Jump to content

Rhyker2U

Administrators
  • Content count

    625
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Rhyker2U last won the day on April 7

Rhyker2U had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About Rhyker2U

  • Rank
    Captain

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NL, Europe
  • Interests
    MacOS, WP, IoT security, Blockchain, DevOps

Recent Profile Visitors

7179 profile views
  1. Rhyker2U

    Install ubuntu on Samsung Chromebook 3

    So is FreeBSD, and your point is what exactly? What I was trying to say is ... it ain't offtopic. Lately been messing with https://docs.brew.sh/ which closes the gap between MacOS and Linux (Debian based distro's) even more. And found my ZOC (MacOS) app alternative in Secure Shell App (Chrome). Windows is the only thing that's very different with their .NET shit.
  2. Rhyker2U

    Install ubuntu on Samsung Chromebook 3

    You seem like the right person to ask About: how so? I see debian package manager syntax. The same kind of syntax when Jailbreaking iOS. And doesn't MacOS have its roots in UNIX too?
  3. Rhyker2U

    Windows 10 "April Update 1803"

    New Ubuntu?! Oh sweet! Finally a new LTS! @Leon when are you going to upgrade? @Allan: Only thing I experienced is how any Win10 -- compared to Win7 (and all prior versions)-- is already 'light'; as in runs faster and more efficient on lower entry resources (which includes VirtualBox / Parallels Desktop ). Which makes sense as most convertibles / 2in1s are powered by sluggish Atom/Celeron N and MMC memory. Used to run a version for RPI / ARM architecture, but the only 'Win10' about that was branding. Of course we can play with https://www.ntlite.com ... however if you got a link somewhere with more intel about an official light version of Win 10 that ain't about a "N" or "KN" version? All ears!
  4. Rhyker2U

    Windows 10 "April Update 1803"

    Nice! As its isn't featured yet at http://windowsiso.net ... my favorite site for all the (legal) ISOs, all versions, 32- & 64-bit, and ... multilingual (if not Pro). BTW whats the official version number? v1610 I presume? And any idea when this will be streamed out through Windows update? *edit* oh doh! 1803 my bad.
  5. Rhyker2U

    OSXL Site feedback Poll

    And in case of choosing "Yes, but still need some improvements" ? Don't hesitate to let us know here in the comments either submit it directly to https://osxlatitude.com/bugtracker/website/ how we can make it better.
  6. Rhyker2U

    Cover photo on new forum

    My our pleasure! Still exploring all the new features myself. And I just found there's a shorter way to authenticate with FB, including how to sync cover photo (and even have it update automatically when changing FB cover in the future), or how to 'Disassociate Facebook' from one's OSXL account . See: https://osxlatitude.com/settings/facebook/
  7. this feature has been added btw and works since April 6th, 2018. Turned out to be part of the new posts editor by default. And its as easy as double clicking any uploaded picture and change the dimensions (with or without aspect ratio support) and supports aligning too! In the next forum update -- due for release before 25th of May 2018 -- we will might also add custom features. Things like grabbing an 'edge' or corner of a picture and resize 'on the fly'.
  8. Rhyker2U

