2GB file limit when connecting to a Buffalo NAS

R

rbaibich

Guest
I'm using this NAS to digitize videos using Media 100. I was connecting with afp, but I started to run into problems (Media 100 would give me back a "-199 error" and I had a 2GB file limit even though I have more than 900GB free).

I connected with SMB and got rid of the nasty error, but the 2GB file limit is still there.

Any ideas on how to solve this?

Edit: I forgot to tell that I'm using Tiger. Dave would be a solution to this problem, but it just doesn't work with 10.4.
 
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
67
Points
48
Location
Closer than you think.
Your Mac's Specs
Performa 6116 2GBSCSI 8MB OS 7.5.3
What do you assume the problem is? I'm not sold that Dave will fix it.

1 - Do you access the NAS via windows? Does the limit exist there?
2 - All dave does is install CIFS and NTLMv2

I would tell you to call Buffalo but my experiences with them were un-eventful and down right ridiculous.

I don't see Dave fixing a 2GB limit. I'm guessing it's the Linux kernel in the NAS. Or does Media 100 have any answers.
 
OP
R

rbaibich

Guest
I don't see Dave fixing a 2GB limit. I'm guessing it's the Linux kernel in the NAS. Or does Media 100 have any answers.

Take a look at this. Appletalk itself doesn't support file sizes larger than 2GB, and it seems it is a SMB or CIFS problem (what's the difference between both, anyways?).

Do you think installing CIFS manually would solve this?
 
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
67
Points
48
Location
Closer than you think.
Your Mac's Specs
Performa 6116 2GBSCSI 8MB OS 7.5.3
CIFS is common internet file system, a MS proprietary protocol. Kinda like WINS. SMB or Samba is an open source project that has cross platform support but like any other open source project it works well MOST of the time and in MOST situations.

I was unaware of the appltalk limit, but it does make sense as it is an older protocol.

After reading the link you provided, which makes no mention of CIFS in Tiger, I still would like to know why DAVE makes a difference. It must be it's own file manager or something. It says what it works with but not what it is. The only thing I've noticed with DAVE installed is that there are two of everything in the network icon. Ones that work and ones that don't.

All that asside, this NAS isn't scrath is it?
 
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
67
Points
48
Location
Closer than you think.
Your Mac's Specs
Performa 6116 2GBSCSI 8MB OS 7.5.3
A scratch disk, ie a place to work on in process projects.

If so, throughput could be a real issue especially with huge files. I know I've had problems with Buffalo devices running little database front ends and there was an issue with performance and lag. If you want to be using this as a location to import footage or media to while accessing it through an application I think you could be in for a disappointment. If you already have an external FW drive or RAID for using as a scratch location and then storing data on the NAS for archive purposes that seems like a better solution. Running a Buffalo NAS as a scratch disk seems like it would kill any ability for realtime effects or viewing. I have a hard enough time in FCP doing realtime using FW.
 
OP
R

rbaibich

Guest
MacsWork said:
A scratch disk, ie a place to work on in process projects.

No, it's not set as a scratch disk. I still haven't found a solution to this problem. The only thing that takes the cap out is installing DAVE, but it only works on Panther...
 
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
67
Points
48
Location
Closer than you think.
Your Mac's Specs
Performa 6116 2GBSCSI 8MB OS 7.5.3
What about XSan? It may not tbe the cheapeast compared to dave but it looks like it would do the trick. I've only read a little into it but seems to be what other video houses use.

I guess all those years of using iMovie I never put it together why a one hour import would be (6) seperate clips at 1.9gb each.

You'd think that there would be more info about dave out there, and how it saved peoples workflow.
 
OP
R

rbaibich

Guest
MacsWork said:
What about XSan? It may not tbe the cheapeast compared to dave but it looks like it would do the trick. I've only read a little into it but seems to be what other video houses use.

It would be too expensive. I'd have to not only buy XSan, but also have a machine running MacOS Server.
 
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
67
Points
48
Location
Closer than you think.
Your Mac's Specs
Performa 6116 2GBSCSI 8MB OS 7.5.3
Get a cheap mac and run panther,...

Wait for dave 6,....
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top