Mounting NT AppleShare Volumes

X

xJ3D

Registered
Well after several days now, I'm just about to give up, this is something that's going to force be to go back to OS 9 and only use OS X when I'm not doing anything else

I need to be able to mount shared volumes from an NT server, I have been doing this for a long time under OS 9 and the volumes still show up in the chooser as always under 9 but OS X does not see them... AppleTalk is enabled, I just feel like it's not going to work period... right now, It could be on purpose ... but seriously, If anyone can help or knows for sure that yea it can work or na, it's not going to happen... please let me know.... I've surfed a lot to find help but it seems I'm alone with this... which is amazing to me ??? As many locations I know of that have NT file servers and Mac workstations, I would have thought this would have poped up by now... guess not.... well anyway... here is the setup in case anyone knows more about this...

NT server: NT 4 - SP4 with Services For Macintosh Loaded and working properly
OS X: AppleTalk is active and a Computer Name Set via the AppleTalk Tab in Network Pefferences.


I do know that the NT AppleTalk service is just that, AppleTalk and does not work over TCP/IP, which may be the issue for OS X in it's beta stage ?

Thanks,
 
I have an Win2000 server and I can connect to that using the OS9 chooser. I mounts the volumes just fine, and lists them in the computer window in the OSX finder.

I cant however connect to my ASIP 5 server It just brings up an alert box with 'Connect to the file server " ' in it. But I dont think my ASIP5 server is running over TCP/IP, I have a feeling its just on AppleTalk (cant remember, I need to check).

I opened the inspector for the mounted share, and unlike OS9, it doesnt tell you if you are connected via TCP/IP or AppleTalk.

OSX seems to connect to AppleTalk printers though.
 
We are having the same experience with our NT 4.0 server running services for Mac. Even with AppleTalk enabled in OS X we can't mount it. We can however mount our AppleShare IP server (via IP) and we can print to AppleTalk printers. We have a support pro subscription with Apple so I called to inquire about the NT issue. The person I spoke to confirmed that NT 4.0 volumes are not mountable in the beta.

We are planning to migrate to Windows 2000 next year so this may not be a huge issue for us. But surely Apple will fix this in the final release.
 
Apple docs clearly state that AppleShare connections over Appletalk are not supported in the Beta. Only TCP/IP AFP is supported at this stage, and frankly, that got more bugs that I like at this stage. You could install samba and mount your windows shared volumes instead, that would probably be the easiest way to go. As a bonus, you will then be able to share your mac drives to windows machines.
 
And you won't have problems with the 32 character name limit.

Originally posted by jtrott
...As a bonus, you will then be able to share your mac drives to windows machines.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by jtrott
You could install samba and mount your windows shared volumes instead, that would probably be the easiest way to go
Click to expand...
Only problem is that smbmount does not work on BSD based systems. You can use smbclient to acces a share, but that's not real intuitive.
You can use Sharity. It will mount your NT shares and you can browse them with the Finder.
http://www.obdev.at

DJ
 
Mac OS X public beta supports Apple Filing Protocol (aka AFP or AppleShare) over TCP/IP and NSL only. It is unclear whether AppleShare over AppleTalk will be supported in the final release.

AppleTalk exists today mostly as a printing protocol, and that's why Apple chose to include it with Mac OS X.

Mac OS X public beta only connects to these AppleShare servers:
1. A Mac OS X server with AFP enabled;
2. Another Mac OS X client with Sharing enabled;
3. A Mac OS 9 computer with the "allow clients to connect over TCP/IP" checkbox checked in the FileSharing control panel, and FileSharing on;
4. A Windows 2000 server with Mac Services enabled.

However, please understand that Mac OS X public beta allows you to connect to web servers (FTP) also. So, if you're using an NT 4 server, just connect to it via FTP. Remember, FTP always runs over TCP/IP!

--Gerrit DeWitt,
Apple Campus Rep.
 
Originally posted by dewittg
However, please understand that Mac OS X public beta allows you to connect to web servers (FTP) also. So, if you're using an NT 4 server, just connect to it via FTP. Remember, FTP always runs over TCP/IP!
Click to expand...

