A NAS for a Mac

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by zoran, Apr 6, 2014.

  1. zoran, Apr 6, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2014

    zoran macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    #1
    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? :)
     
  2. FreakinEurekan macrumors 68040

    FreakinEurekan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    #2
    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.
     
  3. ColdCase macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Location:
    NH
    #3
    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.
     
  4. zoran thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    #4
    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?
     
  5. FreakinEurekan macrumors 68040

    FreakinEurekan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    #5
    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.
     
  6. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #6
    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
     
  7. FreakinEurekan macrumors 68040

    FreakinEurekan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    #7
    Yes, that was my caveat in my first response above - does he need to access data from multiple computers?
     
  8. flynz4 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #8
    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
     
  9. marzer macrumors 65816

    marzer

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #9
    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.
     
  10. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #10
    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 :p
     
  11. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #11
    Another vote for Synology, I think they're a good NAS and handle just about everything you throw at it.
     
  12. zoran thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    #12
    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?
     
  13. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #13
    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
     
  14. zoran thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    #14
    Ok so if one was to ask you... why shouldn't i purchase a NAS for hy Mac?
    For what reasons would you not recommend a NAS for a Mac?
     
  15. Wild-Bill macrumors 68030

    Wild-Bill

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    bleep
    #15
    I've got the Synology 1511+ with five 3TB drives in RAID-6. It handles TM backups of my 08 MP and 13 MBA, hosts Wordpress for development, and streams movies via Airplay and their DSVideo app. Great unit, no issues in over a year.
     
  16. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #16
    Slower, more expensive, flakier than a direct attached solution for a single fixed location one OS desktop computer?

    B
     
  17. anarti macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Location:
    Scotland
    #17
    I use Synology DS211j for backups and Time Machine.

    You don't need to buy time capsule etc. Simply go the Synology way. It is fully compatibile with TM and it works great.
     
  18. zoran thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    #18
    flakier means? :confused:
     
  19. FreakinEurekan macrumors 68040

    FreakinEurekan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    #19
    It's pretty simple - network is slower than USB 3 or Thunderbolt.

    Nope. Far from it.
     
  20. zoran thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    #20
    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.
     
  21. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
  22. zoran thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    #22
    yes it does
     
  23. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
  24. zoran thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    #24
    Where do i start in finding a NAS for my usage?
     
  25. nebo1ss macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page