Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

mmphosis

macrumors regular
Jan 3, 2017
219
298
I use rsync.

The command line, Terminal, is not very pleasant, but it works.

Oh wait, no it doesn't work, I had to build a newer version ...

# rsync --version|sed q
rsync version 3.1.3 protocol version 31

# /usr/bin/rsync --version|sed q
rsync version 2.6.9 protocol version 29
 
Last edited:

ww2_1943

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 25, 2021
422
285
North NJ
All my syncs to Box, DropBox, etc. are handled by my Synology NAS. Since it still supports SMB1, the shared folders are easily mounted on the ol' PPC systems.
All my syncs to Box, DropBox, etc. are handled by my Synology NAS. Since it still supports SMB1, the shared folders are easily mounted on the ol' PPC systems.
This sounds interesting. Is it easy to set up?
 

eyoungren

macrumors Penryn
Aug 31, 2011
29,603
28,365
This sounds interesting. Is it easy to set up?
You just need to buy the Synology NAS (Network Attached Storage) first. That'll set you back from about $200 to more than $1200 depending on which NAS you want to buy.

Might be cheaper to find one on eBay, although NAS boxes are rarely sold on eBay with the hard drives so you'd probably need to buy a few of those.

After that I would guess it's just a matter of using an app or logging in to the NAS home page and setting up the software and RAID.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ww2_1943

flatjuba

macrumors member
Dec 16, 2016
61
16
All my syncs to Box, DropBox, etc. are handled by my Synology NAS. Since it still supports SMB1, the shared folders are easily mounted on the ol' PPC systems.
I'm thinking of going this way...I know it's costly since we try to maintain our old powerful machine that has a little backward compatibility
 

ww2_1943

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 25, 2021
422
285
North NJ
I used InTheBox to create a box for OneDrive. It works really well. Just don't try to edit a document in the browser.
 

za9ra22

macrumors 65816
Sep 25, 2003
1,441
1,931
What about setting up an FTP server on one of the machines?

This seems like the simplest and most readily available solution to me, and it's how I have been moving files between my G3s and M1 Macs for a while. 'QuickFTP' is free from the App Store and runs on the M1 systems, and a download/install of an FTP client such as Fetch from macintoshgarden.org - from there files can be moved in either direction.
 

galgot

macrumors 6502
May 28, 2015
487
899
I have a free 10Gb hosting service, that I can access through ftp, that come with my internet provider. Can serve as storage tho I don't use it like that, but I must host at least a page there.

Been looking... there are other free services, like :
(disclaimer : I've never tried it)
5 Gb free. They seem to support webdav and sftp, so that would do even for a small "cloud" usable with OS9...
Maybe SSHFS on OSX could mount it... Will have to try.
 
Last edited:

NewbiePPC

macrumors member
Mar 21, 2021
61
38
@mectojic I have a similar setup but I swap the server logic board into a regular 2010 mac mini case for the sake of using a superdrive and sharing it over the network and the little extra cpu power juice.

1654689504767.jpg

 
Those LaCie d2 drives look super-cool with their blue eyes :D

Aaaaaaaaaaaaa that nebulous blue eye button glow… post-traumatic flashbacks of my LaCie 1TB 301369U devouring itself just a year after getting it new (specifically, we think the embedded linux kernel which managed the xfs formatting of the 2x500GB JBOD RAID 0 (striping) and served as a layer between Mac and the physical HDDs corrupted the directory) — not losing the data, per se, but making it nearly impossible to find individual files, even harder to retrieve them without content loss, and impossible to preserve directory hierarchy).

The several hours I spent on the phone volleying email with the impressively unhelpful, borderline hostile LaCie help desk (which insisted I send them the drive, to fulfil the 3-year warranty replacement, but I wouldn’t be permitted to open it to extract/recover the data[!!!], nor would they offer or refer a LaCie-approved service for data recovery) changed overnight the way I handled local storage. Ever since, I’ve set up my own hardware or software RAID volumes, and they are not handled by an embedded kernel layer within the external RAID device (critical archives get copied to an additional drive, which is promptly disconnected and put into deep storage).