The trouble with that is FTP is very cumbersome to use. Even over fast Ethernet it is very slow to send many files because it requires opening a new port for each file. It also lacks important functionality like being able to move files on the server, and requires that files be downloaded to use.

I haven't used AFP from MOSX to MOSX. Does it support the long file-names? If not, it might be better to use CIFS, the standard for Windows filesharing. I'd be very happy if CIFS was supported by Apple along with AFP and NFS.
 
True, FTP is cumbersome.

However, AFP over AppleTalk is SLOW! Try this: You get better AFP performance from a Mac OS 9 client to a Mac OS X beta client over IP than from a NT 4 server to a Mac OS X beta client over AppleTalk. Why? Because TCP/IP has larger packets.

The solution, for now, is to upgrade to either a Windows 2000 server or a Mac OS X server. It may be that Apple will have AFP over AppleTalk supported in the final Mac OS X release; after all, this functionality is available now in Mac OS X server.

As far as long file names: I think that they're still limited to 32 characters for compatibility with older versions of AFP; however HFS+ volumes support names as long as 255 characters. Mac OS 9 and X both have updated file systems to display these. Apple is probably holding these features for compatibility.
 
Originally posted by dewittg
True, FTP is cumbersome.

However, AFP over AppleTalk is SLOW! Try this: You get better AFP performance from a Mac OS 9 client to a Mac OS X beta client over IP than from a NT 4 server to a Mac OS X beta client over AppleTalk. Why? Because TCP/IP has larger packets.
Click to expand...

I don't want to get into the whole packet size and AppleTalk debate, especially since I don't know what I'm talking about. The move to replace AppleTalk is not so much due to AT's deficiencies as it is the ubiquity of TCP/IP. I go to a school which, until recently, had a massive 6000 computer AppleTalk network. (Talk about a good game of Marathon!) AppleTalk worked just fine for us, and if packet size were the only issue, Apple would just update the protocol as they did when block size became an issue with HFS.
 
The packet size in appletalk is optimised for 230 kbit / second localtalk connections. If you run this over 10baseT ethernet, you end up sending a lot of header information that you don't really need to. On 10baseT ASIP is usually several times faster for file copies. On 100baseT it is a bigger advatage again. The impact for games is probably small, if anythin, as they tend to communicate with small packets anyhow.

Its kind of hard to change the maximum packet size for a protocol because you tend to break every implementation on the planet if you do it. ( most layer 3 stuff that registers a packet that is "too big" will assume its corrupted somehow )

But in response to the original poster, MacOS X beta only does Appleshare over IP, and NT 4.0 Mac Services are vanilla appleshare. Win2k does ASIP. This is documented in the Beta's doco.

Apple also have stated at Developer's conferences that they
are moving away from appleltalk support, and it will only be in there for legacy support in X.

aj


Originally posted by scooby
Originally posted by dewittg
True, FTP is cumbersome.

However, AFP over AppleTalk is SLOW! Try this: You get better AFP performance from a Mac OS 9 client to a Mac OS X beta client over IP than from a NT 4 server to a Mac OS X beta client over AppleTalk. Why? Because TCP/IP has larger packets.
Click to expand...

I don't want to get into the whole packet size and AppleTalk debate, especially since I don't know what I'm talking about. The move to replace AppleTalk is not so much due to AT's deficiencies as it is the ubiquity of TCP/IP. I go to a school which, until recently, had a massive 6000 computer AppleTalk network. (Talk about a good game of Marathon!) AppleTalk worked just fine for us, and if packet size were the only issue, Apple would just update the protocol as they did when block size became an issue with HFS.
Click to expand...
 
I agree. All the AppleTalk support in Mac OS X beta is simply there for printing. AppleTalk still makes a decent print protocol because it allows bidirectional communication between the computer and the printer. LPR printing does not. (Ever see a Windows machine tell you the toner is low?)

Another reason Apple has moved away from AppleTalk is the restrictions that Zones had. Mac OS 9, AppleShare IP, and Mac OS X beta all advertise AFP services over NSL, which is (just for comparison) sort of like a "TCP/IP zone". Of course these are much bigger; they usually encompass an entire domain. For example, you could access all NSL services in the domain "apple.com" just as easily as in an AppleTalk network.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top