file sharing between mac pro5.1 and G4MDD

[iluvmacs99]

HFS / HFS+ / APFS are file systems and should be irrelevant to client systems which connect to a server across the network. A client shouldn't need to know nor care about the details of the server for which it is connecting. All that should matter is the protocol used to connect to the file share. The server software is responsible for the details of accessing files, not the client. Any file server software which requires the client to understand the details of the servers file system is broken.

I'm not sure why are you blaming me for this. It's Apple problem and there is a workaround Apple suggested and had been for awhile. If you read the OP's posting carefully, he can access files on his Mac Pro 5,1 from his older MDD, but not vice versa, because of the way Mojave works with older AFP systems so that's why it couldn't access what's on his older MDD. My Mac Mini is running El-Capitan which "DOES NOT" support APFS; just HFS+ and yet it works on both my Mac Pro 5,1 and all my PowerMac/Powerbooks setup as expected as told by Apple. I think you need to do some learning yourself before you mouth off any blame.

 

[defjam]

I'm not sure why are you blaming me for this. It's Apple problem and there is a workaround Apple suggested and had been for awhile.

Where did I blame you for it (did you write the server software in question)?

 

[iluvmacs99]

Where did I blame you for it (did you write the server software in question)?

You said HFS/HFS+/APFS should be irrelevant to client systems which connects to a server across network. This is correct for a machine running El-Capitan (OSX10.11.6) on my Mac Mini. But this is NOT correct for machines running Leopard and Tiger which the OP is having issues with. El-Capitan does not support APFS, but the Apple Filing Protocol is compatible with APFS networked Macs (I have 3 machines here -- Macbook Pro 17", Mac Pro 5,1 and MacBook Air). Tiger and Leopard being older is not. You CAN NOT update MDD to anything later than Leopard.

 

[defjam]

You said HFS/HFS+/APFS should be irrelevant to client systems which connects to a server across network. This is correct for a machine running El-Capitan (OSX10.11.6) on my Mac Mini. But this is NOT correct for machines running Leopard and Tiger which the OP is having issues with. El-Capitan does not support APFS, but the Apple Filing Protocol is compatible with APFS networked Macs (I have 3 machines here -- Macbook Pro 17", Mac Pro 5,1 and MacBook Air). Tiger and Leopard being older is not. You CAN NOT update MDD to anything later than Leopard.

I'm not challenging this assertion. However I am asking why because:

...file systems and should be irrelevant to client systems...​

 

[fuchsdh]

That is indeed it. Just Apple making life hard again.

OP, you will need to reinstall Mojave onto an HFS+ partition if you expect to access it from your MDD. Otherwise, there is little that can be done short of installing the APFS drivers into Leopard, which to the best of my knowledge is currently impossible.

"It just works" my face ...

I'm not sure why it makes sense to blame Apple for making a better file system and considering that it'll mean reduced interoperability with hardware that's nearly 20 years old a small price to pay.

 

[defjam]

I'm not sure why it makes sense to blame Apple for making a better file system and considering that it'll mean reduced interoperability with hardware that's nearly 20 years old a small price to pay.

Because clients shouldn't have to understand the details of the underlying filesystem of a server. As long as a client conforms to the file sharing protocol it should be able to access files regardless if the server (or client) uses FAT, FAT32, MFS, HFS, HFS+, NTFS, APFS, ext2, ext3, or ZFS. The file server needs to be concerned with the details of its file system, the client should not. Any server which requires a client to understand the underlying server filesystem is broken.

 

[iluvmacs99]

I'm not challenging this assertion. However I am asking why because:

...file systems and should be irrelevant to client systems...​

That's because, the OP is doing Peer to Peer sharing between 2 machines which is file system dependent to the incompatible Apple Filing Protocol. Whereas, you can solve this by running a server which is, as you correctly pointed out, is agnostic. My Mac Mini is a file server -- it does not do peer to peer sharing between my PCs and all Macs and that is what Apple had recommended long ago.

 

[defjam]

That's because, the OP is doing Peer to Peer sharing between 2 machines which is file system dependent to the incompatible Apple Filing Protocol. Whereas, you can solve this by running a server which is, as you correctly pointed out, is agnostic. My Mac Mini is a file server -- it does not do peer to peer sharing between my PCs and all Macs and that is what Apple had recommended long ago.

