This topic has been marked solved and closed to new posts due to inactivity. We hope you'll join the conversation by posting to an open topic or starting a new one.
Hi All - Brand spanking new 426 - Currently 3 WD Red 4Tb disks in while I get myself configured. I installed 6.9.2 first thing out of the box last night and left it partitioning overnight. First thing I set running was Time Machine. I set myself up 2 personal partitions. One is 500Mb and one is 1Tb to match the needs of the two machines. Started this at 0800 and it's now 1800 and the 1Tb machine has got 9Gb in. The 500Gb machine has managed 18Gb. I'm running a 300Gb data transfer concurrently from the old NAS and this is running at 4Mb/s so I'm not exactly stressing the machine as no one else is accessing it. Everything is CAT 6 hooked up to 1Gig Netgear switches and all on the same internal 192.168.20.x subnet. I've set the OSX optimisation in SMB settings. Any helpful suggestions - this is going to take about 10 days to back up at this rate...
ReadyNAS 426 - 6.9.3-RC1 - Just to report that MacOs 10.13 machines seem to work fine with SMB as does my old 10.12 machine. I could not get the 10.13 machines to back up faster than <10Gb a day on AFP when I was on 6.9.2
Interesting thought - the other think I might try is to fire up an old 10.12 machine and see what that does first. I've had a look at the Beta and the 426 is not specifically mentioned in the i386 section. Did they forget it ?
I did the 'fire up an old machine on 10.12 trick. Added a new personal time machine and set it going. It's backed up about 1.5 Gb in the last 10 minutes - It looks like it's a 10.13 High Sierra Issue
Just an update - the MacOS 10.12 machine backed up nearly 500Gb overnight. The MacOs 10.13 one did 3Gb. The NAS / NAS 300Gb transfer is still running. I'll try the Beta as suggested tonight when this finishes. Not quite how I thought I would be starting out with a brand new NAS...
You don't have to try the beta if you don't want to.
Apple is moving away from the legacy AFP protocol to SMB and support for using a Linux machine as a backup destination for Time Machine over SMB is finally ready so we're adding support for that now.
The first backup can take quite a while especially if you have lots of small files to backup. Small "random" writes are going to be a lot slower than large "sequential" writes. Your incremental backups should be pretty quick (especially if not much has changed).
Also if you're doing the backup during the initial resync to setup the RAID that would also partially explain the slow performance.
Thanks for the response but I disagree. The 10.12 Mac Machine is basically an old copy of the 10.13 machine with most of the same files just a year old and untouched after I got a new Macbook.. It completed a time machine backup overnight - 450Gb on AFP. The 10.13 one only managed a fraction of this on the same network when it was unopposed all day from 7am . Anyway, II've now installed the Beta as advised and have switched on the SMB rather than AFP. Deleted the personal time machine and re-added it. This seems to be going at a reasonable speed and looks like it will complete in 10 hours or so. I will do the same for the other new machine and report back in the morning. I still have odd file permission errors on the NAS transfer to sort out and missing files on the Google drive sync to check out (yawn)
So..... Managed to get 2 machines (wired) to complete the tim machine backups once on the 6.9.3-T223 Beta. They refuse to back up again 'Cannot connect to server' and more worryingly 'untrapped %20's turning up in the Mac description occasionally. The machine I tried to run the back over the wireless network for (the one that has been doing this flawlessly on an Duo (yes that's right) for 5 years has still got 10Gb to go after running for 2 days. I have no confidence it will actually complete and somone will want to do some work on it starting tomorrow... Given that in other threads I've got problems with google drive, a 300Gb file transfer which is still running after 3 days and this time machine problem, I'm about to flash it back to 6.9.2 and take it back to the shop as unfit for purpose. I wanted the NAS to do 3 things.
Serve files faster than its predcecessor - fail - I can't even get the files onlto the machine
Run time machine for 3 machines - fail - Managed it once on 2 machines
Back up google drive locally - fail - gdocs not backed up
To achieve this poor level of performance I've had to install a Beta kernel. This is pathetic. What was meant to be a luxury upgrade has been 5 days of frustration. All the reports from the Synology community seem to be good - They have been using SMB for some time for time Machine apparently. Perhaps they have programmers that understand what the device's core functionality should be.
