# Project Question (ZFS, OS X and SAN)



## maverix (Jan 26, 2012)

So I have a big project on my plate and I'm wondering if FreeBSD is the right OS for the job.

We have a Mac OS X (10.4) Server that was basically used as a file sharing server but we are upgrading and phasing out since apple is ditching Xserve. 

We have a SAN and a Dell PE 1950 with ESXi 5.0.0 (to manage the iSCSI paths and the SAN) 

I need to migrate all the data from mac server to the new OS and be able to serve all the files in the same fashion. However HFS+ has what is called a resource fork and doesnt play nice with other Filesystems. 

I would like to try ZFS and create a pool of 5 TB for them to share on. I'm wondering with all the different protocols we could use (NFS, AFP, SMB) would FreeBSD and ZFS be the right tool for the job. 

The only issue we have come across in previous attempts is that the file names do not stay the same when moved to another file system (ext3) 

If anyone has had a similar project please let me know. Any advice is appreciated

Jake


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 26, 2012)

I have been the admin of several Mac OS X servers in heterogenous company networks. These servers are not replaced yet and are also no more under my control. Since then, I setup new FreeBSD servers, serving files for Macs and Windows clients. Here come my comments:


Those familiar with Mac OS X administration, will find themselves quickly comfortable with FreeBSD, so I would say that FreeBSD is the natural fit if it ever comes to Mac OS X Server replacement.
.
FreeBSD does indeed not understand HFS+, however, for the file server it is not exactly necessary to have the same file system as the clients. It has to store the files correctly, though (incl. resource forks and other metadata).
.
FreeBSD got Netatalk in its ports system net/netatalk. This is a full fledged AFP server that can do everything that a modern Mac OS X AFP server can do, including serving for Time Machine backups. Netatalk transparently deals with resource forks, and the best of all, in our network, it serves files to Mac clients about 3times faster than Samba 3.5. For Mac clients it would not make any difference if they are connected by AFP to a Mac OS X Server, or by AFP to a FreeBSD/Netatalk server.
.
Regarding the transfer of your present files to the new server, you would need indeed to take care that all the special file meta data is transferred correctly. I would suggest, that you connect your present Mac OS X Server over AFP to a new FreeBSD/Netatalk server by ethernet, and transfer the whole file structure by drag and drop. Using a Gbit line, this would take perhaps 8 to 10 h for 1 TB, however, by this way all metadata would be perfectly preserved - including the folder view settings like icon positions, list sorting, etc.

Best regards

Rolf


----------



## SirDice (Jan 27, 2012)

maverix said:
			
		

> I would like to try ZFS and create a pool of 5 TB for them to share on. I'm wondering with all the different protocols we could use (NFS, AFP, SMB) would FreeBSD and ZFS be the right tool for the job.


The server I use at home has a 5.2TB ZFS RAIDZ. Data is shared using SMB and NFS. Works fine for my MacBook Pro and my FreeBSD and Windows machines.


----------



## gkontos (Jan 27, 2012)

SirDice said:
			
		

> The server I use at home has a 5.2TB ZFS RAIDZ. Data is shared using SMB and NFS. Works fine for my MacBook Pro and my FreeBSD and Windows machines.



Same here, although I see better performance with AFP via net/netatalk on my Mac. Time Machine also works flawlessly. Samba is working great for 2 Windows 7 clients with aio support.

The server has a 1.4TB ZFS Raidz1 for data and a ZFS mirror for the OS, currently running FreeBSD 9-STABLE.


----------



## SirDice (Jan 27, 2012)

I don't seem to have any performance issues on my Mac (Snow Leopard). It happily plays 1080p full HD with DTS audio movies that are stored on the server. Which is pretty much all I care about.

I had installed netatalk but stopped using it because it made a mess of my filesystem (those pesky alternate stream thingies).


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2012)

SirDice said:
			
		

> ... I had installed netatalk but stopped using it because it made a mess of my filesystem (those pesky alternate stream thingies).



In /usr/local/etc/AppleVolumes.default I added 
	
	



```
dbpath:/var/dbd/AppleDB/$v
```
 to the : DEFAULT: settings, and this took care for the "pesky thingies", i.e. the metadata is no more stored in separate files in the file system, but into a separate database. The full : DEFAULT: line may look like this:


```
:DEFAULT: options:upriv,usedots dbpath:/var/dbd/AppleDB/$v dperm:0770 fperm:0660 umask:0007
```


----------



## SirDice (Jan 27, 2012)

Too complicated :e

I just used the SMB shares I already had and deinstalled AFP


----------



## reco (Jun 1, 2012)

*D*oes netatalk support Spotlight searching? *I* am trying to search for keywords on image files but it does not seem to work.

*I* tried to enable spotlight indexing:


```
mdutil -i on /Volumes/afpshare
mdutil -E /Volumes/afpshare
mdutil -s /Volumes/afpshare
/Volumes/afpshare:
	Indexing enabled.
```
*T*han*ks*.


----------



## throAU (Jun 1, 2012)

SirDice said:
			
		

> Too complicated :e
> 
> I just used the SMB shares I already had and deinstalled AFP




This is all well and good so long as you're not trying to use the ZFS share as a time machine backup location, which will only work over AFP...


----------



## fluca1978 (Jun 1, 2012)

throAU said:
			
		

> This is all well and good so long as you're not trying to use the ZFS share as a time machine backup location, which will only work over AFP...



In a network of mine we are using Samba+ZFS (FreeNAS actually) and it works fine, but performances of OSX workstations are worse than those of PC and if we were using Appletalk. Macs are exchanging big images, so each file is 100+ MB.
However, I think Samba is the right way to go.


----------