Peer to peer file sharing should be irrelevant. File sharing should not require a client to understand the implementation details of the servers file system. Please note I am not disagreeing with you that this is the way it is, I am merely stating that if this is the case then the file sharing protocol is broken.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

the OP is doing Peer to Peer sharing between 2 machines

AFP sets up a client/server relationship, not a peer to peer one.

 

[jeyf]

seems like proper network concepts like smb and afp existed in both mojave and leopard.

 

[eyoungren]

seems like proper network concepts like smb and afp existed in both mojave and leopard.

AFP, yes. SMB, no.

Apple has it's own ideas on SMB and that created problems because it was not equal to the SMB you find on every PC/Linux server or client. Not until High Sierra did Apple finally abandon their version of SMB.

There were products such as DAVE and AdmitMac, both by Thursby that allowed a third party implementation of SMB. DAVE was the only way I got Tiger and Leopard Macs to cooperate with our 2003 Windows SBS server and the later 2008 Server. Without DAVE for OS9 there was also no way I could have run Folder Actions.

Apple even brought in a bug in Mavericks where after 24 hours a SMB connection (which at that point was SMB2) would just drop. If you tried to work any InDesign files off the server ID would bomb out because the server connection was instantly lost. The only way to get it back was to reboot or to force SMB1 by connecting via CIFS. And SMB1 was slower - which defeated the purpose of using SMB.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

AFP, yes. SMB, no.

Apple has it's own ideas on SMB and that created problems because it was not equal to the SMB you find on every PC/Linux server or client. Not until High Sierra did Apple finally abandon their version of SMB.

There were products such as DAVE and AdmitMac, both by Thursby that allowed a third party implementation of SMB. DAVE was the only way I got Tiger and Leopard Macs to cooperate with our 2003 Windows SBS server and the later 2008 Server. Without DAVE for OS9 there was also no way I could have run Folder Actions.

That's odd... I don't have issues connecting my Windows 10 machine to my Power Mac running Tiger (so SMB1/CIFS). Maybe Windows 10 has a higher tolerance for differences between protocols? I don't really know though. Just a guess.

 

[eyoungren]

That's odd... I don't have issues connecting my Windows 10 machine to my Power Mac running Tiger (so SMB1/CIFS). Maybe Windows 10 has a higher tolerance for differences between protocols? I don't really know though. Just a guess.

I believe the client versions were probably less stringent.

However, with W2003 SBS I had to shut off just about every security protocol and allow transfer of passwords in clear text before the Tiger Macs would connect. It was a nightmare. I tried SFM (Services for Macintosh) on the server which then allowed AFP, but the issue there was that Microsoft was using a very old implementation of AFP. It meant I could only have filenames with 32 characters plus the extension.

So when I found DAVE, it was a gift.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

I believe the client versions were probably less stringent.

However, with W2003 SBS I had to shut off just about every security protocol and allow transfer of passwords in clear text before the Tiger Macs would connect. It was a nightmare. I tried SFM (Services for Macintosh) on the server which then allowed AFP, but the issue there was that Microsoft was using a very old implementation of AFP. It meant I could only have filenames with 32 characters plus the extension.

So when I found DAVE, it was a gift.

Ah, ok. That makes sense. I've always wondered if SFM would be worth setting up on a computer, but I guess not from what it sounds like.

See, the thing I have issues with is that when things work on a Mac, they literally do "just work." When something goes wrong, however, it can turn into a dumpster fire really quickly. I still love Macs though. I never owned one growing up, but they feel really nice to use

 

[eyoungren]

Ah, ok. That makes sense. I've always wondered if SFM would be worth setting up on a computer, but I guess not from what it sounds like.

See, the thing I have issues with is that when things work on a Mac, they literally do "just work." When something goes wrong, however, it can turn into a dumpster fire really quickly. I still love Macs though. I never owned one growing up, but they feel really nice to use

If, at the time, I had been coming from OS9 then SFM would have been fine. But I'd been working under OS X for a while and of course that allows long filenames. When you have lots of XPress or InDesign files with lots and lots of graphic links you get long filenames that blow way past 32 characters. I was using a file name truncating app for some time, but all in all it just wasn't working.

