Will Extreme Help With Network Drive Speed ...

I was happy with my Snow Airport until I bought a ethernet based network attached storage. It takes forever to copy any big files and streaming a dvd file for watching is very choppy.
I am considering Extreme base station. Will you be able to stream a DVD file fast enough to watch? Anyone, Anyone?

You mention you have a Snow Airport. That model only has 802.11b - about 500-800K/s on a good, quiet network.
You talk about buying the new Extreme model. That will get 1,500 - 2,500K/s on a good, quiet network.
That will let you watch the DVD with 'less' choppyness, but it still won't be as good as reading straight from the DVD.
Typically if you care about watching DVDs, I'd suggest using a DVD ripper to turn it into a Quicktime / DIVX movie of some sort, which would then be small enough to easily view over even your Snow Airport BS's network (and would be great with the Airport Extreme BS).
I can't agree with any of the suggestions from the prior poster. The issue is unlikely to be RAM (assuming you have enough to run OS X and aren't running other tasks in the background) or NAS speed; your network speed is vastly faster than your wireless network speed, so I wouldn't even worry about that.

Similar Messages

Help with Network drive.

How do I get TiimeMachine to recognize a WiFi ReadyShare drive? I see it in Finder, but TimeMachine doesn't see it.

Did you check with the manufacturer to see if it was Time Machine capable?
See the last paragraph.
Disks You Can Use

TM works with network drives?

Just to be sure - TM works with directly attached drives. But does it also work with network drives? I hope it does at least with Apples newest update.
Thanks
Andreas

There is plenty of documentation/discussion of a workaround that let's you make your computer recognize unsupported drives. Search for it using words like terminal network unsupported drive backup and you will find it. Some people say it works fine, and others caution against using it. I haven't seen a thorough discussion that really explains why Apple doesn't allow it, or why it's risky, or why it works, but that's typical of the boards that attract a techie crowd. Me? After spending $650 for a Terastation, I'm going to give it a try. Apple wants so badly for Windows users to switch to Mac, but they sometimes seem to make it very difficult and frustrating for us.

CS 5 Bridge Downloader crashes with network drive

For the first time with CS5 I have tried "getting photos" from my camera. If I specify the destination on my local drive there is no problem. If, I specify a mapped network drive the downloader stalls, and eventually I have to kill the program in task manager.
I didn't have this problem with CS4. Has anyone tried using this workflow with a network drive with success?
Any ideas what the problem might be?
There is plenty of free space on the network drive.
Thanks.

Adobe always answers that they can't guarantee anything working with networked drives because they can't know every network configuration out there.
Hence, always save to a local drive initially.

"UFO" Airport Extreme with network drive

I have an older, UFO-shaped Airport Extreme and I am trying to use a network drive with it. I got a new drive, formatted it and plugged it into my Airport via USB. The drive spun up, but nothing happened. Can't seem to connect to it via my computer, I have tried to do so via the "Network" and through Time Machine.

Sorry, but the older 802.11g (dome-shaped) AirPort Extreme Base Station's USB port will only support USB printers not hard drives.

Need help with networking external hard drive

Hi,
I am working on a corporate network and I have a Western Digital My Book Studio Edition external hard drive attached to a Mac OSX 10.4. i have other Macs connecting through the network to this Mac and accessing the external hard drive and it works just fine for that.
What I need help with is the fact that I also have several PCs on the same network (all XP), that need to connect to the hard drive and access the files. I've been able to connect to the Mac using the XP by accessing the IP address. I also set the Mac up with password credentials so that I had to log in to the Mac to access the files. But when I try to access the Mac, it only shows the main computer drive as the only available share and no external drive.
Does anyone know how to access a Western Digital external drive on a Mac from a PC through a network?

For an external hard disk drive or other (different) system shared
storage devices to work, they probably should be formatted in a
format seen by both operating systems.
If the WD unit is not seen by Windows computers on your network,
the WD may have been formatted in HFS+ for the Macintosh. That
is OK unless you need a Windows computer to access the same.
The Macintosh can see and use a standard Windows disc format;
so the external drive may need to be reformatted away from HFS+
if that is really what is going on (and archive any data on the suspect
drive elsewhere, since it will be lost to reformatting overwrites)
and then both Mac OS X and Windows should see the files on there.
And Macs set up to run Windows may also see the non-Mac format;
without having to re-boot via BootCamp, if that option is in use.
As to the other question(s) I really have no idea at this point in time.
And since that may be the rub, hopefully someone will follow up here.
Good luck & happy computing!

Canon 6D EOS with network drive

When will the EOS utility be upgraded to it can DL file to a network drive? Eye-Fi has been always able to do this.

mvadu wrote:
I am new to full frame camera, and a new proud owner of Canon 6D. I used to shoot with a T1i before. I also have a YN-468 flash. Since 6D does not have an on-board flash, I want to start use the external flash more often.
As per many online guides, (e.g. photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html) in Manual (M) exposure mode flash power is varied to expose the subject, while the shutter and aperture determine the ambient light.
I followed this approach, and on T1i it works as expected.
On 6D however it does not seem to work that way. The flash is firing, but the photos are tuned out black! (or extremely under exposed)
Both are shot in Manual Exposure mode, with same lens (24-105 L) @ 1/50, f/4, ISO-400. Since this setting was giving little over exposed in T1i, I put -2 FEC on both. I asked this question on Flickr forum and general conscious was that 6D is implementing some new algorithm for eTTL and hence previously working third party accessories may not work any more. Is it true?
I am borrowing one my friends 430Ex tonight to try if a Canon flash would work as expected to make sure my copy 6D is not defective.
Hi,
As RexGig said, full reverse engineering is required for 3rd party accessories to work properly, and Canon 6D may have an algorithm that detects 3rd party flash units...
Please let us know if the 430EXII worked fine.
Also remember that shutter speed won't affect the flash shoot if it's between the syncrhonizing speed (asuming you're not capturing environment light, otherwise the shutter speed will indeed make influence on the picture, but not because of the flash)
An additional test could be not using the flash with eTTL, but with a hot shoe adapter without communication to the camera. Of course, that would be very limiting to all manual settings.
Regards
HD Cam Team
Group of photographers and filmmakers using Canon cameras for serious purposes.
www.hdcamteam.com | www.twitter.com/HDCamTeam | www.facebook.com/HDCamTeam

Working photographer needs help with hard drives and raid O decisions

Hi new here and also new to Mac well almost new been 20 years since i had a mac. i have a Mac Pro Book and this led to ordering the MacPro since I am a working photographer i made a complete switch in platforms so i have some questions and such but I did place a order on Friday for a 2.66 4gbs of Ram , 2 500 gb hard drive and a 30 in monitor and of course the ATI 1900 XT card so yes i am waiting like many for that card.
I put initial 4gb of ram since running CS2 will at least take a max of 3gb's in the memory cache . i plan on getting 2gbs more from OWC since that seems to be the only 3rd party ram at the moment that is working correctly from reading some of the threads here. Having 6gbs is a no brainer really given the amount of Raw processing that i do along with PS work plus having e-mail and other apps open at the same time. The ram to me is the easy part although expensive . My biggest issue is what to do with the 2 hard drive slots and Raid O or not but I will start a thread on that. But i will have 6gbs total for now and the bottom line is you can never have enough ram still holds true.
Now on to my diliemma with hard drives. I did have a raid O scsi 10k rapture and and 10 k scratch on my Dell box and I am just not sure what to do here. i ordered the 2 500 gb hard drive and I may just put them on the storage side of things than get 2 WD 150gb 10 k Sata drives. Now i could Raid O them for 300 gb and get a performace boast that way or i could keep them seperate and put everything on 1 150 drive and ue the second for scratch only. What i don't know is what Mac perfers and what works better. Not worried so much about failure of drives, thats just life in the big city stuff and you just have backups. What i more worried about is performance versus a waste . seems to me that Raid O may not even be needed with these new Intel boxes with all the horsepower going on. Now the other think I notice is the WD 150gb 10 k drives are 1.5 and not 3.0 so is it really faster than the 7200 3.0 single hard drives. I read barefeats shoot out and it seems just getting the right drives in 7200 and Raid O them maybe the answer.
Okay i am not the biggest geek on the planet but I do know my stuff but this is a area that i look for more knowledge on this. So if i can get some sound advice in this area. i know there are many photographers out there like me pushing hundreds of images that could use the same advice. Now let's leave the money end out , folks sometimes think more with there wallet than what works best not that I am opposed to saving money but after spending over 7 k already on this system it becomes a moot point. LOL
www.guymancusophoto.com

