We’re often asked if AFP is still required as Macs support SMB out of the box
And if your company is one of the estimated 80% of enterprise organisations which have Mac and mobile users who need to access files and documents in a mixed Mac-Windows environment, or if you’re looking to retire your ageing Mac servers you should know that Windows and Macs communicate with one another differently.
Cross Platform Management
Nfs vs afp - Apple Communit For example, NFS is common for Linux users, SMB for Windows, and AFP for Mac. NFS is great for UNIX server-to-server file sharing, but is incompatible with Windows clients and omits salient features for Mac users. Generally speaking, each system benefits from using its native protocol.
- FreeNAS vs openmediavault. FreeNAS and openmediavault are Open Source network-attached storage operating systems. SMB, NFS, AFP, WebDAV.
- We are going to test SMB vs NFS on both linux and windows 10 system to see if there is a different and what i found with very interesting.
- We setup some shares on the FS1018 from Synology to see which one is faster. Thanks to 'Music: Little Idea - Bensound.com' Thanks for watching!
Typically when Mac users try to access Windows file and print servers via SMB (Server Messaging Block) they typically experience performance, data integrity, search slowness and many other issues, and your business is impacted in many ways.
With over a decade of experience of integrating and supporting companies in creative industries or enterprise organisations that have creative departments we know from experience that the happiest, most productive users connect to their servers by AFP (Apple File Protocol).
As a long established and authorised Acronis Partner we recommend Acronis Files Connect (formerly ExtremeZ-IP) for a truly seamless Mac/Windows integration experience.
Check out the 4 main benefits of Acronic Files Connect below or call our team of cross-platform integration experts on 0800 007 3040
Explore our cross platform management services now here.
Mac OS X has always supported two network protocols:
- AFP (Apple Filing Protocol) is Apple’s native file sharing protocol for Mac.
- SMB (Server Messaging Block) is the native file sharing protocol for Windows and is typically used for NAS storage.
With each OS X update, Mac SMB compatibility has evolved. But even with the SMB3 protocol support introduced in OS X 10.10 Yosemite, Mac users continue to report frustrating problems, especially with key applications such as Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Cloud/Suite.
Acronis Access Connect can overcome common and critical Mac SMB problems with improved AFP support, including:
- Long delays mounting shares, browsing folders, and opening files
- Slow file searches and lack of file content search capabilities
- File corruption
- Disappearing files
- Crashing applications
- Permissions problems
- Non-functional Windows shortcuts
- Disconnected sessions
- Locked files and file naming issues
IT managers in thousands of companies have found that by connecting to file shares with the native AFP protocol, their Mac users can stop suffering from these SMB problems, improving productivity while reducing frustration and help desk calls. This ultimately results in the lowering of costs and higher profitability.
And since Acronis Access Connect is a server-side solution, all Macs are automatically supported, whether they’re running older or new versions of OS X.
When Mac users connect over SMB to a Windows or NAS file share, they lose the fast Spotlight filename and content searches they’re used to when searching locally or against an OS X Server. Acronis Access Connect solves that by linking Spotlight searches to a server-side index. For files on Windows servers, it links seamlessly with the native Windows Search service. Since the Windows Search service can’t index NAS shares, Acronis Access Connect now includes a new indexing option: Acronis Content Indexing, which can index filenames, content, or both on any file share, including supported NAS devices, making searches hundreds of times faster.
Either way, Macs connected to file shares over AFP can then search filenames or content across very large collections of files to quickly find the files they need.
New! With the new mobile device support in Acronis Access Connect 10 users can even search Windows-based file shares from their phones or tablets.
Acronis Access Connect is designed from the ground up to integrate Macs with any size Windows environment, from workgroup servers to clustered VMs and NAS.
Smb Vs Afp Vs Nfs - Synology Community
It’s fully integrated with Active Directory and NTFS permissions – Mac users can log in with their standard credentials and get the expected permissions to their files.
And with the Acronis Access Connect Network Reshare feature (enterprise subscription license required), Macs can use AFP to access files on other Windows servers and NAS devices, through a single server.
Acronis Access Connect easily integrates with key Windows infrastructure elements expected by IT, including:
- Kerberos / Single Sign On
- DFS / Network Reshare
- Home directories
- Clustering
- Quotas
- File name policies
- Advanced logging
It also supports the features and rich experience Mac users expect:
- Fast Spotlight Searching
- Time Machine backups
- Unix / ACL permissions
- Print queue support
- Domain password change (through the AFP connection dialog)
Acronis Access Connect expands beyond Macs to provide fast, seamless file access for mobile devices, including those for iOS, Android, and Windows phones and tablets. The Access mobile clients provide rich file browsing, full content searching, file previewing and editing, as well as automatic synchronization for working offline.
