FreeFileSync Forum

Not exactly solved, just protocol was changed to Samba 2 in several machines.

...so any more update on this issue? DeccaUK, 13 Oct 2022, 12:50

Which O.S?
I solved last year forcing Samba 2 between computers (Mac minis M1). Just an idea.

Thank you Zenju for all the betas!

And beta 4 was the fast one in your setup! Does this mean Beta 7 is as fast as Finder on your system? To not lose track: beta3: Disable caching source & target + F_RDAHEAD beta4: Disable caching only for the target beta5: Disable caching source & target + less mem copies beta6: Disable cach...

A curiosity... A Mac Mini M1 running 1 instance of FFS is getting about 250 or 300MBps from an external SSD connected through USB 10Gbps to a Thunderbolt 3 4x Raid 5. And a second instance running at the same time, from other SSD to the same Raid, different folders, is achieving close to the same sp...

Tested. Beta 7 is as fast as Beta 4.

The behaviour of slow / fast is proportional to the use of the main storage, or the use of a SSD for testing. The main is 4x HDDs in Raid 5 (thunderbolt 3), to a NAS (1PB) over 10Gbps network with Mac Minis M1, with 10Gbe adapter. Pending the test with 8-bay Raid 5 disks. Protocol is SMB 3. We have ...

Beta 4 is still the faster vs. Beta 6. As in B3 or B5 the speed is 'limited', in our case, to 400MBps instead 600MBps achieved by B4: FFS 11.26 BETA 4 vs BETA 6 220915.png In the picture, first block Beta 4, second round with Beta 6. A non identified peak of data there (700MBps) but average of 400M...

Yes, maybe not all users will notice the differences between 4 and 5 in terms of speed transfer but stability is the main goal!

Testing Beta 5 vs. Beta 4 with content from SSD, instead Raid 5 HDD.
Beta 4 wins!
Compared twice, both versions, with purged cache before all tests.

Thank you for this 5th beta. The behaviour is similar to 3rd. And winner is 4th! FFS BETA 5 vs BETA 4 220913.png In the picture, first installed Beta 5 and test, 400MBps average. Then overwritten with old Beta 4 and run, 600MBps average, the same as Finder copying-pasting After testing 5th, re-insta...

In the picture, syncing from Raid 5 to NAS, while kernel is not in panic

It is working faster! CONGRATS! Now is achieving the speed of Finder.

I got 800MBps on weekend that the NAS was not working. I will stress it!

Curiously the 5th core is now working in its way

Thank you so much for this beta testing chance!! I have been testing, the app is stable in M1. Finder is still working faster, but I guess that verification between files 'is not free'. So close to 400MBps could be great for one touch process! FFS 11.26 BETA 3 APP VS FINDER 220912.jpg In the picture...

BINGO! It keeps running without stressing the computer!! Yeah! You got the solution to people with M1s! THANKS!!

The only issue could be the speed, under 400MBps, while Finder is able to achieve 800MBps (in our case, reading from 4x HDDs Raid 5 and writing to a NAS).

However, getting content from the NAS to the M1 is working fine:
So the problem is sending data from the M1, with the app, through the network but not with Finder

I have been testing again... Always the average is 30GB till the system starts suffering. And kernel_task increases the % till the computer hangs. See here: M1 FREEFILESYNC KERNEL TASK 01.jpg In this screenshot the data transferred arrives to 30GB -as usual before crashing-, the speed is reduced to ...

We were able to avoid this issue by accessing from other computers, but now, with a new pipeline of Mac Minis M1 connected to a NAS with 10Gbps the problem is back... I tried Big Sur, Monterey and a beta of Ventura. I managed a nsmb.conf file to force Samba 2, Samba 1, Samba 3, Samba 2 and 3,.... My...

I found a solution for my Mac Minis M1 with 10Gbps adapter! After reading several articles and forums I tested SAMBA 2 instead SAMBA 3, and it worked. They don't crash anymore and keep high speed (500MB/sec average). It is supposed to be managed by a file that doesn't exist in the system: nsmb.conf ...

So... is it supposed that M1 with Big Sur (or Monterey) will use AFP instead SMB? In my case volumes are DAS connected to other M1 Minis. And the flow is syncing data from independent Raids to bigger disk for technicians. Data size can be an average of 2TB.

I have the same problem with new M1 Mac Minis, sending data over the 10Gbps network: - From one raid to other Raid in other M1 Mac Mini or... - To Google Drive, through the cache folder but finally comparing against the 'cloud' synced data First I thought it was the hardware (OWC Pro Dock with 10Gbp...

I have the same problem with new M1 Mac Minis, sending data over the 10Gbps network: - From one raid to other Raid in other M1 Mac Mini or... - To Google Drive, through the cache folder but finally comparing against the 'cloud' synced data First I thought it was the hardware (OWC Pro Dock with 10Gbp...