UFS + OSX + Windows = ?

[aamiic]

I'm looking at building a 1TB raid5 system using www.freenas.org.

I want to ensure that both my Windows boxes and OSX boxes will be able to read and write from this bad boy. It can format in a few different file systems, but I figure UFS will be the best for compatiblity across both platforms?

Anyone with any experience in this matter?

 

[matticus008]

Actually, if you're planning a network-attached storage solution, you can use any file system you'd like. All the data transfers will be handled by CIFS/Samba, which is part of BSD, Linux, and OS X and is designed to mimic Microsoft's SMB networking, therefore making it compatible as well.

The file system only matters to the operating system you'll be installing on the server, and you're free to decide among all the options available to that BSD distro based on the performance/reliability needs of your setup.

Hope this helps!

 

[timswim78]

Actually, if you're planning a network-attached storage solution, you can use any file system you'd like. All the data transfers will be handled by CIFS/Samba, which is part of BSD, Linux, and OS X and is designed to mimic Microsoft's SMB networking, therefore making it compatible as well.

The file system only matters to the operating system you'll be installing on the server, and you're free to decide among all the options available to that BSD distro based on the performance/reliability needs of your setup.

Hope this helps!

Well said.

People often are worried about filesystems when they connect computers, and they do not need to worry about it. Once files are sent across a network, any OS can read them just fine.

Think about the Internet. People with OS X, Windows, Linux, BSD, OS/2, OS9, OS8, and etc all download files without any problems from servers that are based on dozens of different operating systems with many different file systesm.

 

[aamiic]

Great, thanks for the help!

 

[maxvamp]

Actually....

I have to encourage a bit more research not only into the FileSystem, but also the networking...

Some Examples and problems:

NAS == Linux w/ EXT2
Networking == Samba

Problems :
Cant store files over 2 GB,
Can't store Apple or Windows Extended Attributes and Alternate file streams
Networking perfomance slower on Mac OSX



NAS == Mac w/UFS
Networking == Samba

Problems :
Can't store Apple or Windows Extended Attributes and Alternate file streams
Networking perfomance slower on Mac OSX


NAS == Mac w/HFS
Networking == Samba

Problems :
Networking perfomance slower on Mac OSX




NAS == Win2k w/NTFS
Networking == Samba

Problems :
Networking perfomance slower on Mac OSX



NAS == Win2k3 w/NTFS
Networking == AFS

Problems :
Security limitations, Cant transfer long file names to/from Mac, Can't transfer files larger than 2 Gig




What do I do?

Well, I use Win2k3 as my file Server, use SMB, and purchase DAVE for all the Macs. This gives me AD integration, and removes the networking performance hits on the Mac.

I also have used the Microsoft AFP client, which works well, but I stay aware of the limitations.

Max.

 

[matticus008]

Actually....

I have to encourage a bit more research not only into the FileSystem, but also the networking...

[...]

Well, I use Win2k3 as my file Server, use SMB, and purchase DAVE for all the Macs. This gives me AD integration, and removes the networking performance hits on the Mac.

I also have used the Microsoft AFP client, which works well, but I stay aware of the limitations.

Max.

A lot of those examples aren't pertinent to the approach he's already named. He's going with a specific software setup, which is a BSD install. He won't be hosting the NAS box on either a Windows or a Mac machine. Further, the 2GB limit is specific to smbfs and doesn't affect CIFS. Whether Ext2 is suitable for his needs or not would be, as I said, dependent on his performance vs. reliability needs.