Ok your question is if you should RAID O the two 150GB Raptors or not.
I think it was wise for you to get a couple of them for a boot drive with "Time Machine" coming in the next version of Mac OS X. The second drive would make a excellent bootable backup and eliminating downtime if a boot drive dies on you one morning.
In fact any boot drive cloning software that is Mac Intel ready now would do you good.
Now Barefeats has run some tests, and I can pretty much back up what they say from my own experience.
Mac OS X and apps can be helped only so much by a faster boot drive, and a single 10,000 RPM Raptor is enough, RAID O a pair is overkill.
If you install everything on the boot Raptor and keep your space hogging files (except iTunes) in new folders on another drive, even a 7,200 RPM 500GB, the two drives combined is faster as there is nearly no wait. Both drives can be accessed at the same time. Keeping the boot drive slim keeps the stylus (arm) moving as little as possible to get all the small reads/writes Mac OS X needs.
I RAID O-ed my boot drives because 74GB was the largest they had at the time, so combining them gave me speed and larger storage. I hardly use the speed, it only comes in handy if by rare chance I duplicate a 20GB folder, then I can do it in half the time of a 7,200 RPM drive.
Some of the drawbacks of a RAID O set, especially as a boot drive is that I have to auto-clone the whole set to a external drive regularly (I actually do a couple). Since the data path is separated with a RAID O, any drive failure results in total data loss.
So if you RAID O those 150GB Raptors, your going to have to clone 300GB to a external drive (or another internal) regularly, like once a week. This will take considerable time and you can't use the machine while the cloning process is going on. Sure auto-cloning software like DeJaVu can be used at night/weekends, but why bother cloning more than you have to for no big speed increase?
However if your messing with huge Photoshop files that spill over your CS2 3GB RAM limit (you need to have a "scratch" thats as fast as RAM), duplicating large files and other heavy duty drive work, then a boot RAID O will come in handy. Just remember your initial performance of 185 MB p/s will drop about 20-25% when those drives are 3/4 filled. Still 140 MB p/s is extremely good and a no worry situation.
What is worrysome is anything below 80MB p/s (I'm talking uncached 4K write speeds under X-Bench) with a new boot drive and then as time elaspes that boot drive gets filled up and loses half or more of it's inital speed. 30 MB p/s is really slow. Beachball H&LL.
http://www.barefeats.com/hard33b.html
Do Erase W/Zero in Disk Utility all new drives before laying data on them. Drives get subjected to shock which causes bad sectors on the drive. Driver software uses your data as a guinea pig to test the sectors (which you might not be able to recover the file). Zeroing does this without your data, rewriting the bad sector map so your writes are much improved, OS is more stable. etc.

Time Machine restore problem with network drive

Hi, I switched from PC to Mac. I bought a Lacie Network Space 2 (network hd) in an apple store (turns out it's NOT an apple store, it's an apple premium reseller according to the 90 days free telephone support guy, and apple's policy is then: you should have bought a 'time capsule' then.) That doesn't help me now. So I'm hoping some of you might have had this or similar trouble before. The Lacie drive is able to back up my macbook through time machine. It recognizes the drive and it does my backups on a time machine enable share on the hard drive. So I thought it worked like a charm. Until i wanted to go back to a previous date and restore all my data. I read you gotta start from the mac os install dvd and choose the restore option in utility. It recognizes the lacie harddrive. But when i want to connect to it it will say connection failed! I tried this over wifi (the hard drive connect to my linksys router with ethernet cable) and i tried this with the hard drive directly connected to the macbook with ethernet cable. It always finds the harddrive but when i want to connect to it to choose a previous date to restore, i can't even get there because it will say the connection failed. I'd really appreciate some help, because I tried to go on support pages and look up an answer, called apple, but can't really figure out what's wrong. So it can backup, it can restore single or multiple files in time machine, but it can't restore the whole OS when used with the install disc? Also made a dmg file with disk utility, but this one doesn't recognize the network drive. Finder does however. Any tips? Any at all, please?