If this was from one of my children as a first attempt at an email I might be mildly amused. As a communication from a company I've just spent thousands of dollars with to run a mission critical NAS for my business this is pathetic and extremely irritating. If you can't manage an email without falling over, tell me why I should expect anything useful with my time machine, google drive and needing to run Beta software to get basic functionality. No response in 24 hours and I will be blacklisting your products from my company going forward and going to the media to show how bad your support is.
Thanks for the reminder @StephenB - I'm usually quiet and mild mannered person. I've just had 10 days of hell implementing what should have been a turnkey solution and the faulure to mailmerge or have a simple check in place before sending it out just made me snap last night ! As of this morning, the last data imported and I have the 10.13 (High Sierra) and 10.12 (Sierra) MacOS time machines working on 6.9.3-T223 (Beta2). Google drive doesn't download all the files from the cloud (different posting). It also took 7 days to get 2Tb of files off the old NAS for reasons I have not had time to investigate. Do I trust it enough to put it into 'production mode' ? Hell no. Stake the farm on Beta software ? What could possibly go wrong ? Synology definitely looks attractive.
I've just had 10 days of hell implementing what should have been a turnkey solution ...
Google drive doesn't download all the files from the cloud (different posting). It also took 7 days to get 2Tb of files off the old NAS for reasons I have not had time to investigate. Do I trust it enough to put it into 'production mode' ? Hell no. Stake the farm on Beta software ? What could possibly go wrong ?
Understood - I'm not a Mac user, and don't use the google drive service. So I can't help out on either.
I do see a small fix for time machine in 6.9.3-RC1 (and I expect a release candidate to be stable). But nothing on the google drive issue. Hopefully @OOM-9 will offer some suggestions on that.
ReadyNAS 426 - 6.9.3-RC1 - Just to report that MacOs 10.13 machines seem to work fine with SMB as does my old 10.12 machine. I could not get the 10.13 machines to back up faster than <10Gb a day on AFP when I was on 6.9.2
Hi - You need to 'go beta' if you want SMB on Time Machine - I could not get anything more than a few K backed up on AAFP and 10.13. 6.9.3 Release Candidate 2 is what I am running and it's OK but I would hang on for the proper release if this is facing real users. There are other issues like antivirus... I've had one failure on Time Machine where it had to delete the whole thing and start again so far. 10.12 worked fine on AFP BTW.
Using AFP should still be fine, but once 6.9.3 is released it’d be well worth giving backing up over SMB a try to see if that helps with the performance.
Using AFP should still be fine, but once 6.9.3 is released it’d be well worth giving backing up over SMB a try to see if that helps with the performance.
I'm not a Mac owner, but based on forum posts it's pretty clear this is an important feature in AppleVerse.
Can we just be clear? My experience with AFP and 10.13.x MacOS (High Sierra) is that it doesn't work in 6.9.2. It's not 'just' slow. It's so slow it would take weeks to complete and as such this is not fit for purpose. My experience was that over a couple of days running I had backed up a small number of Mb in a 500Gb backup. 10.12 (Sierra) works fine on AFP in 6.9.2.
Both 10.12 and 10.13 work fine on SMB in ReadyNAS 6.9.3 betas and RC's - I am not motivated to potentially mess up all my time machine backups to go back to AFP and check whether whatever is wrong with it has been fixed - Anyone else have a different story?
I definitely wouldn't go back if SMB is working well for you. Apple is deprecating AFP, so in time one would expect support for AFP will be removing from Mac OS X completely. SMB is the future.
Sure - I understand SMB is the way forward - It works well on two of the 3 machines I am using it for. One is 10.12 and one is 10.13. The third is 10.13 too but the time machine backup is not nearly so stable. I've had to delete the whole sparsebundle once and start again with the 500Gb backup. Yesterday, I noted that tthe the time machine had stalled 'stopping' on this machine. I had to remove the drive on the Mac and re-connect it in time machine settings. OK not a unique error and once again, it's running on that machine and managed to recover with an incremental rather than full backup. How can I monitor this ? I can't see anything 'apple' or 'time machine' in the logs. Please don't tell me I have to go and look over the shoulder of the person working on the machine daily to check time machine has run....
