Any reason not to buy a Drobo?

[SaxPlayer]

can you use iscsi and mount the entire synology as a local hard drive on a mac? so you can spotlight it? I'm NO expert on that, just thinking this MIGHT work.

Interesting idea. Not sure it would work as it still wouldn't be a direct connection. Someone else has posted that a directly connected Drobo works with Spotlight so that might swing it that way for some people.

It's not a big problem for me, and there are ways around it. I found a product called FoxTrot Professional, for example. that does a similar job to Spotlight, however it's rather expensive to buy so I'm living without it at the moment.

 

[garyleecn]

Interesting idea. Not sure it would work as it still wouldn't be a direct connection. Someone else has posted that a directly connected Drobo works with Spotlight so that might swing it that way for some people.

It's not a big problem for me, and there are ways around it. I found a product called FoxTrot Professional, for example. that does a similar job to Spotlight, however it's rather expensive to buy so I'm living without it at the moment.

guess you haven't used iscsi yet lol
as far as i know, the mac consider a iscsi drive as directly connected, just like USB or thunderbolt, or even firewire. so i guess you'll be able to use spotlight

the down side is you;ll need a $80 software to connect to iscsi drives, mac doesnt support it natively. they have free trail version, you can try it out. it's pretty cool

 

[SaxPlayer]

guess you haven't used iscsi yet lol
as far as i know, the mac consider a iscsi drive as directly connected, just like USB or thunderbolt, or even firewire. so i guess you'll be able to use spotlight

the down side is you;ll need a $80 software to connect to iscsi drives, mac doesnt support it natively. they have free trail version, you can try it out. it's pretty cool

You're right, I haven't used iscsi, although I was aware that it isn't natively supported on OS X so would need something extra to get it working. However, unless I'm missing something obvious, the whole point of having a NAS drive is not just to enable connection to one Mac but all the extra things that running a NAS gives you; such as other computers connecting to it and, for me, even being able to access the drive remotely mounted as if I was sat next to it (without having to jump through any hoops).

My NAS drive is also a Time Machine target for all the Macs in my house, as well as a web, mail and print server.

If these extras aren't worth anything to you and you want to directly connect your external storage (for spotlight or any other reason) then perhaps a Drobo is the answer after all? It isn't for me (it's NAS all the way because of all the things it can do) but everyone's mileage differs.

 

[priitv8]

My NAS drive is also a Time Machine target for all the Macs in my house, as well as a web, mail and print server.

Correct reasoning. I just have come to the conclusion, that a DAS attached to a Mac Mini will do all of it and much better (faster, more options, more software). That is for me, YMMV.

 

[garyleecn]

You're right, I haven't used iscsi, although I was aware that it isn't natively supported on OS X so would need something extra to get it working. However, unless I'm missing something obvious, the whole point of having a NAS drive is not just to enable connection to one Mac but all the extra things that running a NAS gives you; such as other computers connecting to it and, for me, even being able to access the drive remotely mounted as if I was sat next to it (without having to jump through any hoops).

My NAS drive is also a Time Machine target for all the Macs in my house, as well as a web, mail and print server.

If these extras aren't worth anything to you and you want to directly connect your external storage (for spotlight or any other reason) then perhaps a Drobo is the answer after all? It isn't for me (it's NAS all the way because of all the things it can do) but everyone's mileage differs.

well, drobo only has 5 bays, and their 8/12 bays units are so expansive and kinda useless because of this 16tb limit.

i just bought a synology 1815+ as a pure iscsi drive. i used to use a 5d and hooked it up to my mac mini (which runs the server version, all file sharing and downloading, plex etc), but recently my files exceeded 16tb, so instead of buying another drobo, i just bought a synology, and run ONLY iscsi and nothing else. all sharing, time machine, vpn, plex, you name it, are running on the mac service, because it's more powerful and easier to manage.

 

[SaxPlayer]

well, drobo only has 5 bays, and their 8/12 bays units are so expansive and kinda useless because of this 16tb limit.

i just bought a synology 1815+ as a pure iscsi drive. i used to use a 5d and hooked it up to my mac mini (which runs the server version, all file sharing and downloading, plex etc), but recently my files exceeded 16tb, so instead of buying another drobo, i just bought a synology, and run ONLY iscsi and nothing else. all sharing, time machine, vpn, plex, you name it, are running on the mac service, because it's more powerful and easier to manage.

That's really interesting. It's not something I considered when I bought my Synology drive. I'd be interested to know more about the technicalities of setting that up and what it does/doesn't give you compared to using it as a standard NAS via ethernet. Are there any web sites you know of that go into detail about all that?