Whatever reverence I felt for LaCie in the mid ’90s, during the late 68040/early PPC 601 days, was obliterated by the ominous blue eye of doom. However unfairly to much better systems out there nowadays, like QNAP or Synology, I have an extremely hard time putting stock in an intermediary layer of file server handling which is handled, principally (if not solely), through a web interface. Thanks, but I’ll save the web interface for my router.

BRB wiping the panicked sweat from my brow…

UPDATE to add: there was a whole thread about this on MR starting about six weeks before mine failed.
 
Last edited:

eyoungren

macrumors Penryn
Aug 31, 2011
29,603
28,365
Aaaaaaaaaaaaa that nebulous blue eye button glow… post-traumatic flashbacks of my LaCie 1TB 301369U devouring itself just a year after getting it new (specifically, we think the embedded linux kernel which managed the xfs formatting of the 2x500GB JBOD RAID 0 (striping) and served as a layer between Mac and the physical HDDs corrupted the directory) — not losing the data, per se, but making it nearly impossible to find individual files, even harder to retrieve them without content loss, and impossible to preserve directory hierarchy).

The several hours I spent on the phone volleying email with the impressively unhelpful, borderline hostile LaCie help desk (which insisted I send them the drive, to fulfil the 3-year warranty replacement, but I wouldn’t be permitted to open it to extract/recover the data[!!!], nor would they offer or refer a LaCie-approved service for data recovery) changed overnight the way I handled local storage. Ever since, I’ve set up my own hardware or software RAID volumes, and they are not handled by an embedded kernel layer within the external RAID device (critical archives get copied to an additional drive, which is promptly disconnected and put into deep storage).

Whatever reverence I felt for LaCie in the mid ’90s, during the late 68040/early PPC 601 days, was obliterated by the ominous blue eye of doom. However unfairly to much better systems out there nowadays, like QNAP or Synology, I have an extremely hard time putting stock in an intermediary layer of file server handling which is handled, principally (if not solely), through a web interface. Thanks, but I’ll save the web interface for my router.

BRB wiping the panicked sweat from my brow…

UPDATE to add: there was a whole thread about this on MR starting about six weeks before mine failed.
Drive failure is the number one reason I make a daily and weekly backup of drives. One goes to my NAS (the daily), but I realized that this could fail too (as you found out with the LaCIE). All my RAIDed drives are RAID 0, so one drive goes the whole thing goes. That's why I do a weekly backup which goes right up to Dropbox. Sure, the drive that has Dropbox on it could also fail, but I'm paying Dropbox monthly for 4.1TB. They'd better have their own backups, redundancy, etc or we're going to have problems.

But that weekly backup on Dropbox means this is an offsite backup which I can access from just about any Mac, anywhere I can get a connection. As much as I love WD Red drives and my NAS, one day it will fail.

Looking back at my old job, around 2006 I think, the RAID on the server at work failed. The IT guy we worked with was able to recover the data but we had to use a USB drive enclosure until the server got back up. That's when I started making backups.

When we got a new server around 2010, I put the old one to work as a backup. I had Syncback Pro running backups every 15 minutes on changed files only directly to the backup server. It meant that at any time I could have everyone connect to the backup server and pickup where they left off. The most we'd lose would be 15 minutes of work. I would have loved a direct mirror, but 15 minutes was the minimum amount of time I could give the app to complete a scan and backup without keeping it always running.

I never had to switch people over, but I did have to pull files a few times so it proved its worth. I never wanted to be stuck in the situation where the newspaper was on deadline and we'd either lost all our work for the week or couldn't access it. That and I was also compensating for the incredibly dim foresight my boss had about anything.
 

eyoungren

macrumors Penryn
Aug 31, 2011
29,603
28,365
Do you need the speed of RAID 0 or is there another reason for that setup rather than e.g. RAID 5 or JBOD?
The device enclosures I have use either RAID 0, 1 or JBOD. I use RAID 0 because I want the capacity of two (or more) drives combined. JBOD means I have multiple drives. Backing up is my compensation for not using RAID 1.

