Linux - os X problem

stone

Registered
I'm running a Linux (RH 6.2) box as a backup file server and os X PB on my iBook.

I just noticed a problem and wonder if this is a bug, a known bug or perhaps another kind of problem.

1. On the Linux box I have a symbolic link in my home directory to another directory on that same box for easy access.

2. I connect with os 9.0.4 through the chooser and I can click my way into the second directory without problem through the symbolic link which correctly shows up as a folder. Generally no problem.

3. If I connect using ssh in a terminal, all looks normal.

4. When I connect using "Go : Connect to server..." i see the linked folder but it appears to be empty. I can't get through the symbolic link and I would be surprised if this isn't a bug in os X.

Is this old news? Any of you guys who are using newer builds: Could you check this out?

Cheers!
stone
 

Moof

Registered
I am assuming that you are running netatalk on your Linux box... The problem, I believe, is with netatalk translating the symbolic links. A workaround would be to share that folder as its own mount point in your /etc/atalk/AppleVolumes.default file. This means that you have to mount two shares on your desktop. Not the most elegant solution, but you can at least get to your data from the finder.
 

stone

Registered
Thanks Moof,

Sorry, should have said I was running netatalk on the Linux box...
But, no, I don't really think netatalk is the problem: It works without snags when I connect using the chooser in Mac OS 9.0.4. I can then click my way through that symbolic link, into the other directory. But OS X PB won't let me through. I can just see that link as a folder and when I open it - no errors, but it's seemingly empty.

/stone
 

theed

Registered
a beta OS connecting to an unsanctioned reverse engineered hack of a proprietary communications protocol ... there are bound to be problems. When last I heard, Apple said that the appleshare protocol, and specifically the client, had no real way to deal with links and as such simply treated links as real items. This had disasterous effects if you had a link to something in the same directory. Even worse, if the link was to a parent directory and it attempted to figure out the size of the folder.

I have had issues both with netatalk and X beta. Quite frankly, nothing on either side can be trusted as they are both hacks. I'm guessing they are both wrong, and they fail to guess correctly. I will say that I have significantly less trouble connecting to true appleshare servers (ASIP and os X Server) than over netatalk, but this does not at all mean beta isn't to blame.

so I'm glad to have not been of service at all and ranted on here about how much I'm tired of using the beta OS, and I just want some release software with some real documentation behind it.
 

strobe

Puny Member
Does netatalk even support AppleShare IP? I thought it only supported AppleShare AppleTalk.

(even recent builds don't support AppleShare AppleTalk in a stable manner)
 

stone

Registered
Strobe: I can connect to the Linux-box running netatalk using the IP-number directly, I don't have to see it in the chooser window. I suppose that means AppleTalk IP?

stone
 

strobe

Puny Member
Yes, but it doesn't sound like it was implemented fully.

AppleShare has been changed a bit recently as well to handle UNIX permissions like +x. Apple's non-GNU AppleShare server will likely be part of Darwin so why use netatalk?
 

stone

Registered
Yeah... "will likely be..."
Explanation: I'm running this in the present, using an inexpensive Linux box as a file and backup server. Windos users connect using Samba and Macs use netatalk. Works pretty well!
MacOS X PB doesn't work as well as MacOS 9.0.4 unfortunately. Whenever better software is available I'll try it out. If it works on Linux, that is. Thanks for the suggestion. For now, I remain unconvinced that netatalk causes the problem. After all, OSX is a Beta... for another three weeks.
/stone
 

ajmas

Registered
Appletalk problems aside, why not use NFS? - it works and will probably save you some headaches.
 

theed

Registered
Being an old Mac Head, I have no idea what the deal is with NFS. Any thoughts on where I could go to get information on NFS, how NFS compares to Appletalk, etc?

When I tried to set up NFS on OS X Server a while ago, It started asking me questions I didn't know how to answer, so I've been a little gunshy on NFS. Will I be able to spontaneously mount NFS drives from X if I need to?
 

stone

Registered
Hi!

Just wanted to mention that the problem I described when staring this thread went away as I installed OS X "final". No problem now so it was probably a problem in PB after all.

/stone
 

theed

Registered
They've done a lot of work on a lot of fronts with the appletalk code. You might note that appletalk is now a browse only protocol. Connections seem to be IP only. This will make the network gods happy.

Also, browsing seems to have a nice caching mechanism now, so it's about 40 times as fast as it used to be for me.

I still maintain that netatalk has issues though. Macs still make better appletalk servers than linux does. of course. :)
 

strobe

Puny Member
theed, I think you mean AppleSHARE.

AppleSHARE works either over AppleTALK or IP.

The only protocol which is really dead is LocalTalk.
 

theed

Registered
sorry, AppleTalk, AppleShare, Ethertalk, LocalTalk, ASIP, UAM, it all blurs together in my head. I was attempting to refer to the current state of all of the Apple File Sharing and Networking communications under one heading.

The AppleTalk Suite?

So yeah, they've improved AppleShare considerably, at least from the client side. There still seem to serving issues. I've had AppleFileServer run away with one of my processors on more than one occasion. It usually messes up if something about networking changes.

And now AppleShare shows up over AppleTalk (etherTalk?) so that's a major plus for browsing the local network. :)
 

strobe

Puny Member
I think Ethertalk is AppleTalk over ethernet, like LocalTalk is AppleTalk over serial.

I'll still want Ethertalk support because I have a IIfx on the network. It runs really well too, it has accelerated graphics and 32MB RAM.
 
Top