SMB 3 is buggy! Yay or nay?

[RumorConsumer]

I have several Synology devices that I use under SMB 3.02 on Catalina. I routinely experience what seem like basic bugs in the SMB implementation in OS X even though its native. Im trying it on AFP now. Does anybody else have this kind of experience? Im talking like mounting and unmounting, connecting, authenticating, ending sessions and logging back in. Weird stuff. Anybody else?

 

[cmc09]

Here's one of countless threads about SMB problems on OS X/macOS.

Photoshop CC: Cannot save anywhere but a local drive

This one focuses on Adobe apps but the same principle applies in general, which is that Apple's SMB implementation is pretty horrible. And it's been that way for years. Files disappearing, files that can't be overwritten, mount/unmount issues, the list goes on and on. It's especially bad in a multi user environment.

 

[RumorConsumer]

Here's one of countless threads about SMB problems on OS X/macOS.

Photoshop CC: Cannot save anywhere but a local drive

This one focuses on Adobe apps but the same principle applies in general, which is that Apple's SMB implementation is pretty horrible. And it's been that way for years. Files disappearing, files that can't be overwritten, mount/unmount issues, the list goes on and on. It's especially bad in a multi user environment.

Got it. That is encouraging and irritating. Cut to the chase for me - I am trying AFP which seems ok so far. Any better?

 

[cmc09]

Yes AFP is generally better, but it comes down to the quality of the server software. AFP with a server based on macOS/OS X or Acronis FileConnect works well. FilesConnect is expensive though. Synology's AFP server is based on netatalk. I tried that on some Linux servers years ago and it was pretty terrible but I assume it has been improved. Synology seems to make decent products but I have not tested their AFP so I can't really speak to it.

With that said, the other issue with AFP is that Apple is phasing it out. I would expect it to work on the client side for the foreseeable future but on the server side it's already dead as far as Apple is concerned. Any newer Apple machines with APFS do not support AFP file shares, only SMB.

 

[RumorConsumer]

Yes AFP is generally better, but it comes down to the quality of the server software. AFP with a server based on macOS/OS X or Acronis FileConnect works well. FilesConnect is expensive though. Synology's AFP server is based on netatalk. I tried that on some Linux servers years ago and it was pretty terrible but I assume it has been improved. Synology seems to make decent products but I have not tested their AFP so I can't really speak to it.

With that said, the other issue with AFP is that Apple is phasing it out. I would expect it to work on the client side for the foreseeable future but on the server side it's already dead as far as Apple is concerned. Any newer Apple machines with APFS do not support AFP file shares, only SMB.

Right. I wonder about NFS instead. Synology supports that as well.

That is quite a thread above.

 

[satcomer]

Does the technology of Synology support the CIFS instead of the SMB?

 

[vadim-v]

SMB seems really buggy indeed. I get "uninterruptible wait" processes while copying to SMB folder. The only solution is to reboot the macbook. Even kill -9 doesn't work.