QNAP and latest Firmware messes up AFP

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by phrehdd, Aug 19, 2013.

  1. phrehdd macrumors 68040


    Oct 25, 2008
    Of recent, I have upgraded my QNAP 559pro with the newest QNAP firmware.

    I keep my entire iTunes library and other media files on the NAS and here is the rub - after the latest firmware, I an unable to "log in" with my few accounts to access the iTunes or anything else via AFP. What I did discover that if I set iTunes with full permissions (anyone)...then I could get in and have my iTunes files accessed.

    Has anyone else had problem with firmware 4.xx with QNAP and AFP? Is there a fix for this (hopefully not one that requires running command line or a script).

    FYI - I did go to QNAP's forums and it seemed rather hit and miss with this issue and of course QNAP has made no official effort to state there is a problem nor a patch in the offering.
  2. Dalton63841 macrumors 65816


    Nov 27, 2010
    This is good to know. I've been trying to decide between QNAP, Synology, or a DIY build. The more I look into it the more I lean toward building my own.
  3. hmedia macrumors newbie

    Aug 19, 2013
    Build your own

    Dalton - Build your own!!!

    The two upsides i've seen from a dedicated NAS are;

    They have a nice aesthetic footprint with lockable drive draws.
    They are very simple to deploy (theoretically), and scale. Enterprise ones are the only ones worth buying though. Ones that have XEON processors in the $4k+ range offer some serious features.

    The only downside to building your own is that it takes longer. If it's for home, you definitely want to build you own.

    QNAP's, SYNOLOGY, NetGear, Thecus, all of those home NAS' I equate to an overpriced laptop - with one exception - It takes much longer (if possible at all) to remove all the bundled crap software that you'll never use.

    I have a TS-469PRO from QNAP. I bought it because i didn't have the *time* to build a NAS and configure it, and i stupidly thought these things were purpose built and dedicated to the purpose. In fact, it's hundreds and hundreds of dollars more than you need to pay for only a small fraction of the versatility.

    If you built you own, you can run any operating system you like, and open source packages you like, and closed source software, you can take advantage of VT-X extensions and run 3 concurrent operating systems if you like. (Perhaps you could use OS-X for it's awesome AppleRAID performance and monitoring, Windows Server 2012 for an AD, and Linux for web servers, file sharing, database apps etc) - The thing is... it's YOUR choice, and you can change your mind and re-configure it however you like. You can put PCI host cards in it and remote control the thing with a simple script and an iPhone app, whatever..

    I learned a major lesson in this. My QNAP sits here, after spending about 9 times more on it than i would have building my own for half the price.

    And i'm not exaggerating on half the price;

    $500 would get me a top line Intel server MB with RAC, Core i5 (with AES-NI hardware acceleration), high-end graphics card (these days some software utilises GPU power for certain tasks), and a Case with a SATA draw frame, keyboard, mouse, 550W power supply.

    I spent $900 on my QNAP and it's little tiny Atom processor that belongs in a smartphone. It's a dual core atom 2700 - The CPU is at 26% just doing nothing except NFS sharing. all external apps and multimedia functions are disabled. It only supports EXT on it's internal drives (though different boxes would be different), it has no ability to utilise Truecrypt, Bitlocker, FileVault, etc, so my Mac's are doing 3/4 of the NAS's job at the moment. The embedded linux lacks almost every useful function (including "man"), and amongst other things i've had crashes, data corruption, random reboots, and just recently heard from technical support that it doesn't support the HFS+ file system. (it says it does, but they re-created some issues in their lab based on a problem i was having and they have told me i can't use HFS+ drives with it!) What about other things like Plex media server, iTunes sharing, etc.... Forget any NAS implementation of these, it will just drive you crazy. At least on your own server you can put on whatever you want.

    Sky is the limit - but i sincerely hope i helped you, as i really wanted my experience to somehow help *someone* - I was deceived by the fact that they are so popular

    Bottom line - Home NAS' have their place, maybe the $200-300 ones anyway, and so do enterprise NAS' - but if you have the time and expertise, you will thank yourself forever for building your own.
  4. Michaelhuisman macrumors member

    Oct 12, 2011
    No issues with that here. Have 2 QNAPs, both with AFP and NFS active, but not SMB. The Macs don't use NFS to connect though, that's for two other devices here.

