• 0

Anyone know if It is possible to build a fast network between a Mac and Syno-xpenology ?


Question

Anyone know if It is possible to build a fast network between a Mac and Syno-xpenology with a direct ethernet connection?

Because I’ve a Mac from a 10g thunderbolt OWC ethernet adapter to a USB 2.5 ethernet adapter into Xpeno, but I never reach that two devices connect together (without passthrough Modem) . Of course I won’t passthrough Modem because it’s a No 10g port modem, and I have not a Switch) , I am asking if its possible to mount a fast Net with direct ethernet connection and how have to setup Syno and Mac. thk for suggestion.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
On 11/21/2020 at 12:37 PM, Mary Andrea said:

Anyone know if It is possible to build a fast network between a Mac and Syno-xpenology with a direct ethernet connection?

So, as anyone did it , I answer myself. Maybe someone is trying to make a "direct connection" between your computer and xpenology. After two days testing, errors and trying ...  I can affirm that a direct connection can be made, and I got triple transfer speed. The most important thing is: 1) hardware speed ethernet (NIC 10G, 5G, 2,5G USB, Thunderbolt adapters or Cards) and 2) SET UP DHCP SERVER in DSM. DSM will do a new IP for your ethernet device and you can connect to Server by Samba... .I increase transferences from 108mb/s to w235-r275 mb/s. (without modem through)

Edited by Mary Andrea
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm setting up a connection between a Mac (Hackintosh) with 10GBe ethernet card, a Xpenology setup with Sonnet 10Gbe card and I'm waiting for a Netgear switch 10Gbe (2 ports 10Gbe), and then I will post the result.

 

In the meanwhile I was noting that Synology DSM 6.2.3u2 is based on a very old Linux kernel:

 

unmane -r
4.4.59+

 

and from version 4.15 the Linux kernel is supporting Thunderbolt devices, and networking over Thunderbolt too. I'm wondering if/whether Synology DSM 7.0 will have the right version of Linux kernel to add Thunderbolt support; if it will be the case we can connect Macs over Thunderbolt and have a super fast access! What do you think @IG-88 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 hours ago, Mary Andrea said:

-Could you be more explicit about "where" . What do you "where" suggest?

the forums most upper section " Information"  /  "Readers News & Rumours" its not the place for a request of information, the area has a good enough names to not mistake it for a request area

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

On 11/21/2020 at 4:37 PM, Mary Andrea said:

if It is possible to build a fast network between a Mac and Syno-xpenology with a direct ethernet connection?

6 hours ago, Hackaro said:

I'm setting up a connection between a Mac (Hackintosh) with 10GBe ethernet card, a Xpenology setup with Sonnet 10Gbe card and I'm waiting for a Netgear switch 10Gbe (2 ports 10Gbe), and then I will post the result.

 

you dont  need a switch, you can connect both nic's direct

i have a 1G and 10G in both nas and computer, the 1G in connected to a switch and the 10G connects directly between nas and pc and have static ip addresses of a different range, so when using the 10G ip address of the nas from pc the 10G connection will be used

10G switches are still expansive and often not passive cooled (beside noise level its also a sign for a heavier power consumption)

 

6 hours ago, Hackaro said:

In the meanwhile I was noting that Synology DSM 6.2.3u2 is based on a very old Linux kernel:

 

synology mod's its kernel and uses it for all systems as base so they do not update to often to newer kernels

and if you think 4.4.59 is old, 3615/17 have 3.10.105 as base

7 hours ago, Hackaro said:

I'm wondering if/whether Synology DSM 7.0 will have the right version of Linux kernel to add Thunderbolt support; if it will be the case we can connect Macs over Thunderbolt and have a super fast access! What do you think

 

the closed preview version of 7.0 had base kernels 4.4.180 and 3.10.108 and i don't think they will switch to a new kernel in beta or final

(one of the reasons might be that dsm 7.0 is much older as synology worked unexpectedly long on that afair about 1.5 years over the planed release schedule by now ?)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 11/25/2020 at 8:52 PM, IG-88 said:

you dont  need a switch, you can connect both nic's direct

i have a 1G and 10G in both nas and computer, the 1G in connected to a switch and the 10G connects directly between nas and pc and have static ip addresses of a different range, so when using the 10G ip address of the nas from pc the 10G connection will be used

10G switches are still expansive and often not passive cooled (beside noise level its also a sign for a heavier power consumption)

 

 

 

that's a good idea, thanks! I will experiment, do I need a cross cable? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
25 minutes ago, Hackaro said:

 

that's a good idea, thanks! I will experiment, do I need a cross cable? 

I don't know exactly if my cable its "cross", I've bought a Cat6 and works (Cat5 too, but if you will buy a Cable, better its Cat7 because prices between Cat6 and Cat7 itsnt make differences, but Cat7 performance its notoriously better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 11/30/2020 at 3:45 PM, Hackaro said:

that's a good idea, thanks! I will experiment, do I need a cross cable? 

no, since 1G network the spec covers this so its automatic detection for direct connection

 

On 11/30/2020 at 4:14 PM, Mary Andrea said:

I don't know exactly if my cable its "cross", I've bought a Cat6 and works (Cat5 too, but if you will buy a Cable, better its Cat7 because prices between Cat6 and Cat7 itsnt make differences,

 

the detection for direct connection is not about the cable

offical its cat 6 for 10G but even a good 5e cable can do the job on shorter connections (5-10m?)

better "wire" does not always mean the whole cable is good, the plugs and sloppy work can also ruin the quality

 

Quote

but Cat7 performance its notoriously better. 

 

if you already have a 10G connection with a 6a cable (like 10m, the spec for 6a covers 100m) its not going to get faster with a cat 7 (or 7a/8) wire build into the cable

that will be more important if you use longer cable connections like 50-100m

 

the difference in wire quality between 6a and 7 is not that huge just 500MHz vs 600MHz bandwidth

7a (1000MHz) and 8 (2000MHz)  will have substantial better quality wires

so if you go beyond cat 6a it should at least be 7a to get anything worth the money

 

also if its about latency (like iSCSi, SAN) then it should not be 10G Base-T, SFP+ with DAC or optical fiber might be better in that regard and there are "cheap" 4 or 5 port SFP+ switsches since about a year now so on long term it might be better to start now with SFP+

i'm now stuck with 3 nic's with 10G Base-T and there is no cheap passive switch with at least 3 10G ports

10G Base-T is interesting in a changing/variable environment as you can also connect the cable to a 1G switch, thats not possible with SFP+

 

 

 

Edited by IG-88
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.