Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:16:56 -0700 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@BitBlocks.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OS X Lion time machine => (afpd|iSCSI) => ZFS question Message-ID: <FC9A0D6A-CF30-49A6-B7FF-253BD6A6080B@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20110721224045.8A016B84F@mail.bitblocks.com> References: <20110721215617.7C7F0B827@mail.bitblocks.com> <EB7A146A-438E-425C-A0A4-04D30739F22C@mac.com> <20110721224045.8A016B84F@mail.bitblocks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 21, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Bakul Shah wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:28:08 PDT Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> wrote: >> On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Bakul Shah wrote: >>> I am in no hurry to upgrade my MBP to OS X Lion but given Lion >>> time machine and netatalk issues, >> >> Which issues? (And did you file a bug report? :-) > > Google `os x lion netatalk time machine'! With due respect for the search folks up the road in Mountain View, I asked which issues you'd had and whether you'd filed a bug report about them. > But briefly, a newer version of the appletalk protocol is used with lion time > machine which is not supported by netatalk in the ports. Ah, yes: anything below AFP 3.2 or direct block access is likely ENOTSUP. >>> I got wondering if iSCSI on FreeBSD is stable enough for >>> time machine use. How much duct tape and baling wire are needed >>> to make it work?! >> >> There was a fine discussion about this here: >> >> http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/ZFS-vs-OSX-Time-Machine-td4346562.html > > Thanks. I think I saw it back then.... Nothing new since then? Aside from Lion, you mean? Well, FreeBSD seems to be making progress with ZFS and memory tuning; I'm not as familiar with work being done on iSCSI. Regards, -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FC9A0D6A-CF30-49A6-B7FF-253BD6A6080B>