Had I stayed on Leopard with the G5 things would have been fine with the later server, but we ended up with a 2010 MP MBP in 2013 and I stupidly upgraded to Mountain Lion and then Mavericks so SMB became an issue again.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

If, at the time, I had been coming from OS9 then SFM would have been fine. But I'd been working under OS X for a while and of course that allows long filenames. When you have lots of XPress or InDesign files with lots and lots of graphic links you get long filenames that blow way past 32 characters. I was using a file name truncating app for some time, but all in all it just wasn't working.

Had I stayed on Leopard with the G5 things would have been fine with the later server, but we ended up with a 2010 MBP in 2013 and I stupidly upgraded to Mountain Lion and then Mavericks so SMB became an issue again.

Ah, ok. That makes sense. I might set up an SFM server just for fun then

I have found that Macs are file-sharing, printer, and networking challenged sometimes to say the least.

 

[eyoungren]

Ah, ok. That makes sense. I might set up an SFM server just for fun then

I have found that Macs are file-sharing, printer, and networking challenged sometimes to say the least.

In my opinion, Leopard and Snow Leopard are the two best operating systems when it comes to networking, file-sharing and print servers. I had a Leopard G4 that was the print server for the 2010 MP and without that G4 I could not print reliably to our Xante printers.

Tiger is an archaic piece of garbage when it comes to print serving. My opinion on that only.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

In my opinion, Leopard and Snow Leopard are the two best operating systems when it comes to networking, file-sharing and print servers. I had a Leopard G4 that was the print server for the 2010 MP and without that G4 I could not print reliably to our Xante printers.

Tiger is an archaic piece of garbage when it comes to print serving. My opinion on that only.

I agree. Tiger definitely has outdated infrastructure, even for the time, when it comes to printing and networking.

 

[iluvmacs99]

AFP sets up a client/server relationship, not a peer to peer one.

Agreed. In OP's case, he wants both machines accessing each others files one under Leopard and the other under Mojave. He can't really do that with Mojave unless it's formatted HFS+ which his isn't. File serving is agnostic, but in this situation it won't work so that's why I called it peer to peer and for OSX Yosemite, El-Capitan and Sierra, you need to have this (Paragon Retrofit Kit) installed -- https://www.paragon-software.com/business/apfs-kit-mac/ to allow mounting of APFS volume but read only. This driver unfortunately has been discontinued and is not available for OSX Leopard. Basically, the OP is SOL unless he sets up a dedicated Mac OSX server to serve 2 machines which I have done with my Mini.

 

[jeyf]

if the OP is still reading:
a little logic here
if AFP existed in both mojave (the new computer) and lepard(the old computer)

seems like proper network concepts like smb and afp existed in both mojave and leopard.

AFP, yes. SMB, no.

why not use command K and in (2) instances mount the opposing computers as
afp://myOpposingComputer

per the wiki for mojave and the wiki for leopard both network protocols AFP & SMB were available. Why not choose one, likely AFP being the most robust.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

if the OP is still reading:
a little logic here
if AFP existed in both mojave (the new computer) and lepard(the old computer)






why not use command K and in (2) instances mount the opposing computers as
afp://myOpposingComputer

per the wiki for mojave and the wiki for leopard both network protocols AFP & SMB were available. Why not choose one, likely AFP being the most robust.

Because the connection would only work one way. The MDD would be incapable of reading the disk on the 5,1 as it is APFS formatted. I don't claim to know why AFS is dependent on filesystem, but that's the way it is.

 

[eyoungren]

if the OP is still reading:
a little logic here
if AFP existed in both mojave (the new computer) and lepard(the old computer)






why not use command K and in (2) instances mount the opposing computers as
afp://myOpposingComputer

per the wiki for mojave and the wiki for leopard both network protocols AFP & SMB were available. Why not choose one, likely AFP being the most robust.

See for yourself…

 

[jeyf]

I don't claim to know why AFS is dependent on filesystem, but that's the way it is.

almost anything bad is possible with the Finder App
maybe a modern version of chronoSync would work on Leopard
have a good Monday

 

[andysa1966]

I've just come back to this, thank you for all your replies