Fototom wrote:
I had to mark a 'time machine' checkbox in the Lacie UI for it to be able to work as a time machine drive. So the backups work fine without special terminal commands. It's just weird that it won't restore the full OS back when started up with the install DVD.
Whatever the +LaCie UI+ is, that's probably why you can't do the full restore. That may be doing the equivalent of the Terminal command, to "fool" Time Machine into thinking it's backing-up to a supported destination. But you can't do that when booted from your SL Install disc, so Time Machine can't find the network drive.
I tried the option during Setup Assistant to transfer data earlier, but it won't recognize the drive at that time.
Yes, that's likely for the same reason.
BUT I didn't know about *migration manager*. So the option of installing mac osx again and then creating another user and using the migration assistant, that DOES recognize the time machine backups, will surely work.
Never say "surely" until you know
It would be nice to skip the extra step of having to install the OS first, but this will definitely be a valid option to restore. So for now i'll mark this item solved.
Let us know how it turns out.
If anyone has even a speedier, better option to backup and restore a total disc image (or time machine backup), please let me know.
The time involved is probably about the same; it's just in two steps instead of one.
And there's only one step if you use a "supported" destination: Disks that can be used with Time Machine.

Does Time Machine work with Networked drives yet...?

Yes, I did search, and nothing recent came up.
I have a 500 GB lacie hard drive that is attached to my router, and it works great.
Without using any of those hacks, should Time Machine work properly with a networked drive?

No. At present on drives attached to a Time Capsule seem to work.
My AEBS has a 500GB USB drive attached - and Time Machine won't use it.
My Time Capsule has both the internal 1TB disk and a 1TB external Western Digital drive attached - and the Time Capsule drive and all of the partitions on the USB drive are available for use by Time Machine.
Time Capsule comes with a new version of the Airport Utility (5.3) - I don't see that this is available as a separate download right now.
Perhaps Airports will support Time Machine in the future - but that is by no means guaranteed. I don't think many people know what the hardware differences between an Airport Extreme and a Time Capsule really are.

Using UTL_FILE in NT with network drive

I want to use utl_file for file handling and try to use util_file.fopen for opening file from a mapping network drive (say F with error "Invalid Operation".
I've got no error when I handling file in local drive.
Can anyone help ?
Rgds,
Edward
(ps I've already set the parameter utl_file_dir=*)
null

Hello,
In december an Edward TSE had a same kind of problem. I replied to him the following solution after which I was helped.
Instead of using:
declare
fh_lis utl_file.file_type;
begin
fh_lis := utl_file.fopen(
location => '\\caghk8\vtfp2\transfer\',
filename => 'tpx.txt',
open_mode => 'r');
utl_file.fclose(fh_lis);
end;
Use:
declare
fh_lis utl_file.file_type;
begin
fh_lis := utl_file.fopen('\\caghk8\vtfp2\transfer\', 'tpx.txt', 'r');
utl_file.fclose(fh_lis);
end;
He said it worked!
null

Slow iPod sync with network drive

I run a small network for my home/office (I am self employed) with about 4 PCs for me and my family.
We have 3 iPods in our family and we just use one PC to host iTunes, but because we have so much music, I have put the music on a network drive served from my file server (Windows Small Business Server - Windows Server 2003 based).
There's no problem with this setup, except one:
I've noticed that when iPods sync with iTunes, it takes a very long time, perhaps 5 times as long than when I had my music files on an external hard drive directly connected to the PC on which we run iTunes.
This is fustrating. My question is: is there anything that can be done about this ?
I can't really understand why this should be an issue. iTunes has, stored in the library files on my local PC, the details of all my music files. So when my iPod syncs, surely iTunes consults the iPod and consults what is in iTunes and figures out what should change - and then and only then should iTunes need to connect to the network drive to actually get any necessary files. Is my understanding wrong of what iTunes is doing when syncing an iPod ?
The issue is that even with no changes, sync-ing is an issue.
Any help on this gratefully received - have looked in this forum and other places, but haven't managed to trawl and info on my issue.

