Photos can't open library from network share

No, and it's a fluke that you have managed to use iPhoto in that way as it's not supported either.

See this article

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS5168

Note the comment:

“Additionally, storing the iPhoto library on a network rather than locally on your computer can also lead to poor performance or data loss.”

The Library needs to be on a locally mounted disk formatted Mac OS Extended (Journaled)

Hi Terence

Can I store my photos library on An Apple Time Capsule? Hoping it is more geared up to deal with photos stored externally compared to a regular "PC" type external network drive.

thanks

Same for me. It $ucks 😟

Same for me. It $ucks 😟.

And considering it crashes every time on the computer with the drive attached I'm currently "locked out" of my entire life's photos. Backing to Aperture or Lightroom until Photos becomes a Grade A app, as currently I can't consider it the best App Apple rolled out.

Are you able to move the Library on another "locally attached" disk?

You can move it locally, and use iPhoto or Aperture on other Macs as a sort of "read only" alternative. AFAIK you can open the Photos library, but changes are not shared. iPhot and Aperture are not as "picky" on network disks.

Or you can use a local iCloud Photos library (as Apple would probably want you to do, commercially speaking), but It's a waste of space (and money) if all computers are in the same subnetwork.

Hope we can find a solution soon.

Backing to Aperture or Lightroom until Photos becomes a Grade A app

Don't hold your breath. Photos is not a replacement for Aperture nor ever will be.

Yes, but would have been nicer a little low "fanfare" over this app.

Aperture will be abandoned, and "pure" Apple users will lose every "Pro" photo app.

Only solution will be moving away from Apple solution, losing some integrations in the step.

Hope they will reconsider "cutting" Aperture.

And for the sync: hope they will eventually implement a "local network" sync that would be faster than Mac -> internet -> iCloud -> internet -> other Mac on the same network they use now. Some apps (like Dropbox) have such optimizations inside. Can't imagine why they didn't implemented yet.

We'll see.

@Yansolo:

trying to "mock" Photos with some symlink hackery. Not the best solution (nor the stablest) but will post and keep you updated if successful or my computer eventually explode in a rampaging h€ll of fire.

Hope they will reconsider "cutting" Aperture.

Not going to happen. And be honest, Aperture has stagnated and is way behind Lightroom in a lot of ways.

True

gi@no wrote:

And for the sync: hope they will eventually implement a "local network" sync that would be faster than Mac -> internet -> iCloud -> internet -> other Mac on the same network they use now. Some apps (like Dropbox) have such optimizations inside.

Can't imagine why they didn't implemented yet.

'Truth' is the reason.

Syncing requires that one place of storage is considered to be the 'truth' to function correctly.

In olden days iSync used the first Mac as 'the truth'. Now iCloud uses Apples servers. Tim Cook mentioned this when iCloud was released (or maybe it was S. Jobs) - it is a fundamental part of how iCloud is different to iSync & the old ways.

That means devices only have to check in with Apples servers to get the latest data. There is no requirement for all devices to be online & up to date with this system.

Previously the Mac with the 'truth store' needed to connect to Apple & then other Macs (or devices) needed to get data from Apple. If the 'truth Mac' went offline for an extended time it could cause many conflicts when it finally went back online.

It seems like a simple feature (Mac to Mac syncing with no internet), but it isn't the way devices & connectivity is going. Devices are getting cheaper, that means more devices per person, having them on the same network is not always how the devices are used.

If you want Mac to Mac syncing use Dropbox - Apple don't need to reinvent it - it already exists. Just be aware of the inability of the Photos db to work shared like that.

(turns out it was Steve http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2011/06/07/steve-jobs-at-wwdc2011-the-truth-is- in-the-cloud/)

Actually I can understand, as having to check only a reliable source for changes is the most "optimized" way. But passing GB of data (If you shot RAW like me) over the internet and back seems quite useless for me. Passing db with changes over the internet + original photos in the local network (when the computers are on the same network, of course) would be way faster.

Anyway, going a little out of topic, I'm afraid. My fault.

@Yansolo

Symlink of entire library does not work. Photos notices. Photos/Me 1/0.

Trying with subfolders.

Did you check the protection/owner of the library? Was the file system of the network disk possibly mounted by another user?

You might want to check the mount point of the disk in /Volumes/ from the terminal app.

Regards,

Thomas

I just ran into this -- I assume you have long since solved your problem or bought Lightroom. In my case, I wasn't even able to open the network iPhoto Library because it was trying to get a newer version of iPhoto from the App Store which didn't exist. I right clicked the iPhoto Library in Finder and changed the App to open it from iPhoto to Photos. It opened the library and is now very slowly converting it. Hopefully it will work.

I'm having this same issue, my NAS is not FAT32. Its partitioned with a portion formatted in the Mac OS X Extended (Journaled). I want to create a new library on this partition but I keep getting an error message. Is this not possible?

JuneBride wrote:

I'm having this same issue, my NAS is not FAT32. Its partitioned with a portion formatted in the Mac OS X Extended (Journaled). I want to create a new library on this partition but I keep getting an error message. Is this not possible?

Unless you can find a page on Apple.com that lists what is supported for Photo libraries on network storage your guess is as good as ours.

Apple never supported iPhoto libraries on network volumes but some people managed to make it work, perhaps the same is possible for Photos. Personally I don't think it can work or at least would require lots of attention to setup correctly - the library is complex & some networking services don't support all the features it needs. NAS's use many different software stacks to create the network services so they are difficult to compare, combine that with how badly Linux supports HFS+ volumes (NAS's don't run OS X) it makes lots of potential points of failure, Linux fails to maintain the journal on HFS+ for example.

P.S 'getting an error message' is far to vague to get practical help here, try posting a new question explaining in detail if you want better help, you would also need to go in to specifics on the NAS setup, but I don't know enough about the Photos library to help, I just know that hosting HFS+ volumes on non Mac OS X servers is a nightmare.