Posts: 1,168
Threads: 1,169
Joined: Feb 2020
Reputation:
1
Hello. You previously assisted me by suggesting I use Tailscale to access my NAS remotely. I've implemented this, and everything is functioning properly. However, I'm experiencing speed issues when the drive is mapped through the VPN/Tailscale IP (100 etc.). I've attempted to map the drives using the local IP address (192 etc.), and it appears to work faster. I intended to have both mapped so they're ready when I'm away from the home network, but the problem arises when both are mapped—it seems to encounter issues and won't access the NAS, stating it's already in use. Can you provide any advice? My goal is to access it both remotely and locally. I don't mind slower speed remotely, but I want maximum performance locally. Thanks Paul
Posts: 4,478
Threads: 2
Joined: Jun 2022
Reputation:
29
Great to hear that Tailscale is working for remote access! To address the speed issues, here's a suggestion: Instead of mapping the drives using both the Tailscale IP and the local IP simultaneously, consider creating two separate mappings – one for local access (using the local IP) and another for remote access (using the Tailscale IP).
This way, you can switch between the mappings based on your location without encountering conflicts. When you're at home, use the local IP mapping for maximum performance, and switch to the Tailscale IP mapping when you're away for remote access. This approach should resolve the "already in use" issue you're experiencing.
Remember to disconnect the mapped drive that you're not currently using to avoid conflicts. It might involve a manual switch, but it ensures a smoother experience both locally and remotely.
