2 New Messages
Digest #9004
Messages
Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:38 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"T Hopkins" todhop
In my recent experience, SMB works well in SL. Commonly connect to Win XP, Win 7, a very old server, and two generations of NAS. I don't have significant problems with any of these connections. I used to have a problem with Leopard connecting to my old server, but don't have this problem with SL.
Cheers,
tod
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com
On Jul 15, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Mark Workman wrote:
> We are setting up an NAS network storage PC. I have 2 questions.
>
> 1. In the past we used windows 2000/2003 for this. 2008 has dropped support for Services for Macintosh. The NAS will be primarily used by macs. Has anyone had good/bad experiences using SMB connections from SnowLeopard?
>
> 2. In the past we have carved the drives into 2tb volumes. Has anyone used larger volumes (say 4tb) using SMB on NAS?
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Sent from my iHouse
> Mark
>
> Sent from my iHouse
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Cheers,
tod
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-
On Jul 15, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Mark Workman wrote:
> We are setting up an NAS network storage PC. I have 2 questions.
>
> 1. In the past we used windows 2000/2003 for this. 2008 has dropped support for Services for Macintosh. The NAS will be primarily used by macs. Has anyone had good/bad experiences using SMB connections from SnowLeopard?
>
> 2. In the past we have carved the drives into 2tb volumes. Has anyone used larger volumes (say 4tb) using SMB on NAS?
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Sent from my iHouse
> Mark
>
> Sent from my iHouse
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:00 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
On 16 July 2012 16:30, Dane Robison <macdane@mac.com > wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the input, folks. I'm leaning in the direction of thinking
> it probably won't hurt anything but also won't do much good since both are
> backing up to the same drive.
>
> I think for now I'll just continue doing it sequentially.
>
Why not try it? It's easy enough with CCC.
BTW I know this from practice as well as theory. We have separate cycles
(daily, weekly, monthly, etc.,) scheduled in CCC. They have different
start-times but occasionally delays occur for various reasons and 2 end up
running together.
Otto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Thanks for all the input, folks. I'm leaning in the direction of thinking
> it probably won't hurt anything but also won't do much good since both are
> backing up to the same drive.
>
> I think for now I'll just continue doing it sequentially.
>
Why not try it? It's easy enough with CCC.
BTW I know this from practice as well as theory. We have separate cycles
(daily, weekly, monthly, etc.,) scheduled in CCC. They have different
start-times but occasionally delays occur for various reasons and 2 end up
running together.
Otto
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
