake on LAN when requested (WOL), which is great as it’ll preserve the life of the disks and of course use less power consumption when not in use. With the NAS mounted using Finder and adding it to the “Login Item” for automatic mounting, I was all set, or so I thought… I recently bought a Synology NAS, and copied the contents of the PersonalMedia into the Synology using RAID 1 redundancy (2x 2TB WD Red). Connected to the Mac are two USB external drives, one called Media for movies, TV shows, etc… and the other one called PersonalMedia for photos and camcorder/home videos. Still, even though it wasn't the most ideal thing, apple's ground-up implementation is better than samba in every way, shape, and form.I have a Apple Mac Mini that I use as a HTPC using Plex. Apple writing SMBX from the ground up is silly when they could simply have spent a small amount of cash and gotten the real thing.

#Drobo dashboard osx el capitan code#

The real right play would have been apple putting on its big boy pants and paying microsoft to license proper SMB, like other companies do (like EMC, for example, which uses licensed microsoft code in its enterprise storage devices for SMB connectivity).

Samba wasn't 'better' than SMBX it's just that when your host is using samba and your client is using samba, they're both broken and stupid in the same ways and they work together well.Īctually, lemme amend that. That doesn't actually help you or anyone else in that situation, obvs, but it's the simple truth. Any problems between a samba host talking to an apple SMBX client are due to samba being a flaming dumpster fire. The use case apple was trying to address is their client talking to a genuine Microsoft SMB 2.x stack, and for that use case, apple's SMBX curb stomps samba into oblivion. Fix is up-thread.Īpple ditching samba for their own SMB implementation was the right play, since samba is a shambolic wreck of a project that only works remotely well when both the host and client are samba. The speed issues are likely related to the SMB signing setting that apple switched on in el cap. Is there anyone else using a synology NAS that can confirm these numbers, and is there a way to tell if the bottleneck is the NAS vs. I switched the Synology NAS from default SMB2 to SMB3 but there was no change in the speed, which doesn't seem right to me.

#Drobo dashboard osx el capitan pro#

I'm experiencing the same exact thing: both on a gigabit ethernet connected mac pro running el Cap (20 MB/s SMB vs 78 MB/s AFP) and a WIFI macbook running Sierra (17 MB/s SMB vs 35-40 MB/s AFP).

#Drobo dashboard osx el capitan mac os#

With Mac OS Sierra coming up and its new filesystem which will not support anymore AFP, SMB file sharing will become practically the main choice (indeed it is so already since Finder prefers to connect via SMB rather than AFP to servers' shares), and still I'm reading about people having issues with it, I'm questioning myself if indeed Apple made a good choice abandoning AFP development in favor for adopting a Windows standard.

#Drobo dashboard osx el capitan mac os x#

I couldn't test connecting a Windows PC to the NAS, thus verifying if the problem is the NAS itself (Samba server) or Mac OS X Samba client. Same goes for writing speeds, where I can get 75Mb/s via AFP while via SMB3 I can only get 5-8 Mb/s. I'm using a GIGABIT Ethernet wired connection: via AFP I can get reading speed in order of ~80 Mb/s to peaks of 100 Mb/s, while via SMB3 I can only get reading speed of ~15Mb/s. I'm experiencing same speed issues comparing SMB3 vs AFP on my Sinology NAS.