Mac OS X 10.9.5

Discussion about the hardware (internal HDD/external HDD/USB printer) and software compatibility of Synology product.
Forum rules
This is a user forum for Synology users to share experience/help out each other: if you need direct assistance from the Synology technical support team, please use the following form:
https://myds.synology.com/support/suppo ... p?lang=enu
st87
Trainee
Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:03 am

Mac OS X 10.9.5

Postby st87 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:14 am

Hi all,

So I've been looking through plenty of online material and I'm getting some mixed responses on compatibility with Mac OS 10.9.5, especially since Apple has been changing their SMB protocols (I'm not an expert on the subject - just things I've gather from reading here and there).

I'm really interested in getting a simple 2-bay NAS that doesn't blow a hole in my electricity bill, so I'm really hoping the DS216J will work for me.
Problem is, I'm working with quite a mix of machines, including:
- Mac, running 10.8.5
- Mac, running 10.7.5
- Mac, running 10.9.5
- Several windows 10
- A windows 7
- Crap load of android devices

Mind you, they're not all going to be accessing the NAS simultaneously, if at all, but my main concern is the 10.9.5 machine. I'm seeing some mixed reviews on how well it works, on forum threads dated all the way back in 2013. For reasons I don't want to get into (let's just say, software compatibility), I'm still running the older versions of Mac, and I'm not planning to upgrade.

TL;DR version: Does/did anyone eventually have success with their NAS with 10.9.5, and is there anything I need to do with the NAS, or should I expect things to work right out of the box?

Cheers,
-- ST
User avatar
Rusty1281
Seeker
Seeker
Posts: 1758
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:51 pm

Re: Mac OS X 10.9.5

Postby Rusty1281 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:00 am

As a user that used Maverick version of macOS with syno NAS I haven't had any special problems that were causing problems with my workflow. You haven't wrote about the use of this NAS with your computers. SMB might point out the simple share usage, TM scenarios or something else. If you could be more specific maybe someone will be able to comment on any problems there were declared as 'official' problems.
Synology DS412+ (4x3TB WD red - RAID 5) | Synology DS211j (2x2TB WD green - RAID1) | RT1900AC
st87
Trainee
Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:03 am

Re: Mac OS X 10.9.5

Postby st87 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:29 am

Hi Rusty,

Fair point, but I might provide a small disclaimer first by revealing that my networking knowledge and NAS experience is but none, so in all honesty, it's suffice to say that I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing. My degree in Telecommunications Engineering sheds little knowledge beyond the physical layer also.

This will be the first NAS that I'll be purchasing. So without further adieu, I hope you don't mind my following essay.

At the end of the day, all I'm really trying to achieve is something more reliable and quicker than just having a couple of hard disks connected to my TP-Link Archer D9, which, to be honest, is quite pathetic. I want the wireless convenience and I understand that I can't ask for ridiculously high speeds on WiFi (especially given that all my Macs were from the 802.11n draft spec era). But having just 3MB/s transfer speeds from direct line-of-sight is just a tad unacceptable.
I used to have an Airport Extreme base station that gave me speeds of 18MB/s on the same Macs. That speed, to me, is actually quite nice already. Unfortunately, the AEBS didn't last too long. Not that it was too stable to begin with. That 18MB/s speed I quoted was at its prime. Half the time, I was only getting 5-8MB/s depending on traffic.

Now, I can either buy a new AEBS, for (I think) $299, or I can pair up my Archer D9 with a Synology DS216J, which would only set me back around $200.
That's why I'm thinking of getting the DS216J. Theoretically, I'll get better transfer speeds as the NAS will have its own dedicated processor to serve that purpose. It's already quoted to be quite energy efficient (5W in hibernation, which I'll imagine it will be most of the time as I don't expect to be a heavy user), and on top of that, I can set it to wake up on LAN.

As far as application goes, I just need a couple of volumes accessible by all my LAN. One to just store all my data files - photos, documents, things I'll typically be working on - and another to store all my media files that I'll hopefully be able to access with an Android box running VLC. I don't have anything too critical, so I'm not even planning on running the disks in a RAID configuration.
I am on a DSL connection here in Australia, and therefore I have a static IP address. Would be nice if I can be able to access my data files remotely outside of my LAN, so that everything is centralised and highly available. I'd imagine that it would be technically feasible to do so (in theory, I could already do it with my Archer D9 had it not been for all the technical limitations I run into from my Macs).

Down to the technicals. I gather FTP offers faster (albeit less secure) connections. I'm hoping to NOT use FTP, because natively, Macs can only read FTP servers. To write to FTP servers, I'll need to get third party software to serve that purpose, which doesn't fit my needs, as I want my drive to mount on Finder just like any other connected drive. I want my applications to be able to write/save to the network drive directly, so having applications like CyberDuck and Transmit isn't exactly what I'm after. I rather do away with the additional speed if I can use SMB directly.

And here we arrive at the basis of my concern. SMB does not appear to work too well for me. Could just be a problem with my Archer D9. I can access the volume via FTP, but as mentioned above, it doesn't cut it for me.
I understand that there is a well known trick to force a 10.9 Mac to the SMB1 protocol by manually specifying the server's IP address, and prefixing it with CFIS or AFP, but that too doesn't appear to work for me. Regardless of the protocol I attempt to prefix when connecting to my networked drives, it only gets me a login dialog. If I type in the incorrect username/password, the dialog box wiggles. If I type in the correct username/password, the login dialog disappears (good) and I just get the text on the window straight away that simply says "Connection Failed" (bad). I don't even get an error dialog box telling me why it fails to connect.

I have heard that this issue has been resolved in OS X 10.11, but in the interest of keeping Aperture running, I really want to keep my Macs running at 10.9.5 or earlier.
I understand that Aperture continues to run with 10.11, but I heard that there have been bugs. I don't want to risk further.

So there we have, the usage scenario if I were to buy a Synology DS216J. Hope I haven't been too boring, and looking forward to any feedback or advice.

Cheers,

-- ST
User avatar
Rusty1281
Seeker
Seeker
Posts: 1758
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:51 pm

Re: Mac OS X 10.9.5

Postby Rusty1281 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:59 pm

Well that is an impressive summary so forgive me for answering in a single line. You won't have any problems with those macOS versions. It's not like they are very old to be honest and looking at your plan, I see no problems with it.
Synology DS412+ (4x3TB WD red - RAID 5) | Synology DS211j (2x2TB WD green - RAID1) | RT1900AC
st87
Trainee
Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:03 am

Re: Mac OS X 10.9.5

Postby st87 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:46 pm

Sweet! I'll grab one this week. Thanks!

Return to “Hardware & Software Compatibility”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest