A NAS for a Mac

zoran

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jun 30, 2005
3,144
46
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? :)
 
Last edited:

ColdCase

macrumors 68030
Feb 10, 2008
2,957
139
NH
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.
 

zoran

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jun 30, 2005
3,144
46
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.
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?
 

FreakinEurekan

macrumors 68040
Sep 8, 2011
3,388
327
Eureka Springs, Arkansas
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.
 

balamw

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 16, 2005
19,075
963
New England
Speed, support, and complexity are three reasons.
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
 

flynz4

macrumors 68040
Aug 9, 2009
3,125
35
Portland, OR
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.
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
 

marzer

macrumors 65816
Nov 14, 2009
1,327
44
Colorado
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.
 

thejadedmonkey

macrumors 604
May 28, 2005
7,978
531
Pennsylvania
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.

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.
You've obviously never used a Synology product before :p
 

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
63,832
30,350
Boston
Another vote for Synology, I think they're a good NAS and handle just about everything you throw at it.
 

zoran

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jun 30, 2005
3,144
46
Speed, support, and complexity are three reasons.Speed's a given, network will be a bottleneck on any NAS.
Please elaborate what you say about NAS being bottlenecked!

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.
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?
 

balamw

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 16, 2005
19,075
963
New England
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
 

zoran

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jun 30, 2005
3,144
46
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?
 

Wild-Bill

macrumors 68030
Jan 10, 2007
2,538
604
bleep
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.
 

balamw

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 16, 2005
19,075
963
New England
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?
Slower, more expensive, flakier than a direct attached solution for a single fixed location one OS desktop computer?

B
 

anarti

macrumors regular
Nov 28, 2012
185
0
Scotland
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.
 

zoran

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jun 30, 2005
3,144
46
It's pretty simple - network is slower than USB 3 or Thunderbolt.
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.
 

nebo1ss

macrumors 68030
Jun 2, 2010
2,735
1,242
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