Leopard upgrade and NAS issues?

bigt[nz]

Hi guys, I have recently upgraded to Leopard and have one issue that totally perplexes me.

After I upgraded, my nas drive appeared to be all messed up. (most of the folders are empty, some have new folders inside which take you on a wild goose chase through numerous folders just to find nothing in any of them.)

But all is fine when I look at the nas through my pc.

I haven't been able to find anyone with a similar problem so far, so I thought I should turn to the professionals.

Any ideas? opinions? clues? questions? etc? etc?

Thanks

Tim

bigt[nz]

Oh, and my nas is a linksys storage link NSLU2 with a maxtor usb drive.

bigt[nz]

Is there really noone who can help here?

magran17

Since it is an external drive, why not just connecting it to the mac and let it mount the drive?

willyme

Can not connect to a Bytecc 850 NAS device. I have to use ftp to access the drive in place of SMB. This is fine for uploading and downloading but sucks for moving and renaming files. Accessing the device through Windows via VMWare is the only solution I currently have.



I believe the problem resides in the fact that many of the small NAS devices have terrible SMB implementations. It should be noted that even with Tiger there were issues. A more recent version of Samba might solve the problem. If it does not help, there are likely compile-time (or run-time) options that can be set to get it working well with these cheap NAS devices. I have simply never had the desire to fool around with this stuff.



Your best bet is to file a bug report with Apple. Then it will hopefully be working with the next update to Leopard.



Note; try searching google for people having problems with Samba and this device. Leopard uses Samba so any solutions applicable to Linux will likely also be applicable to Leopard.

zyniker

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT[NZ]


Hi guys, I have recently upgraded to Leopard and have one issue that totally perplexes me.

After I upgraded, my nas drive appeared to be all messed up. (most of the folders are empty, some have new folders inside which take you on a wild goose chase through numerous folders just to find nothing in any of them.)

But all is fine when I look at the nas through my pc.

I haven't been able to find anyone with a similar problem so far, so I thought I should turn to the professionals.

Any ideas? opinions? clues? questions? etc? etc?

Thanks

Tim

Leopard seems to have a number of issues with SMB/CIFS file shares...I was having the same problem with a shared drive on my Windows 2003 machine. Solution? I switched my drive from its USB connection over to a FireWire connection... It seems there is no issue when connecting to a network share that is connected via FireWire, but USB freaks out and gives a -6602 error. I know this won't work in your situation (since the NAS has USB connections only), but I figure the more information gets out there the better.

(Side-note: I had loads of fun playing around with this issue before I found this fix [admittedly, it was close to last on my list of desirable fixes].)

dfiler

Occaisionally 10.5 will lose the smb share and remount it with a "-1" suffix. This can continue until you've got all sorts of volumes mounted, all with numeric suffixes. At that point, it is anyone's guess which one is the real one and which are broken and merely pointing to local directories.



You can check this by looking at the contents of the /Volumes directory via the terminal. You can delete the bad ones. But make very sure you're deleting the right stuff. Otherwise, you can accidentally delete your real data.



Also, 10.5 has proven pretty flaky in interacting with my Vista based NAS. Wish I could offer a solution. Me? I'll grin and bear it... and hope that 10.5.2 fixes the bugs.

aegisdesign

One of the 'fixes' I've used in the past with crap NAS drives with bad SMB/CIFS implementations is to create a sparse disk image on the drive and mount that instead of the drive directly. Format it HFS+ and you get decent file name support and can run Disk Utility on it too. It's a bit slower but given the choice of slower v random flakiness over SMB, slow works for me.



I suppose SMB/CIFS support can only get better now that Microsoft have been forced to reveal how the protocol actually works rather than the Samba team continually second guessing and reverse engineering it.