    Cover photo on new forum

    Works now. Had to be enabled per user group (of which we have a lot). Any member of OSXLatitude can now upload a cover photo by going to their profile and uploading one. OR .. sync cover from a FB profile (when using FB authentication login / next to or instead of a normal password protected login). That works a little different though. You then first have to click edit profile icon below your profile picture (step1). And even though it might already have synced the profile picture before (step2)? Just save it again (step3), and then it will auto-parse the cover photo from FB. You can then reposition the cover photo -- like any other cover -- by pressing "Cover Photo" dropdown menu topright (step4) of the cover and then "Reposition Photo". Attached a screenshot to clarify the 4 steps:
  9. Indeed! Or position them next to each other without using table or div code. Okay, will add that to the feature list then.
  10. Does anyone of you happen to know the shortcode parameter for resizing attached images based on percentage or fixed width? Cause when I attach a BlackMagic benchmark screenshot for example -- without resizing it first on my computer -- it displays the full-size image based on responsive forum width. Which takes away the attention of text. Hence there must be something I can add in to shortcode after uploading it in the full-size forum editor? Or overlooking a button to scale the image? And if ain't possible? Please let me know too So I can include that on the new forum 'feature list'. As 'we' are already looking into another nuisance, which is displaying images to guest users. So we can do this in one go.
  11. Anyway as I'm shipping it back to the retailer tomorrow, and it does have an USB3 port; I do wonder if it suffers from a similar limitation. Have to wait anyway for all the transfers to finish, so lets have some 'fun': by hooking up my Samsung T5 500GB portable SSD (Gen1) USB3.1 to the USB3.0 port of the TS-228: Huh? USB 2.0 ?! Oh it has two USB ports (source: https://www.qnap.com/en/product/ts-228/specs/hardware ). It's pitch dark in my nerdy dungeon Okay, ejecting it and putting it in the USB3.0 front as we speak. To run a BlackMagic benchmark after all the data is transferred. ROFLMAO; 13-24 times slower than hooking it up to USB3 on my (old) laptop!!! BTW, to showcase why I thought my RAID1 setup would work initially (at much higher speeds than I got) is due to this screenshot: ... as the max. speed of the 2TB 7200rpm IBM Hitachi HUA722020ALA330 is being recognized as 3 Gbps for current transfer speed with a potential 6 Gbps. While on the other 2TB 7200rpm HDD -- Seagate ST2000DM001 -- it is being recognized as 6 Gbps twice. And sure 'we' can argue both HDDs don't show up in QNAP's HDD compatibility list: www.qnap.com/en/compatibility/... or do they? Honestly didn't check . Lets do that now: My Seagate HDD model is in the list-ish. As I got the 1CH164 submodel. But regardless is only supported by TS-x31-series. My Hitachi HDD model is in the list for pretty much every QNAP TS model ... except the TS-228! LOL Either way: as the Samsung Portable T5 proofs (not in the list either); something is off and it can't be NTFS , can it? hehe. And will do a MacOS benchmark too of a QNAP TS-228 RAID0 config (with my poor man's HDD SATA incompatibility issue). *update* So that's 30MB/s in SATA RAID0 & 29MB/s in JBOD mode (both write speeds). Next to the 15MB/s tops on SATA RAID1. And didn't expect top notch results of any kind; 50-65MB/s write speeds on RAID1 would have been great, but an avg. real-world 7-13.5 MB/s ?! Pfff. Even building a DIY NAS RAID array with a single RaspBerry Pi 3 B+ (2018) Model or NanoPi NEO2 utilizing USB3 instead of SATA interface would have been faster at a pricing point of Conclusion Next time I -- or anyone I know (or is currently reading this) -- needs a NAS? Synology indeed or buy any NAS with the HDDs already in it (after double checking your benchmarks at https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/nas/view). Building one your own, or trying to save money by buying a 'barebone' NAS and put HDDs in after? Or already got the HDDs and looking for a NAS barebone? Well, better check the manufacturers compatibility list prior to buying a NAS, or it will become Plug & PRAY all over again. I thought those were bygone times?! With pretty much every device having native low level Linux kernel support these days plus plenty of flash / eMMC storage space to accommodate those kernels ?! Even though the TS-228 seems to be based on 3.2.10 instead of 4.2.x kernel. Oh well ...
  12. Myeah if I had known about that site prior to my purchase? Then ... ... because of course I know about Synology. And of course I know an ARM v7 ain't the best CPU out there, but the other specs (lower noise level, dual-core with slightly higher CPU clock, USB3 vs. USB2, double amount of RAM @ 50 euro less) compared to similar Synology models sounded great to me! Especially after reading so many reviews on the importance of extra RAM and after prior consideration to build a DIY NAS based on MacOS X / OMV / FreeNAS / any Linux. Really liked QNAP's OS more too (based on online demo's: QNAP's QTS 4.x vs. Synology's DSM 6.x). So I (mistakingly) thought that with the money saved, by being focussed on specs instead of features -- like HDMI, remote control, 4K streaming -- on the slightly more expensive Synology 21x "j" or "play" series (either QNAPs 2x1P-series); I would make a smarter decision matching my budget and 'simple' needs of local storage. Moreover the TS-228 is called a SOHO NAS! Gosh misleading marketing! Nevertheless ... grateful for the lousy experience of the entry level QNAP NAS. As I gained a tremendous amount of recent 'inside' knowledge on SMB / AFP / NFS, MacOS configs, automounting scripts, etc. And turned out I don't need a NAS anyway for what I really want & need & require: speedy failsafe access to all my data 24/7 from anywhere using P2P (beats RAID1 and RAID5) instead of a centralized ownCloud / NAS environment. Cheaper (in price) too.
