I've been on 4.1.7 for a while now, it's been rock solid for me from a stability and performance standpoint. I've stayed away from 4.1.8 which had known performance issues that I've well documented here, and 4.1.9 due to the share permissions problem. I am curious though has anyone done performance numbers of 4.1.7 vs 4.1.10? I'm to a point now where moving my data off my NAS for raw testing is a huge PITA, and I don't really want to make the jump to this firmware unless it proves worthy.
I've been on 4.1.7 for a while now, it's been rock solid for me from a stability and performance standpoint.
Believe me Nasinator I understand all too well that the temptation is great to "upgrade" to the latest revision, but in the absence of a compelling reason, WHY OH WHY would you want to risk breaking your NAS?
My RN works every day, day-in and day-out, and I think sometimes (like today) that I just shouldn't even visit here where the temptation to "upgrade" is dangling before me.
Now that I think of it, it seems in the past Netgear has sent me an email when they're REALLY confident (or needful) to get their customers upgraded and I haven't seen such a thing from them since maybe 4.1.7 or 4.1.8. Well, let me look....hmm I can't find it and maybe my memory is faulty. Anyway if your NAS ain't broke, why fix it?
Nasinator what version of Windows/Mac OS X are you running on your client machine(s)?
An email would be sent if the NAS is configured to automatically prompt you to update. If it is not sent then either the NAS isn't configured to automatically prompt you to update or email alerts aren't working.
I'm running 4.1.10. The update went fine for me but YMMV.
I'm using OSX 10.7 and 10.8 and Windows 7 x64, which is partially why I'm tempted to upgrade for the latest time machine support. But more so I'm curious if there were any performance gains from 4.1.7 to 4.1.10. I have all the firmware notifications turned off so I don't accidentally or lethargically in a moment of weakness press that shiny upgrade button. LOL After all the extensive testing I did between 4.1.7, 4.1.8, 4.1.9-T2, here http://www.readynas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=57076&p=327167#p326667, I got pretty sick of FW bouncing. If there are however even marginal performance gains I probably would go through the pains of backing everything up and upgrading.
I'm using OSX 10.7 and 10.8 and Windows 7 x64, which is partially why I'm tempted to upgrade for the latest time machine support.
That of course alters my opinion, assuming the update is necessary for latest MacOS X support. I'm intending to add a Mac or two to my stable of Windows machines, but since I don't have a Mac now I'm honestly Totally Confused by the threads that talk about issues with Macs.
If you (or anyone) could briefly summarize why (or if) 4.1.10 would be "better" with latest-updated Macs than 4.1.7 or 4.1.8 I'd love to see such a thing. Oops my sig says I'm at 4.1.9; I must have "updated" in a moment of weakness! :oops:
If I recall 4.1.8 + fixed the time machine protocol for 10.7 (Not sure about 10.8 ). 4.1.9 fixed some AFP performance issues I believe. AFAIK though CIFs works well as far as Macs are concerned in all versions but 4.1.8. 4.1.8 had huge performance issuses in reads across the board and should be avoided if possible.
If I recall 4.1.8 + fixed the time machine protocol for 10.7 (Not sure about 10.8 ). 4.1.9 fixed some AFP performance issues I believe. AFAIK though CIFs works well as far as Macs are concerned in all versions but 4.1.8. 4.1.8 had huge performance issuses in reads across the board and should be avoided if possible.
If I recall 4.1.8 + fixed the time machine protocol for 10.7 (Not sure about 10.8 ). 4.1.9 fixed some AFP performance issues I believe. AFAIK though CIFs works well as far as Macs are concerned in all versions but 4.1.8. 4.1.8 had huge performance issuses in reads across the board and should be avoided if possible.
Thanks for that. Well I don't have a Mac yet, though when I do it will run Mountain Lion, so I'll just sit tight then and see if 4.1.10 gets improved-upon further before updating.
