Is this possible...? (networking)
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Andy Hewitt on 24 Jul 2010 05:14 Running my secondary Aperture Vault over the Airport network isn't working out too well. I mount the disk, run the Vault in Aperture, but it is so slow. It's so slow that I end up having to force quit Aperture after updating the Vault (I tried leaving it for over an hour to unmount). I suspect it isn't helped by sharing the feed with my Time Machine drive (although halting the backup doesn't help much). My new idea is to separate the drives I have in the box they're in. I have the ability to run one on USB into the Airport Extreme box, and the other I can connect to the NAS board, and link it to my ethernet part of the system. The idea then is to simply use SuperDuper to clone the Aperture Library to a sparseimage on the NAS, which I suspect will be a lot faster. This will only be run every week or two (depending on my activity in Aperture). Is it possible to separate the networks so that Time Machine continues to update over wireless (270Mbs), along with all my other networking needs, and the Aperture Vault updates over ethernet (100Mbps)? -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Elliott Roper on 24 Jul 2010 07:43 In article <1jm4p9j.ychcm74167e5N%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > Running my secondary Aperture Vault over the Airport network isn't > working out too well. I mount the disk, run the Vault in Aperture, but > it is so slow. It's so slow that I end up having to force quit Aperture > after updating the Vault (I tried leaving it for over an hour to > unmount). I suspect it isn't helped by sharing the feed with my Time > Machine drive (although halting the backup doesn't help much). > > My new idea is to separate the drives I have in the box they're in. I > have the ability to run one on USB into the Airport Extreme box, and the > other I can connect to the NAS board, and link it to my ethernet part of > the system. > > The idea then is to simply use SuperDuper to clone the Aperture Library > to a sparseimage on the NAS, which I suspect will be a lot faster. This > will only be run every week or two (depending on my activity in > Aperture). > > Is it possible to separate the networks so that Time Machine continues > to update over wireless (270Mbs), along with all my other networking > needs, and the Aperture Vault updates over ethernet (100Mbps)? You might be getting two things mixed up. I have seen Aperture fail to finish updating vaults on a local connection. I'm a big fan of SuperDuper! but I don't see much point in replacing vaults with a SparseImage. It and the vault updating are using similar "smart" techniques to synchronise disk to sparseimage and library to vault. The update time will be the same. (I have kinda-sorta tested this). Aperture's vault seems to lack the database that the library holds. If that is so, I reckon it is a Good Thing�. If the library's database gets into a KTS, the simpler vault is available to re-create it. If your library is anything like the size of mine, be prepared to lose half a day or more creating a new library. For the latter reason, I'd never consider a network drive for vault or library. My offsite vault leaps into a bare drive stylee eSATA enclosure whenever it is needed. My library lives on a software RAID. The other vaults are on internal and external SATA drives. A Firewire 800 drive is probably the cheapest and best external vault solution if you can't shove an e SATA controller into your machine. A gigabit NAS might come close, but 100Mbit ethernet NAS is going to be very slow to recover from, and a USB drive over wireless does not bear thinking about. I can't see why you can't separate out wireless and cabled ethernet, but it is a bit like hoping that two Virgin Racing cars will lap Hockenheim faster than one Red Bull. Furthermore, the chances of TM colliding with a fortnightly vault refresh for more than a couple of minutes is vanishingly small. You are far better off having both on the faster connection. Oh, by the way, what kind of wireless connection do you have that delivers 270Mbit/sec? Now, I'm off to watch quali I do like a bit of speed, both on disk and on the F1 track. -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: Andy Hewitt on 24 Jul 2010 09:56 Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote: > In article <1jm4p9j.ychcm74167e5N%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt > <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: [..] > > Is it possible to separate the networks so that Time Machine continues > > to update over wireless (270Mbs), along with all my other networking > > needs, and the Aperture Vault updates over ethernet (100Mbps)? > > You might be getting two things mixed up. I have seen Aperture fail to > finish updating vaults on a local connection. I haven't, so far. It finishes the backup itself (the icon turns black), but fails to finish with the drive. > I'm a big fan of SuperDuper! but I don't see much point in replacing > vaults with a SparseImage. It and the vault updating are using similar > "smart" techniques to synchronise disk to sparseimage and library to > vault. The update time will be the same. (I have kinda-sorta tested > this). The time and everything else don't matter, all I want is a workable copy of my Aperture Library, regardless of how that's achieved. At the moment, I have a local Vault, which on a FW drive, and I update that after every session with Aperture. I would like a remote backup too. Running a Vault on an Airport based drives doesn't appear to work well, so I'm trying to find what way will work. It only has to work at all, and whether it's a little faster or slower is irrelevant. > Aperture's vault seems to lack the database that the library holds. If > that is so, I reckon it is a Good Thing�. If the library's database > gets into a KTS, the simpler vault is available to re-create it. If > your library is anything like the size of mine, be prepared to lose > half a day or more creating a new library. Yeah, I know how long it takes, I can easily just leave it running while I go off and do other things. Mine is 135GB BTW. > For the latter reason, I'd never consider a network drive for vault or > library. My offsite vault leaps into a bare drive stylee eSATA > enclosure whenever it is needed. My library lives on a software RAID. > The other vaults are on internal and external SATA drives. Yeah, speed isn't my issue here, only that it'll work at all. > A Firewire 800 drive is probably the cheapest and best external vault > solution if you can't shove an e SATA controller into your machine. A > gigabit NAS might come close, but 100Mbit ethernet NAS is going to be > very slow to recover from, and a USB drive over wireless does not bear > thinking about. I have a MacBook which only has FW400. Besides, this is just a way to have a secondary back up. If I wanted to recover quickly, I can quite easily remove the drive from its enclosure and attach it locally at that time. Even then, it's only there in case my main Vault fails as well. > I can't see why you can't separate out wireless and cabled ethernet, > but it is a bit like hoping that two Virgin Racing cars will lap > Hockenheim faster than one Red Bull. Furthermore, the chances of TM > colliding with a fortnightly vault refresh for more than a couple of > minutes is vanishingly small. You are far better off having both on the > faster connection. It was just a thought, but I think you're right. I've been testing it with the drives split, and using one as an NAS, formatted ext3, but SD doesn't like it and the backup fails when it reaches about 2GB. > Oh, by the way, what kind of wireless connection do you have that > delivers 270Mbit/sec? Airport Extreme at 5Ghz wideband (uses two channels, which gives two channels of 270Mbps each). In the real world it actually connects at 220-243Mbps most of the time, sometimes a bit slower, sometimes it hits the full 270Mbps. > Now, I'm off to watch quali > I do like a bit of speed, both on disk and on the F1 track. Yeah, me too.... Wasn't bad, could be interesting tomorrow I think. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Elliott Roper on 24 Jul 2010 10:39 In article <1jm527t.sszpd31k9tzm6N%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote: > <snip> > I have a MacBook which only has FW400. Besides, this is just a way to > have a secondary back up. If I wanted to recover quickly, I can quite > easily remove the drive from its enclosure and attach it locally at that > time. Even then, it's only there in case my main Vault fails as well. Of course. I didn't think that through did I? > > I can't see why you can't separate out wireless and cabled ethernet, > > but it is a bit like hoping that two Virgin Racing cars will lap > > Hockenheim faster than one Red Bull. Furthermore, the chances of TM > > colliding with a fortnightly vault refresh for more than a couple of > > minutes is vanishingly small. You are far better off having both on the > > faster connection. > > It was just a thought, but I think you're right. I've been testing it > with the drives split, and using one as an NAS, formatted ext3, but SD > doesn't like it and the backup fails when it reaches about 2GB. > > > Oh, by the way, what kind of wireless connection do you have that > > delivers 270Mbit/sec? > > Airport Extreme at 5Ghz wideband (uses two channels, which gives two > channels of 270Mbps each). In the real world it actually connects at > 220-243Mbps most of the time, sometimes a bit slower, sometimes it hits > the full 270Mbps. Really? I figured you would get about 100 in real world use. My old Airport Expresses are slowly dying. I might be tempted by 200Mb/sec or better without having to lift floorboards. Can you now legally get 2 5GHz channels in UK spec extremes and expresses or did you hack it to US spec? > > > Now, I'm off to watch quali > > I do like a bit of speed, both on disk and on the F1 track. > > Yeah, me too.... > > Wasn't bad, could be interesting tomorrow I think. Looking forward to an interesting 1st corner! Vettel and Alonso will romp away and the next three will be all over each other. Tasty! -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: Andy Hewitt on 24 Jul 2010 11:28 Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote: [..] > > > Oh, by the way, what kind of wireless connection do you have that > > > delivers 270Mbit/sec? > > > > Airport Extreme at 5Ghz wideband (uses two channels, which gives two > > channels of 270Mbps each). In the real world it actually connects at > > 220-243Mbps most of the time, sometimes a bit slower, sometimes it hits > > the full 270Mbps. > Really? I figured you would get about 100 in real world use. My old > Airport Expresses are slowly dying. I might be tempted by 200Mb/sec or > better without having to lift floorboards. Can you now legally get 2 > 5GHz channels in UK spec extremes and expresses or did you hack it to > US spec? No, that's standard UK spec now. The licensing has been relaxed a lot over the last year or so. If you have 'N' speeds devices, you should be able to just activate it, possibly after a firmware update. Just one caveat, you will lose the ability to connect slower devices on 2.4Ghz 'N' or 'G' speeds. > > > Now, I'm off to watch quali > > > I do like a bit of speed, both on disk and on the F1 track. > > > > Yeah, me too.... > > > > Wasn't bad, could be interesting tomorrow I think. > > Looking forward to an interesting 1st corner! Vettel and Alonso will > romp away and the next three will be all over each other. Tasty! I wouldn't discount the McLaren's for a good result though, they have been much better in the races than in quali. Button went from 14th to 5th in the last race remember. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Firefox save complete Web page - not working? Next: So, the iPad as a business tool |