  13. True, and yet was hoping for a LAN port cap of sorts. Just included the Blackmagic benchmark in the prior post and still the same write speeds of 13.5-15MB/s. Bummer than I have to contact QNAP support, or ... just return it and switch back to external USB3.0 storage. Let's see, bought it 13 days ago. So it still falls under 14-day money-back guarantee. Yap, I'm returning it; spend enough time on troubleshooting As it does seem to be a controller problem indeed. Thanks Hervé for thinking along and bringing that up! Final thoughts (for a suitable alternative) Anyone else looking for a hardware NAS? Then 1st consult: https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/rankers/nas/view.. to purchase something that matches your needs based on benchmarks, instead of a raving (user) review or -- in my case -- cheap price in a webstore . Although even to their benchmarks I should be able to get 75MB/s. The culprit in my case probably is in not having matching HDD models. Lesson learned. I'm going back to 'my proven storage formula' of Sharkoon USB3 myself. Even more so, cause after a ton of troubleshooting also ran into Resilio Connect (aka BitTorent sync) for which major NAS manufacturers provide apps too. However it's also perfect for my own external USB storage & Multi-OS scenario. Thus one 2TB drive for TimeMachine, the other 2TB for occasional storage, and use Resilio as an IoT / Cloud failsafe. Cost: one-time $60. Setup time: minimal.
  14. The 800+ MB/s is the RAID0 Samsung 850 internal SSD array in my laptop. But just to outline everything in and connected with USB to the laptop runs fine. Problem elimination thing (although entirely unrelated), but if we can't fix it will copy/past the entire troubleshoot in a support ticket to QNAP and hopefully not get the 'hackintosh instability' argument When I mix RAM? It syncs to the slowest memory module. The slowest speed of both the drives is 120MB/s. It's not a theorical number, it's what QNAP benchmark gives and already confirmed in the past through USB3. Thus 15MB/s is ... odd. Even though its just a HDD (and not a SSD). And prior to 10.13.2 I wasn't the only one with this problem hence suspecting it has something to do with MacOS. Hmz ... further troubleshooting steps: Ran CrystalDiskMark 6.0 on Windows 10 with SMB3 mapped drive to the NAS, to isolate if its AFP related. CDM test1 (with 5x 1GiB test): 16MB/s write + 35MB/s read. CDM test2 (with 9x 500MiB): 17MB/s write + 46MB/s read. CDM test3 (with 9x 100MiB): 17MB/s write + 118MB/s read. Similar to real-world transfers with AFP on MacOS when it comes to read speeds. SMB from Windows slightly faster than AFP in sequential write speeds. And already concluded earlier: AFP -- although deprecated -- does perform better than SMB3 on MacOS. Still not on par with what it should be though ...Smells likes a LAN problem Maybe the router -- where the NAS is connected -- only has 100Mbit LAN ports? Problem elimination: Did a FTP CrossFTP client (MacOS SSD) to filezilla server (Win10 SSD) transfer to test Gigabit switch traffic. Result: 105-115MB/s consistently. Next step: will hook up the NAS to the Gigabit switch (which connects all my computers upstairs) instead of the router (which is downstairs). Update: nope ... same horrible write speeds. See attachment: Questions: I used the smallest unit during RAID1 setup -- 4 bytes per inode (if I remember correctly) -- should I perhaps increase that? The reason for choosing that lower number is storing lots of small webdevelopment related files. Although it shouldn't matter for speed (or at least so I read at https://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?t=123854 ).
  15. Super happy with my QNAP TS-228 NAS configured with 2x2TB 7200rpm disks, but ... after lots of tuning I cannot get it any higher than 13-15MB/s write speeds. Which is strange as the read speeds are 80-100MB/s (both measured with BlackMagic and 1-5GB testfile didn't affect benchmarks much). I'm running High Sierra 10.13.3 which doesn't have the performance quirks of 10.13.2 (although those issues that I read about were with Samba). I also tried SMB3.0, SMB2.1 and SMB1.0 / CIFS with all the /etc/nsmb.conf 'performance' tweaks. Those speeds are even worse. FTP similar to AFP. And okay -- in hindsight -- I should have used two identical disks for the NAS. Instead of using an IBM (SATA2) + Seagate (SATA3). However when performing the QNAP performance benchmark the drives should be able to do 120MB/s + 180MB/s individually. Which is exactly what the drives do when I hooked them up using USB3. And a performance hit would make sense, but 15MB/s on RAID1 (mirror) ?! Is taking the fun out of creating regular (20-30GB daily) backups I already disabled QNAP anti-virus & separate QNAP app for anti-malware scanning. No change in performance, and plenty of RAM + CPU power free. Neither running any QNAP background processes (yet) for syncing with cloud of sorts. It's a 1000Mbit network through a TP-Link TL-SG105E with Autosensing/Flow Control on (off didn't matter either). TS-228 has no support for jumbo frames thus turned that off in MacOS network settings (manually), although if I turn it on (dynamic) there's no difference. Note: running the latest 4.3.x QNAS OS (which has no jumbo frames support as the TS-228 doesn't support it). The TS-228 is connected through a router. The entire network is LAN (not using WiFi). Internet speeds are 175-200Mbit/s. Even if my UTP cables are only CAT5 instead of CAT5E / CAT6. I should be able to get higher write speeds than 15MB/s tops?! Thus I suspect it's an AFP / MacOS tuning option ... somewhere. As everything else -- the internal RAID0 HFS+ and USB3 T5 external USB -- are performing as they should (respectively 800+ MB/s and 400+ MB/s). Connecting an USB3.0 2.5" HDD -- no matter the file system (HFS+ / ExFat) -- also writes at 100+ MB/s. Thus it seems isolated to AFP / network? Anyone else has ideas? Why it's not at least 4-5x faster in write speeds than it currently is?! The QNAP hardware is more than capable:
×