Multiple protocols for same files?

[BlazeStar]

Hi guys,

I have volumes, then datasets.

For specific dataset, I would like to use AFP and CIFS to share it.

So basically, the same folder and files would have both a CIFS share, and a AFP share.

My question is: is there a problem with doing that?

WHY I would like to do that?
Well AFP has a lot of advantages for MAC users, so I would like to benefit from that.
However not all users have MACs so I would like to use CIFS for the rest, or maybe NFS.


Thanks!

 

[dlavigne]

From http://doc.freenas.org/index.php/Sharing_Configuration:

NOTE: while the GUI will let you do it, it is a bad idea to share the same volume or dataset using multiple types of access methods. Different types of shares and services use different file locking methods. For example, if the same volume is configured to use both NFS and FTP, NFS will lock a file for editing by an NFS user, but a FTP user can simultaneously edit or delete that file. This will result in lost edits and confused users. Another example: if a volume is configured for both AFP and CIFS, Windows users may be confused by the extra filenames used by Mac files and delete the ones they don't understand; this will corrupt the files on the AFP share. Pick the one type of share or service that makes the most sense for the types of clients that will access that volume, and configure that volume for that one type of share or service. If you need to support multiple types of shares, divide the volume into datasets and use one dataset per share.

 

[fracai]

What advantages does AFP have for Mac users? Mavericks (10.9) has deprecated AFP in favor of SMB and now only uses AFP for TimeMachine. I'd bet that that dependency goes away with 10.10.

Admittedly, I still use AFP for my network, but I also don't have any Windows clients and my NFS shares are read-only. If I did have a mixed network I'd switch to SMB shares.

 

[BlazeStar]

NOTE: while the GUI will let you do it, it is a bad idea to share the same volume or dataset using multiple types of access methods. Different types of shares and services use different file locking methods. For example, if the same volume is configured to use both NFS and FTP, NFS will lock a file for editing by an NFS user, but a FTP user can simultaneously edit or delete that file. This will result in lost edits and confused users. Another example: if a volume is configured for both AFP and CIFS, Windows users may be confused by the extra filenames used by Mac files and delete the ones they don't understand; this will corrupt the files on the AFP share. Pick the one type of share or service that makes the most sense for the types of clients that will access that volume, and configure that volume for that one type of share or service. If you need to support multiple types of shares, divide the volume into datasets and use one dataset per share.

Thanks, I didn't notice this note.

So on my network I have MACs, Windows and LINUX.

Given this:

What advantages does AFP have for Mac users? Mavericks (10.9) has deprecated AFP in favor of SMB and now only uses AFP for TimeMachine. I'd bet that that dependency goes away with 10.10.

I now exclude AFP

Should I use CIFS or NFS

From the same page: http://doc.freenas.org/index.php/Sharing_Configuration

the Network File System (NFS) type of share is accessible by Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, and the professional/enterprise versions (not the home editions) of Windows. It is a good choice if there are many different operating systems in your network. Depending upon the operating system, it may require the installation or configuration of client software on the desktop

I feel we don't have any "home edition" Windows amongst our stations.

Therefore I think NFS would be the best choice?

Is that correct?

 

[cyberjock]

If you are using WIndows your only "real" option is CIFS. There is no AFP support at all, and NFS support on windows is limited to the "ultimate" editions of Windows(and performance is total crap anyway).