You've probably seen how many network shares I have mounted to my desktop. Do I need more JBODs? :D
 

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,782
12,181
JBOD means I have multiple drives.
Hm. I thought JBOD concatenates several disks into one logical disk, combining the capacity, but writing data sequentially, filling one disk after another. That still means things (can) get nasty if one drive fails though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewbiePPC

NewbiePPC

macrumors member
Mar 21, 2021
61
38
@Amethyst1 yeah, at least in my Raid it does that, but its not clear to me what is the difference with a Raid 0, netherless I use Raid 10 or 5.
 

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,782
12,181
@Amethyst1 yeah, at least in my Raid it does that, but its not clear to me what is the difference with a Raid 0,
RAID 0 spreads all data over all drives. Say you have a file that can be broken into six chunks labelled A, B, C, D, E and F: a two-drive RAID 0 puts chunks A, C and E on the first drive and chunks B, D and F on the second drive. When accessing the file, it's read from two drives simultaneously, increasing transfer rates.

AFAIK, a JBOD also combines several drives into one but simply writes data sequentially, filling the first drive first and only moving to the other drive once the first drive is full.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NewbiePPC

eyoungren

macrumors Penryn
Aug 31, 2011
29,603
28,365
RAID 0 spreads all data over all drives. Say you have a file that can be broken into six chunks labelled A, B, C, D, E and F: a two-drive RAID 0 puts chunks A, C and E on the first drive and chunks B, D and F on the second drive. When accessing the file, it's read from two drives simultaneously, increasing transfer rates.

AFAIK, a JBOD also combines several drives into one but simply writes data sequentially, filling the first drive first and only moving to the other drive once the first drive is full.
I may have misread things, it's been a while since I set these up.

That aside, I still prefer RAID 0. Both drives are being used equally. It can take me some time to fill a drive up, especially one attached to a Mac I don't use very often. I'd hate to have bought a drive, powered up and spinning, that never got used before it failed.
 

mmphosis

macrumors regular
Jan 3, 2017
219
298
I managed to get things working using nfs instead of smb. I don't use Windows so I don't care about smb. I can now connect to the file server using nfs://path from the PowerPC Mac and from Linux machines. I've turned off samba on the server and will probably uninstall samba going forward.

In the past, I setup nfs shares on a PowerPC Mac. It seems that there are lots of options.
 

eyoungren

macrumors Penryn
Aug 31, 2011
29,603
28,365
Could a FoxBox work? Just throwing out ideas.
A FoxBox or Fluid app was one way I was accessing Dropbox before Czo began maintaining the Dropbox app for us way back when.

But using a web interface is way more steps than simply dragging and dropping. And you can't open up files from a web interface in to an app.

I'll just put this here in case anyone wants to look through it:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...leopard-snow-leopard-macs-to-dropbox.1865621/
 
I managed to get things working using nfs instead of smb. I don't use Windows so I don't care about smb. I can now connect to the file server using nfs://path from the PowerPC Mac and from Linux machines. I've turned off samba on the server and will probably uninstall samba going forward.

In the past, I setup nfs shares on a PowerPC Mac. It seems that there are lots of options.

I ought to tinker with nfs again. The one time I tried configuring and using it was during the late Panther/early Tiger days. I was unable to get it to work, so I stuck with afp and smb.
 

barracuda156

macrumors 68020
Sep 3, 2021
2,295
1,514
Tiger and Leopard use SMB, which is SMB2 (at the very least in Leopard's case). You can also force SMB1 by using CIFS.

Are you saying that Apple has completely removed SMB1 and SMB2 from the M1 Macs? There is no backwards compatibility on this?

If all that is needed is SMB3, then we can try building samba4 for PPC.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.