UFS + OSX + Windows = ?

Discussion in 'Mac Basics and Help' started by aamiic, Mar 8, 2006.

  1. aamiic macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    #1
    I'm looking at building a 1TB raid5 system using www.freenas.org.

    I want to ensure that both my Windows boxes and OSX boxes will be able to read and write from this bad boy. It can format in a few different file systems, but I figure UFS will be the best for compatiblity across both platforms?

    Anyone with any experience in this matter?
     
  2. matticus008 macrumors 68040

    matticus008

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #2
    Actually, if you're planning a network-attached storage solution, you can use any file system you'd like. All the data transfers will be handled by CIFS/Samba, which is part of BSD, Linux, and OS X and is designed to mimic Microsoft's SMB networking, therefore making it compatible as well.

    The file system only matters to the operating system you'll be installing on the server, and you're free to decide among all the options available to that BSD distro based on the performance/reliability needs of your setup.

    Hope this helps!
     
  3. timswim78 macrumors 6502a

    timswim78

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    #3
    Well said.

    People often are worried about filesystems when they connect computers, and they do not need to worry about it. Once files are sent across a network, any OS can read them just fine.

    Think about the Internet. People with OS X, Windows, Linux, BSD, OS/2, OS9, OS8, and etc all download files without any problems from servers that are based on dozens of different operating systems with many different file systesm.
     
  4. aamiic thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
  5. maxvamp macrumors 6502a

    maxvamp

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Location:
    Somewhere out there
    #5
    Actually....

    I have to encourage a bit more research not only into the FileSystem, but also the networking...

    Some Examples and problems:

    NAS == Linux w/ EXT2
    Networking == Samba

    Problems :
    Cant store files over 2 GB,
    Can't store Apple or Windows Extended Attributes and Alternate file streams
    Networking perfomance slower on Mac OSX



    NAS == Mac w/UFS
    Networking == Samba

    Problems :
    Can't store Apple or Windows Extended Attributes and Alternate file streams
    Networking perfomance slower on Mac OSX


    NAS == Mac w/HFS
    Networking == Samba

    Problems :
    Networking perfomance slower on Mac OSX




    NAS == Win2k w/NTFS
    Networking == Samba

    Problems :
    Networking perfomance slower on Mac OSX



    NAS == Win2k3 w/NTFS
    Networking == AFS

    Problems :
    Security limitations, Cant transfer long file names to/from Mac, Can't transfer files larger than 2 Gig




    What do I do?

    Well, I use Win2k3 as my file Server, use SMB, and purchase DAVE for all the Macs. This gives me AD integration, and removes the networking performance hits on the Mac.

    I also have used the Microsoft AFP client, which works well, but I stay aware of the limitations.

    Max.
     
  6. matticus008 macrumors 68040

    matticus008

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #6
    A lot of those examples aren't pertinent to the approach he's already named. He's going with a specific software setup, which is a BSD install. He won't be hosting the NAS box on either a Windows or a Mac machine. Further, the 2GB limit is specific to smbfs and doesn't affect CIFS. Whether Ext2 is suitable for his needs or not would be, as I said, dependent on his performance vs. reliability needs.
     

Share This Page