    At any rate, it's something specific at your setup, as I can confirm that AFP is working fine here,
  5. phrehdd thread starter macrumors 68040


    Oct 25, 2008
    Are you using the latest firmware with the QT 4.0.2?

    I started working with QNAP (they actually were very VERY good about responding and set up a remote session).

    So far, during remote session they went to root, checked multiple items, and also were unable to get the connection to work via AFP. They have escalated to the engineer group and asked for my brand of router. - The latter was a good request and also if I would go ahead and do a direct cable between my Mac and the Qnap.

    My other QNAP NAS (469L) has the 3.8.2 firmware and works great. It is only the 559pro that got upgraded and has the issue.

    I'll post later on the outcome of the next remote in session and if I have any luck. Btw, the guy who helped me after I questioned him said that this my challenge for AFP connectivity is not limited to just me and then said something about a possible patch.

    In fairness to QNAP, I have never had any issues with their equipment before this and the fast response from them is to be applauded (though the problem as of yet has not been fixed). The support guy said that I can downgrade the firmware if no solution has been found.

    Equipment involved - Mac Mini (OSX ML), WD N900 7port Router and the two QNAP NAS units (DLNA does work thank goodness so I can play my music and media files on my AVR, TV etc.).
  6. phrehdd thread starter macrumors 68040


    Oct 25, 2008
    There are pros and cons for building a NAS type unit. SmallNetBuilder's site has some good articles on building one and which OS to use (variants of Linux).

    Depending on what a person will use network storage for, the idea that more CPU equals better really isn't quite correct. There is total power consumption, ability to process and throughput as main concerns followed by of course, applications required. In the past, I have built some pretty nice "low end" storage units with some using OS based RAID and others using card with chipset RAIDS. The latter usually was better but the former was far easier to control, modify and handle error issues.

    If one only is using 5 drives or less, then the Atom or i3 processors are great. It really is more how one tweaks the system and which formatting is done to the drives to get max utility.

    Sadly, many years have gone by and my ability to play at "root" is long gone. The QNAP solutions do what I need and while expensive, the trade off in power and support is reasonable for my somewhat "lazy" self.

    Perhaps next year I'll put together a used Mac Mini with TB to eSata to eSata multi-port adaptor to a cheap storage box and load up Linux along with XBMC and have a NAS that really can serve up media properly.
  7. saibarspeis macrumors newbie

    Nov 15, 2013
    4.0.2 afp problems.

    I can confirm there are serious problems with afp on 4.0.2 firmware for Turbo NAS. I have a TS-212 and it's almost unusable to have AFP over the network to my macs.

    The ticket I've posted to support is copied into a forum at this link.

    The support answered me after a small amount of time and this is what they said:
  8. NUR6 macrumors newbie

    Aug 2, 2011
    Working OK for me

    I have small mixed network (predominately Apple) TS-112 set up as iTunes server and file share via AFP with TS-469ProII for time machine and RAW file storage in RAID 5 all over ethernet via Apple Time Machine router. Both run 4.02. No connection problems across updates, configuration has stayed the same. Seems stable in my HW. I will say I did like the jump in UI for FW v4.XX. QNAP was and is a good NAS solution for me.
  9. phrehdd thread starter macrumors 68040


    Oct 25, 2008
    I am glad to hear some other Mac users are having good luck with the firmware upgrade. I am sure my turn will come in a few weeks/months to give it a try again.

    On another note, I recently changed out all my drives in my 559P from 5 x 2tb 5400 drives to 5 x 4tb 5900 drives. While it took a bit of time (to be expected for RAID 5), it went without any issues.

    QNAP if you are listening - please consider developing a better means to do a synch NAS to NAS for backups. What is presently used is beyond slow and it shouldn't be dependent on using jumbo frames etc. Using FTP from my Mac to either server is 3x faster than NAS to NAS.

Share This Page