Well, if you are using network protocols for the application layers – you would have heard the terms like SMB, NFS, and iSCSI. All of them are different protocols used for accessing files over the network. Though all of them work to achieve similar functionality, there are some little differences in how they get the work done. Let us make an attempt at understanding the concept in a bit more detail and understand the differences between SMB vs. NFS vs. iSCSI.
SMB vs. NFS vs. iSCSI – Which One is Better?
Well, the concepts that we would explain here may be a little difficult to understand if you are not a computer expert. We have attempted at explaining the ideas from a layman’s point of view. Let us discuss the concept under multiple heads and find how do they differ from each other.
The Configuration
AFP Vs SMB - Synology Community
When it comes to NFS and iSCSI, the significant difference between the two would be the way they authenticate the files. NFS would employ a host-based authentication system. That would mean every user on the system would be able to access the share on the machine. SMB, on the other hand, opts for a user based authentication.
Network Share Access on Linux
The option to mount the network shares would differ only concerning the packages you would need to install. The installation is done on the packages – cifs-utils and NFS-common. There should not be much difference between the two as such. You can create folders in your /mnt folder viz/mnt/smb and /mnt/NFS. Ensure to do this before mounting.
Network Share Access to Windows
SMB is a protocol supported by Windows. As such, you should be able to use it by default. The SMB protocol does not need any third party software installation as such. The NFS protocol, however, is not supported by default on Windows OS. If you are on Windows 7 Ultimate or Enterprise edition, you may be able to enable it on your system. The functionality is available, but hidden. You can locate Windows Features and activate Services for NFS under it. If you are on any other machine, you will need to have third party software for accessing NFS shares. Please beware, if you do not have a correct Windows license, it could be a nightmare. Installing it on a MacOS or Linux is quite easy compared to Windows.
The Write Options
Research and analysis have indicated that the write operations would be better off on NFS if your network share files tend to be below 1 MiB in size. The NFS protocol works three times better than the SMB protocol. The tests were conducted by taking a three times average. For more extensive files, however, the performance seems to be equivalent across both these platforms.
Read Operations
This is an area that NFS protocol moves ahead of SMB for varied file sizes. For smaller file sizes, the differences seem to be two times better on NFS than SMB. Even for higher volumes, NFS takes the lead but the difference is not much pronounced. The above two conclusions from reading and write operations, it would be safer to assume that the NFS protocol would be an excellent option for smaller file sizes, while it should not differ much as you move towards higher file sizes.
iSCSI- A Third Option
iSCSI is entirely different fundamentally. Of course, it is a data sharing network protocol. NFS offers you the option of sharing your files between multiple client machines. iSCSI, on the other hand, would support a single for each of the volumes. It is referred to as Block Server Protocol – similar in lines to SMB.
Another significant difference between the SMB/NFS duo and iSCSI is the caching implications. NFS has the file system located on the server, whereas iSCSI has it located on the client side. That would make the NFS need to check for cache and metadata on the server consistently.
From the implementation point as well, iSCSI is a little difficult to handle and implement when compared to NFS. It needs you go through a host of options to look out for implementation – IQNs for hosts and storage, multiple VLANs (best practice), iSCSI service configurations, LUNs, masking – all these are bound to take a toll on your time. NFS is a protocol in itself. That would make it more streamlined and efficient in itself. Moreover, it is a shared protocol, thereby making it more advanced and easy to implement.
Which One Should You Go For?
From the analysis conducted, it is understood that the NFS protocol offers better performance than the SMB. Whether you are going for the small, medium or larger file sizes – the NFS protocol should work seamlessly better across all these formats.
If you are a Windows user, you would need to use SMB itself. Not that you would not be able to use NFS protocol on Windows system, but the task would be a little complicated. In case you are using Linux or MacOS, you may go for NFS.
Even when you compare it with iSCSI, you will find NFS scores over iSCSI in many cases. Except in situations where you need boot-from-SAN, or run Hyper-V, or Windows, or access to many files, and have the option of getting away from SMB – it would always be a right decision to opt for NFS. In fact, many of the developers and users vouch for NFS.
In Conclusion
Well, the above discussion should have made it clear enough. If you have an option, go for NFS always! Yes, it is the ultimate choice for almost all your needs. Unless you are on Windows and have to stay with SMB or iSCSI for any reason, and do not have the need for running Hyper-V or need to access a vast number of files – we do not see any reason why you should limit yourself to those protocols when you have complete freedom with NFS.
Please note that the discussion above is not for those with the technical background. We have listed the features in such a way that the less privileged would be able to understand the concept.
Disclaimer: The Questions and Answers provided on https://www.gigxp.com are for general information purposes only. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availabilitywith respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose.