NAS4Free 9.3.0.2.1349 Released (FreeBSD 9.3-RELEASE-P9)

[noclaf]

kkd : then I think reverting SAMBA to last working version in next N4F release might be the solution. I understand all the "it's free" etc., but most of the community are noobs like me. I'm glad I can make N4F running over GUI with some very carefull playing in shell.
For such users is crucial whether N4F is stable and working - without digging deep into testing and/or bug tracking of other pieces of SW integrated into N4F. Most of the time I'm able only to scratch my head saying "it's not working" - and logs are gibberish of green IT dwarfs from basement for me. I prefer to have stable server with components being one version behind main branch than thinking what new feature destroyed things which were going so fine until now.

I also reported one error - no response from anyone so far.

Sometimes I'm thing about reverting to last 9.2. Because 9.3 brings a lots of trouble and no obvious significant benefits.

[kkd]

copying files while the error appears hmmm... noone is perfect, so none of the softwares is perfect.
but keep in mind: software update is chance to change known errors to unknowns, so yes, be aware of updates. Test and backup forever.

[NAS4Free4Me]

Hi


@kfnas
... yes, it is sad.. or am I the only one who can reproduce it?

I don't think you're the only one with this problem (a one off issue). I think you are on to something. I believe there are others but they are lurking to see if it will ever be resolved.

I get the majority of what you have stated. Some parts I'm a bit rusty on, so I'm doing a crash course to get back up to speed. The really REALY bad part is, if N4F is used in a multi user environment and/or multi OS environment - whoo dogies! I can only imagine what disaster awaits if N4F is used in a AD environment (and maybe a *nix server or two) as a storage container for shared community access - (OH JOY!).




@kkd
... I thik u r on the wrong place.
Nope I don't think so. As others have stated the developers at N4F are the best qualified to push this to Samba and ZFS as they (N4F dev team) have intimate knowledge of the overall coding not the end users.


@kkd
... it"s not a n4f error, it's zfs or samba4 error
Well which is it? If you say it's ZFS - then why is it when I look for this error in regards to ZFS I don't find anything. If you say it's Samba4 - again, when I go hunting for this type of error I find nothing. I went as far as checking on FreeNAS' site and from what I can see they ARE using ZFS and Samba4 (and 9.3 of FreeBSD) and I DON'T see a single complaint in regards to extended attributes. How is it they have no problems but N4F does? As an idea, maybe look at their code (it's open source) compare it to N4F find the difference (ie: where the problem is, and where theirs work) and take corrective actions. Mind you I'm not saying to copy their code but, rather use it as a guideline to fix the issue at hand.

The real problem I have with your comment is from what I recall both of the systems basically come from the same base code from original author Olivier Cochard-Labbé. In part at some point (initially) N4F and FreeNAS used a modified version of m0n0wall's (RIP 02/15/2015) web interface. If my memory serves correct for N4F this is no longer the case, so based on that, maybe that's what's causing the problem? Maybe not. The point being, as a end user I have no clue of ALL of the inner workings of N4F (like the N4F developers do) and for me to contact Samba and/or ZFS and say you have this bug that needs correcting etc. etc. etc. Just how does the end user respond when one or both start asking for specific details? Bottom line - they can't, only the N4F dev team can! If the end user tries all that happens is a finger point scenerio with each side say not our problem (kind of what is happening on one side right now). Or worse yet Samba or ZFS totally ignores the issue because it's just an end user complaining and what do they know when it comes to the real knitty gritty of computer coding. But, get the someone in the know from one or both sides and things start to happen for a common resolution.

From what I've learned about Samba4 is it basically has the ability to run as a AD by itself without the use of any windows machine(s). I can't imagine the developers at SAMBA went "we got this tiny problem, oh well they'll get over it" given its wide use in the *nix and "nix-like (including BSD) world. Further with Samba4 being used by a many *nix based systems I would think whole communities would be screaming at Samba to get it fixed and fixed fast.

Still further, I real can't believe Samba4 and ZFS being aware of a compatibility issue and both turning a blind eye. No way! Both sides I dare speculate would contact each other and say "we got to get this fixed and fixed now!" or ALL communities are going to start screaming.


@kkd
... copying files while the error appears hmmm... noone is perfect, so none of the softwares is perfect.
True, but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed or worse yet turn a blind eye and the problem will go away. Right now, IMO, N4F is taking a bad path, the wrong path... (Hint: akin to "I'd take a FLAMETHROWER! to this place...), and no good will ever come of it. I know I sound like I'm attacking but really I'm not. II have been using N4F when it was originally FreeNAS (not the current version). It sucked when the current (FreeNAS) version took over. Then I was elated when N4F decided to get back in, and I never looked back. As such, I just HATE seeing an AWESOME piece of software start down the same path of being crap. Soon it might just be, well that doesn't work or something else is broke, or well as long as you don't do or do this it works. Then it will be why use that software? It was good but now, eh. This software for the most part is SOLID but ever since 9.3x there are problems and these problems really need to be looked at slowly, cautiously, so they can be resolved vs. taking the attitude of not my/our problem.


@kkd
... totally agree, but never forget: "Internet is wide"
I know but I got thick skin and it's the Internet so... I guess my main point was if anyone has issue with what I commented about feel free to flame me as they are my thoughts/opinions not N4F. I'm not looking to start any flame war, far from it. But when something is wrong, I do believe it's the user base responsibility to voice that difference. My apologies if I come off strong but I'm passionate about N4F it is TRUELY AWESOME and I hate to see it go down the gutter/toilet!

Right now I'm holding at 9.2x until the dust settles. 9.3x added a bunch of new things and until all those things gel, I'm not willing to place any of my data at risk (even though all of it is backed up). The fact is that data has to get back to a primary source or the backup becomes useless.

[xuesheng]

After upgrading from NAS4Free 9.2.0.1.972 to 9.3.0.2.1349 I was surprised to find that the ZFS pool status now reports "Some supported features are not enabled on the pool. The pool can still be used, but some features are unavailable.".

I've looked at the changes announced for 9.3.0.2 builds 1190, 1213, 1268, 1283, 1310 and 1349 and cannot see any mention of a newer version of ZFS being included ~ the only ZFS changes seem to be:

- Improved ZFS pool usage/tool and import ZFS disks.
- Improved ZFS pool import on embedded.
- Add log/mirrored log support in Disks|ZFS|Pools|Tools

Why is NAS4Free 9.3.0.2.1349 reporting that I need to upgrade my pool?

NAS4Free 9.2.0.1.972 ZFS pool status before the upgrade:

Code: Select all

ZFS pool status:
----------------
  pool: wdred-pool
 state: ONLINE
  scan: scrub repaired 0 in 6h15m with 0 errors on Sun Feb  8 15:25:22 2015
config:

	NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
	wdred-pool  ONLINE       0     0     0
	  mirror-0  ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada0    ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada1    ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors

NAS4Free 9.3.0.2.1349 ZFS pool status after the upgrade:

Code: Select all

ZFS pool status:
----------------
  pool: wdred-pool
 state: ONLINE
status: Some supported features are not enabled on the pool. The pool can
	still be used, but some features are unavailable.
action: Enable all features using 'zpool upgrade'. Once this is done,
	the pool may no longer be accessible by software that does not support
	the features. See zpool-features(7) for details.
  scan: scrub repaired 0 in 6h6m with 0 errors on Sun Feb 15 15:16:46 2015
config:

	NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
	wdred-pool  ONLINE       0     0     0
	  mirror-0  ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada0    ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada1    ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors

Edit: Fixed some typos

[Impulse1]

I've installed the 64-bit embedded version of NAS4Free 9.3.0.2.1349 on a system which has an AMD E-350 processor. The STATUS page does not show the CPU temperatures. The "sysctl -a" command does not list any CPU temperatures:

I have the same issue. I just upgraded from 9.2xxxx and with 1349 I no longer see the temperature monitor for the CPU on the status page. I have a AMD C-60 APU.

[Andrey_BAM]

I've installed the 64-bit embedded version of NAS4Free 9.3.0.2.1349 on a system which has an AMD E-350 processor. The STATUS page does not show the CPU temperatures. The "sysctl -a" command does not list any CPU temperatures:

I have the same issue. I just upgraded from 9.2xxxx and with 1349 I no longer see the temperature monitor for the CPU on the status page. I have a AMD C-60 APU.

I have the same issue.

[mooblie]

Just to give an alternative view on the (successful!) temperature reporting for me:

I've just installed the 64-bit embedded version of NAS4Free 9.3.0.2.(1349) on an HP N36L Microserver with a AMD Athlon II Neo Dual-Core Processor. The STATUS page DOES show the CPU temperatures.

[kkd]

After upgrading from NAS4Free 9.2.0.1.972 to 9.3.0.2.1349 I was surprised to find that the ZFS pool status now reports "Some supported features are not enabled on the pool. The pool can still be used, but some features are unavailable.".

I've looked at the changes announced for 9.3.0.2 builds 1190, 1213, 1268, 1283, 1310 and 1349 and cannot see any mention of a newer version of ZFS being included ~ the only ZFS changes seem to be:

- Improved ZFS pool usage/tool and import ZFS disks.
- Improved ZFS pool import on embedded.
- Add log/mirrored log support in Disks|ZFS|Pools|Tools

Why is NAS4Free 9.3.0.2.1349 reporting that I need to upgrade my pool?

NAS4Free 9.2.0.1.972 ZFS pool status before the upgrade:

Code: Select all

ZFS pool status:
----------------
  pool: wdred-pool
 state: ONLINE
  scan: scrub repaired 0 in 6h15m with 0 errors on Sun Feb  8 15:25:22 2015
config:

	NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
	wdred-pool  ONLINE       0     0     0
	  mirror-0  ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada0    ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada1    ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors

NAS4Free 9.3.0.2.1349 ZFS pool status after the upgrade:

Code: Select all

ZFS pool status:
----------------
  pool: wdred-pool
 state: ONLINE
status: Some supported features are not enabled on the pool. The pool can
	still be used, but some features are unavailable.
action: Enable all features using 'zpool upgrade'. Once this is done,
	the pool may no longer be accessible by software that does not support
	the features. See zpool-features(7) for details.
  scan: scrub repaired 0 in 6h6m with 0 errors on Sun Feb 15 15:16:46 2015
config:

	NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
	wdred-pool  ONLINE       0     0     0
	  mirror-0  ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada0    ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada1    ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors

Edit: Fixed some typos

maybe fo didn't upgrade your zfs when upgraded to 9.2

please read: http://sourceforge.net/projects/nas4fre ... 2.0.1.972/
"9.2.0.1.xxx ZFS v5000 Upgrade" section

[xuesheng]

I upgraded my ZFS pool soon after upgrading to 9.2.0.1.943

Code: Select all

--------------------------------------------------
10 February 2014 - Version: 9.2.0.1 Revision: 943
--------------------------------------------------
ZFS pool status:
----------------
  pool: wdred-pool
 state: ONLINE
status: The pool is formatted using a legacy on-disk format.  The pool can
	still be used, but some features are unavailable.
action: Upgrade the pool using 'zpool upgrade'.  Once this is done, the
	pool will no longer be accessible on software that does not support feature
	flags.
  scan: scrub repaired 0 in 6h43m with 0 errors on Sun Feb  9 15:53:14 2014
config:

	NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
	wdred-pool  ONLINE       0     0     0
	  mirror-0  ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada0    ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada1    ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors

--------------------------------------------------
17 February 2014 - Version: 9.2.0.1 Revision: 943
--------------------------------------------------
ZFS pool status:
----------------
  pool: wdred-pool
 state: ONLINE
  scan: scrub repaired 0 in 6h38m with 0 errors on Sun Feb 16 15:48:57 2014
config:

	NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
	wdred-pool  ONLINE       0     0     0
	  mirror-0  ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada0    ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada1    ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors
--------------------------------------------------

[jack47]

Sometimes I'm thing about reverting to last 9.2. Because 9.3 brings a lots of trouble and no obvious significant benefits.

I'm serioulsy thinking to revert to 9.2.
9.3 didn't solve any of the open issues I had with 9.2 (for instance the problem with the USB disks), and create a new one (worse): ZEROCONF IS NOT WORKING!!

And also the thing about the mandatory swap and the change of size of the root partition at every release is annoying...

If the developers would have acalled ths 9.3beta instead of 9.3 nobody would have complained probably. But like this is just annoying for the "normal" user that doesn't have the skills or the time to wander around the web to search for fixes/workaround for things that should be working out of the box.

Said so I thanks the doog job the developer are doing in thier free time (I suppose).

Regards Jack

[kkd]

I upgraded my ZFS pool soon after upgrading to 9.2.0.1.943

Code: Select all

--------------------------------------------------
10 February 2014 - Version: 9.2.0.1 Revision: 943
--------------------------------------------------
ZFS pool status:
----------------
  pool: wdred-pool
 state: ONLINE
status: The pool is formatted using a legacy on-disk format.  The pool can
	still be used, but some features are unavailable.
action: Upgrade the pool using 'zpool upgrade'.  Once this is done, the
	pool will no longer be accessible on software that does not support feature
	flags.
  scan: scrub repaired 0 in 6h43m with 0 errors on Sun Feb  9 15:53:14 2014
config:

	NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
	wdred-pool  ONLINE       0     0     0
	  mirror-0  ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada0    ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada1    ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors

--------------------------------------------------
17 February 2014 - Version: 9.2.0.1 Revision: 943
--------------------------------------------------
ZFS pool status:
----------------
  pool: wdred-pool
 state: ONLINE
  scan: scrub repaired 0 in 6h38m with 0 errors on Sun Feb 16 15:48:57 2014
config:

	NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
	wdred-pool  ONLINE       0     0     0
	  mirror-0  ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada0    ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada1    ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors
--------------------------------------------------

I upgraded and I got:

Code: Select all

status: Some supported features are not enabled on the pool. The pool can
	still be used, but some features are unavailable.
action: Enable all features using 'zpool upgrade'. Once this is done,
	the pool may no longer be accessible by software that does not support
	the features. See zpool-features(7) for details.
[code]

Reading https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=zpool-features&sektion=7&manpath=FreeBSD+8.4-RELEASE I think u can switch on features if u got v5000. So it not a bug, it would like to say u can switch on some new features, but u didnt. But I have to admit i'm no a ZFS expert, so maybe i'm wrong.

strange that it is not like yours, it seems u not upgraded.

[b0ssman]

i would recommend not ugrading to v5000. stay on v28.
v28 is supported on all platforms whereas v5000 you will have to find out if the features used to create the pool are supported on the specific version of the zfs impementation

[kkd]

I upgraded ZFS again, and status text disappeared. So it missong from the docs to upgrade again (but as b0smann saz u may not use ur disk on different system)

Code: Select all

pool: mda
 state: ONLINE
  scan: none requested
  

[kfnas]

hello, yes, it is sad.. or am I the only one who can reproduce it? To be honest, I'm glad that those people have the power to create N4F and for free (plus donation) and they are following FreeBSD ports and their current issues with it. Have to say, the people here have to be good scipters, they have to understand the system, hw relations, networking with its part and benefits, storage etc.. it is too big amount of different specializations... feel free to google just samba and it's features.. you find, that you have to understand the underlaying interaction with file system (ZFS,UFS,EXT4...) and UNIX/POSIX generic... and then you have many clients, AD related, LDAP related... etc... some mixure are not ideal.. for instance what I have understand (I hope I did) is, that there is still an option for SAMBA running VFS extension, what should be separate "database" where the NT ACL and its rights are stored generally for whole FS.. don't know about performance here, but for those, which are using ONLY NT clients and do no services locally on the storage, it might be an option... otherwise an interaction between form of windows rights and let say ZFS - an transform map is needed. You can understand it as with the dos atributes.
Dos atributes: http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/samba/book/ch05_03.html
Read-only

The file's contents can be read by a user but cannot be written to.
System

This file has a specific purpose required by the operating system.
Hidden

This file has been marked to be invisible to the user, unless the operating systems is explicitly set to show it.
Archive

This file has been touched since the last DOS backup was performed on it.

as I see this, the System attribute is NOT important on remote network share - CIFS/SAMBA related. Archive is an attribute which told at those times the file has been archived and you have an "copy" of it... if done correctly....

Hidden is perhaps important... in POSIX culture, hidden files are ".something" where in NT/DOS file does have to have an attribute

Read-only.. this is perhaps important for you but is related with user rights... DOS/NT system without ACL was one user system and such permission was important

in more user enviroment for instance SAMBA is removing POSIX write permission (POSIX basics ReadWriteeXecutable for USER,GROUP,OTHERS)

but the windows interaction would be, if the permission is set for read only, the OWNER is the same (this is NT ACL) the permissions are the same (lets assume everybody has read/write permission on the file) but the flag means, you should not modify the file. But user can remove the flag...

without DOS attributes set, SAMBA sets the read only for the user instead of "nonexisting READ-ONLY flag" on underlying NFS/UFS/EXT4..)

so.. if you require permissions for OTHER not YOU to not modify the file, use ACL read on SAMBA share either with permit or deny write. it depends what are you intent to do...

.. "store dos attributes = yes allows a user who has write
access to a file to modify the permissions, even if not the owner of the
file" ..

so WITHOUT dos attributes, the flag itself under file is propagated, but the global interaction with ACL ZFS is not the same...

On UFS you can forget this issue... UFS does not support

some quick googling gave me
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setup_ ... ndows_ACLs
https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2 ... 84722.html but they are solving the Linux port of ZFS, not FreeBSD

what I understand is, you have two option...

to be 100% precise with newest windows enviroment and thus you have to use vfs objects = vfs_acl_tdb which is separate database on underlying system but any operation under FreeBSD and it's services or more simplier... any operation NOT using SAMBA/CIFS/SMB will use only underlying POSIX rights and will ignore (cannot do anothery way) windows ACL in SAMBA config..

in other words... you perhaps do not need to use dos atributes only if in multiuser enviroment the modification of write permission is required without owner

.... whatever... there is some bug in ZFS<->SAMBA4 related converting dos attributes after file move... what SHOULD NOT BE... but either that exists in any bugtraq of FreeBSD or I'm the only one here... why are developers quite?

update and question to the public....

I have found, that when turned off dos attributes, the "creation time" is not the birth time of the file on UFS. On ZFS the interaction is OK.
I have tested to put
store dos attributes = yes
under share property of UFS... but that does not work... any expert here how to overcome the issue, since for me (and I guess that for everybody) it is important to know, when the file was created(changed) and when the file was borned over samba/copy...
please advice!

[dima9751]

Hello.

The problem reported viewtopic.php?f=78&t=8156#p49246 on previous release still exist.

zpool.cache not update after delete old pool.
Even after sygronize from WebGUI, after reboot pool reappear

You have to delete /cf/boot/zfs/zpool.cache manually as a workaround (after umount and writable remount of /cf).

After http://sourceforge.net/p/nas4free/code/1313/ only reset to factory setting works.

Thanks.

[erico.bettoni]

I've just upgraded from 9.2 to latest 9.3 and my pool is showing the message below:

Code: Select all

Pool information and status
  pool: tank1
 state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices are configured to use a non-native block size.
	Expect reduced performance.
action: Replace affected devices with devices that support the
	configured block size, or migrate data to a properly configured
	pool.
  scan: scrub repaired 0 in 6h4m with 0 errors on Wed Feb 11 20:35:55 2015
config:

	NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
	tank1       ONLINE       0     0     0
	  raidz1-0  ONLINE       0     0     0
	    ada0    ONLINE       0     0     0  block size: 512B configured, 4096B native
	    ada1    ONLINE       0     0     0  block size: 512B configured, 4096B native
	    ada2    ONLINE       0     0     0  block size: 512B configured, 4096B native
	    ada3    ONLINE       0     0     0  block size: 512B configured, 4096B native
	    ada4    ONLINE       0     0     0  block size: 512B configured, 4096B native

errors: No known data errors

I've been using this pool since FreeNAS. All disks have already been replaced once at least.
I think nothing changed with the upgrade of NAS4Free, it's just showing info it didn't before.

If that's the case maybe I should offline and replace disk by disk with it's .nop device?

[erico.bettoni]

I've just upgraded my other box to 9.3, and man, what a pain in the ass the new default setting of lighttpd is!
I mean allowing only hosts on the same network to connect. The change is simple, but the impact is HUGE.

A clean install was in order, which caused a 20 mile drive, plus keyboard and monitor. But the lighttpd setting needed a browser after that, as I couldn't change this behavior from the command line.

I think that should be reviewed.

Anyway, keep up the good work!

[bnanuwat]

I seem like NFS doesn't work with ESXi (as DataStore) anymore. It's work perfectly with 9.2

Thanks.

[brb]

Hello,
i have upgradet my embedded Version to 9.3.0.2.1349 with a new image.
But i always get the Message: Bootpartion is too smal ....

What to do?

The system runs perfectly but i don't know i can upgrade via WebGUI ...

regards Bernhard

[trendco]

kfnas:

Happens this only with SMB3 or with SMB2 too?
What can happen exactly, can the Files or ZFS be damaged?

[kfnas]

hello, it happens on both versions running... the reason is some weird behaviour with DOS ATTRIBUTES turned on (only on ZFS), on UFS it works... I can't comment why..

no... the files are ok, only their extended attribute is .... it will freeze the file .. after reboot the file is okay...

[kfnas]

SAMBA vfs_aio_pthread

@developers

when aio is set on the cifs, it does not look inside config, is it standard so enabled?

# smbd -b | grep aio
vfs_aio_fork_init
vfs_aio_posix_init
vfs_aio_pthread_init

[noclaf]

Is there anything wrong with the development (and/or developers? )? There are 2 weeks without single change in the code.

[kfnas]

@developers of embedded version, coul you add to the system also
extattrctl
getextattr
lsextattr
rmextattr
setextattr
please?

[jack47]

just installed 1349.

AVAHI/ZEROCONF IS STILL NOT WORKING!!!

cant connect from a mac to the NAS using the usual "afp://nas_name.local" (through Finder->Connect to Server...)
If I use the IP it works.

Was working on the 972 release, then was broken with the 9.3.x branch.

Plase fix the issue.

Best Regards Jack

PS: great work in any case.

[daoyama]

cant connect from a mac to the NAS using the usual "afp://nas_name.local" (through Finder->Connect to Server...)

I can't reproduce it.

One of change is Hostname(System|General Setup) is used if AFP Server Name is empty.
Did you check both name?

I use empty Server Name and "afp://nas4free.local". I can connect it.

20150411A.png

Please write actual string, don't use such as nas_name.local. And please write complete of:
/var/etc/mdnsresponder.conf
/var/etc/afp.conf

Thanks.

[daoyama]

But i want to note that the strange password bug is still present as i noted in this post HERE: viewtopic.php?f=78&t=8156&start=25#p50420 regarding Revision 1310, i can't use special characters in my password such as \ # @ because i will render the Web based File Manager inaccessible, and i will not be able to correctly apply the UPS settings because of Error: The changes could not be applied (error code 1).

I think accepting \ is a bug. It should not accept from any place.
It's very hard to escape it. For example, if the string is in nested code, we must use like \\\\ instead of \.

[jack47]

in System|General I have:
Hostname: trevize
Domain: local

in Services|AFP|Settings I have:
Server Name: (empty)

trevize: ~ # less /var/etc/mdnsresponder.conf

trevize
_device-info._tcp. local.
1
model=Xserve

trevize
_http._tcp. local.
80
path=/index.php

trevize
_afpovertcp._tcp. local.
548

trevize
_adisk._tcp. local.
9
sys=waMA=0,adVF=0x100
dk0=adVN=USB,adVU=614f510d-09e0-4d18-90ce-c797021d1dd4
dk1=adVN=anime,adVU=6177c675-886a-4ae0-9574-57c9ac271005
dk2=adVF=0xa1,adVN=backup_mini,adVU=9b4e3ae0-bab6-4239-8e2a-6a007fc8f1fd
dk3=adVN=book,adVU=6701f605-93b6-46c5-b61a-59cbbf6bceee
dk4=adVN=movie,adVU=e45b592d-909d-4291-8e64-c39488327b43
dk5=adVN=telefilm,adVU=42e5894b-d3a6-49ed-949f-0176f51bc316
dk6=adVN=varie,adVU=d26419b2-9e48-41fe-950e-dc11712c0c3c

trevize
_ssh._tcp. local.
22

trevize
_smb._tcp. local.
139

trevize
_bittorrent._tcp. local.
6886

trevize: ~ # less /var/etc/afp.conf
[Global]
uam list = uams_dhx.so uams_dhx2.so
guest account = ftp
vol dbnest = yes

[backup_mini]
path = /tank/backup/mini/
vol charset = UTF8
valid users = @staff
rwlist = @staff
file perm = 0660
directory perm = 0770

[book]
path = /tank/book/
vol charset = UTF8
valid users = @staff
rwlist = @staff
file perm = 0660
directory perm = 0770

(There are others shares, but they have the same configuration)

also if I try a ping:

[eto:~] jack% ping trevize.local
ping: cannot resolve trevize.local: Unknown host

So the problem seems to be in mdsresponder.

I also tried to disable/reenable zeroconf and AFP, delete and recreate the shares. Nothing changes.

Please let me know if you need more info.

Best Regards
Jack

[kfnas]

@developers

could you please bump the igb driver/kernel module version from 2.3.10 to 2.4.2 please? I guess a more users will become happy either as you may have read other topics by NIC forum
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/15815/e ... 4.2.tar.gz

thankyou

[JoseMR]

I think accepting \ is a bug. It should not accept from any place.
It's very hard to escape it. For example, if the string is in nested code, we must use like \\\\ instead of \.

Thanks for explaining about the \ and how it could mess with the code internally, i changed root password with no special characters like \ to prevent further issues.

Kind Regards, and keep up the good work