Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A NAS for a Mac
- Thread starter zoran
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I suggest not storing stuff on the same device you use for time machine.
Do you need direct access from computers other than the iMac? If not, get direct attach strage rather than a NAS.
Do you need direct access from computers other than the iMac? If not, get direct attach strage rather than a NAS.
Most any current NAS, like synology, has time machine capability, but none are approved by Apple.
Your choice is to use a Time Capsule or Airport extreme and connect a USB box to it with more than 4TB.. or better a mac mini or retired mac running MacOSX server. Connect two 4TB USB drives and use the OSX to RAID0 them to give you 8TB.
Otherwise use something like CCC instead of time machine and your NAS of choice.
Your choice is to use a Time Capsule or Airport extreme and connect a USB box to it with more than 4TB.. or better a mac mini or retired mac running MacOSX server. Connect two 4TB USB drives and use the OSX to RAID0 them to give you 8TB.
Otherwise use something like CCC instead of time machine and your NAS of choice.
The NAS can have more than 2 storage slots, each can be used by a standalone hdrive.
Why do u prefer direct storage rather than a NAS?
Speed, support, and complexity are three reasons.
Speed's a given, network will be a bottleneck on any NAS.
Direct attached storage like a simple USB multi-bay enclosure are recognized by OS X as just disks. No worrying whether the vendor's hacked approach to supporting Time Machine will break with the next OS update. No user account or security configuration, over what's already done in OS X.
IMO, the complexity balance shifts rapidly if you are supporting more than one device, and in particular notebooks that aren't always in a fixed location.
Even quicker if you also have to support other platforms, as in many split Mac/Windows (including Boot Camp) homes.
B
Yes, that was my caveat in my first response above - does he need to access data from multiple computers?
I think the advantages of a networked backup solution are obvious and significant when dealing with laptops. Given that Apple only supports either a TC or OSX Server as Networked Time Machine destinations... I would suggest using one of those. I would not want my backups to stop working when Apple changes something in OSX or Time Machine. Backing up to unsupported media is not a risk I am willing to take.
/Jim
Im on a mid2010 iMac and im looking for a NAS that can house more than 4TB. I want to store stuff and also work for TimeMachine! What do you have and what would you suggest for me?
My setup is a headless Mac mini running OSX server, 2 Lacie 2big Thunderbolt drives. I like using drives connected to a host computer for reliability, ease of maintenance, ease of expansion, ease of reconfiguration and speed. In the case of backups, OS X server provides a highly compatible Time Machine solution. As for bottlenecks, the gigabit network connection will saturate long before the high-speed drives. I use to use NAS devices but they were cumbersome to maintain, finicky as far as compatibility, limited in capability and sluggish even on gigabit connections. Another advantage of a computer server is the ease and flexibility of implementing various network services.
I'd recommend Synology 100 times over. And if you don't mind your data stored in the same location (e.g. you lose it all in a fire) as your time machine backup, you can probably just use a single device for everything.
You've obviously never used a Synology product before
You've obviously never used a Synology product before
Please elaborate what you say about NAS being bottlenecked!
I suppose this can be tested if one tries to connect a NAS with 2 or more MacOS's. If it will work with say Tiger and Lion then it will probably be ok with future OS's, right?
Unfortunately no. With each major release Apple has broken compatibility with the major free implementations of AFP that have been required for Time Machine.
It takes a few weeks for them to catch up.
B
Slower, more expensive, flakier than a direct attached solution for a single fixed location one OS desktop computer?
B
Oh ok, yes you are right, but in my case (mid 2010 iMac) bottleneck shouldn't be a problem because this iMac doesn't have either a USB3 nor a TB port.
Some posters have a natural bias against use of NAS Technology. I suspect most of those that do have never used one to appreciate the benefits. With regard to all the Speed comparisons of network against USB 3, I suspect you will find that the main factor that will determine the transfer rates will be the Drives themselves unless you plan on using SSD's