Having been given an iPod video 60Gig as a present, I am sometimes forced to use it.
Recently I tried - I downloaded and installed latest itunes 7.5 on the PC running Windows XP.
Built up the library of music - tried to do a sync. So slow I nearly hit the PC. The transfer rate would merely get 40 Meg on in 5 minutes (thats my estimate all I know is it never finished). I tried to leave it running for 3 hours and still not finished - the size of music to transfer was about 2400 songs.
I then tried to use Vista Home Basic - with itunes 7.5 - it wouldnt even recognize the ipod.
After a few days of giving up and banging my head against the wall I tried Linux too - but that was slow too.
I eventually went back to Vista and de-installed itunes 7.5 - found version 6.05 and installed it. It went through like clockwork (well as clockwork as can be it was magically fast but fast enough to fill half of the 60Gig).
I then had the magic idea - why not update to 7.5 from 6.05 and guess what - its slow again painfully slow.
Version 7.5 *****!

Issue with network drive on E3000

So I have a brand new network drive and its NTFS formatted and when I go into the management screen all it shows is:
Disk1 : Seagate FA GoFlex Desk
Partition
File System
Capacity
Free Space
Create Share
Total
1863.016 GB
1863.016 GB
When I try to connect it returns the volume name, but cannot be mounted. When I format at FAT32 then instead of the * I see FAT32, but not so with NTFS. I owuld have gone FAT32, but the 4GB file limit is a problem.
Help? Any ideas?
Thanks.

As far as i can look into this, Your HDD should work with the same as Original Documentation that comes along with the Linksys E3000 router and also mentioned on the official website, says that it supports file system like FAT16, FAT32 & NTFS.....
What you can try is first of all take up a complete back up of the data that is already present on the HDD that you are using and then try to reformat the HDD using one of your computer...
Also check out the following links to support your cause
http://www6.nohold.net/Cisco2/ukp.aspx?pid=80&app=vw&vw=1&login=1&json=1&docid=1eb1e107d62d49b8ba23b...
http://www6.nohold.net/Cisco2/ukp.aspx?pid=80&app=vw&vw=1&login=1&json=1&docid=0868d4e24a6a468280c3c...

Writing to dvd with super drive - speed?

I understand from the user manual that I can write to either + or - dvd disks. However they are sold with different speed ratings. Which speed of disk should I buy? Also, in anticipation of further questions, if in 6 months time faster dvd disks are being sold, can I start using faster disks?
Thanks, LJ

Hi Louis XV11:
I understand from the user manual that I can write to
either + or - dvd disks. However they are sold with
different speed ratings. Which speed of disk should I
buy?
If you have the first generation of MB's then you can write to DVD's at 4X and a second generation (LATE 2006) you can write at 6X.
Nowadays you can use any speed, if the disk is rated faster than your drive, it will use your max drive speed, ( so if you have a 16X disk and a 6X drive it will burn at 6X) and if the speed rating is slower than you drives max speed, it will burn at that speed, so you don't need to worry.
For Important data, I would recommend either Apple or Verbatim Disks, and for video, home movies (iMovie, iDVD) use -R.
Also, in anticipation of further questions, if
in 6 months time faster dvd disks are being sold, can
I start using faster disks?
As above
-Robert

FCPX 10.1.3 problem with network drive

I just upgraded to FCPX 10.1.3 (and OS X Mavericks 10.9.5). I'm trying to update my old projects/events but FCPX does not recognise the drive as a valid drive.
If I go to File > Update..., then Locate... and try to navigate to the Time Capsule, I get the message 'Choose a SAN location or folder containing Final Cut Projects and Events to update into a new library.' It also states that 'The current selection is not valid. Choose another SAN location or folder.'
I use a Time Capsule drive, with no Time Machine files, no DCIM and no AVCHD files. The 'Final Cut Events' and 'Final Cut Projects' folders are at the root level. The Time Capsule is connected via ethernet cable to a Thunderbolt screen which is connected via thunderbolt cable to the laptop. I can see Time Capsule on the desktop and have no problem access files on it.
Please help!
Thanks in advance.
Mo

Thanks Tom, I'll try that.
And is there no way that it would work with a network drive?

Will Extreme Help With Network Drive Speed ...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for