 

[garyleecn]

That's really interesting. It's not something I considered when I bought my Synology drive. I'd be interested to know more about the technicalities of setting that up and what it does/doesn't give you compared to using it as a standard NAS via ethernet. Are there any web sites you know of that go into detail about all that?

it's actually not that difficult as you may think. synology here doesnt act like a usual NAS, but more like just a external enclosure, or more specifically, a SAN. the reason i picked 1815+ is it's expandability, since it has 8 internal bays and potentially 10 external ones, and all 18 drives can be put in a single volume. and it also supports mix&match raid just like the drobo (qnap machines are more powerful but lacks of that feature)
the set up is the same regardless it's a synology connected via ethernet, or just a regular drobo, or even a simple portable hdd.

alright the cons and pros now

cons:
you need an mac powering on 24/7, ideally a mac mini connected via ethernet
a little more complexity in the whole system, after all you have two pieces instead of one
a little more power consumption ~10w-20w
a little more complexity in setting up


pros:
much more computing power i5/i7 vs atom/arm
much cheaper: a i7 qnap will cost you 2.5k+
you can run much much more applications, after all its a x86 system.
you can get all from synology via virtual machine
you can even try exsi (is it how it spells??), and run multiple system at the same time (or just use parallels desktop)
you get a full desktop computer for remote access/home theater




so basic set up would be like this
for file sharing, os x has build in sharing, or you can get os x server app
for time machine, vpn, app cacheing, dns, net boot/install and other stuff, use os x server (you can check that on mac app store for detailed info of what it can do. really, that's amazingly a lot!)
for downloading, it's a mac, u pick whatever you like
media sharing: plex, which organize your entire media library (which stores on whatever your storage is, in this case, the synology)
if you want some extra organization of your media files, use filebot, which is AWESOME!
for file syncing, bitterness sync, own-cloud, or just dropbox, iCloud ..
for photo backup, iCloud, or try out photo sync app for auto backup/upload to your device
and for some automation, try out hazel, the imagination is your only limit LOL


i don't have much needs on business applications, but I'm sure you can get apps for those needs, after all, it's a i7 machine


and if you put the machine in some far corners from you, you can get some fan control apps for lower temp (but larger noise)

 

[SaxPlayer]

it's actually not that difficult as you may think. synology here doesnt act like a usual NAS, but more like just a external enclosure, or more specifically, a SAN. the reason i picked 1815+ is it's expandability, since it has 8 internal bays and potentially 10 external ones, and all 18 drives can be put in a single volume. and it also supports mix&match raid just like the drobo (qnap machines are more powerful but lacks of that feature)
the set up is the same regardless it's a synology connected via ethernet, or just a regular drobo, or even a simple portable hdd.

alright the cons and pros now

cons:
you need an mac powering on 24/7, ideally a mac mini connected via ethernet
a little more complexity in the whole system, after all you have two pieces instead of one
a little more power consumption ~10w-20w
a little more complexity in setting up


pros:
much more computing power i5/i7 vs atom/arm
much cheaper: a i7 qnap will cost you 2.5k+
you can run much much more applications, after all its a x86 system.
you can get all from synology via virtual machine
you can even try exsi (is it how it spells??), and run multiple system at the same time (or just use parallels desktop)
you get a full desktop computer for remote access/home theater




so basic set up would be like this
for file sharing, os x has build in sharing, or you can get os x server app
for time machine, vpn, app cacheing, dns, net boot/install and other stuff, use os x server (you can check that on mac app store for detailed info of what it can do. really, that's amazingly a lot!)
for downloading, it's a mac, u pick whatever you like
media sharing: plex, which organize your entire media library (which stores on whatever your storage is, in this case, the synology)
if you want some extra organization of your media files, use filebot, which is AWESOME!
for file syncing, bitterness sync, own-cloud, or just dropbox, iCloud ..
for photo backup, iCloud, or try out photo sync app for auto backup/upload to your device
and for some automation, try out hazel, the imagination is your only limit LOL


i don't have much needs on business applications, but I'm sure you can get apps for those needs, after all, it's a i7 machine


and if you put the machine in some far corners from you, you can get some fan control apps for lower temp (but larger noise)

Thank you so much for taking the time to compile such a detailed reply, garyleecn. I really appreciate it. Apologies to shinji for me hijacking the thread - although I think this area is very interesting and may be of use to others who either have or are considering purchasing similar equipment.

After I read your reply, garyleecn, I did some reading up on the Synology site and followed their instructions for creating a test iSCSI LUN on my NAS. As you suggested, it was very easy to do.

I then downloaded a trial version of GlobalSAN iSCSI Initiator and set up a small test connection to the target.

You could've knocked me down with a feather! Not only is the connection faster than a bog standard ethernet connection (at least that's my impression from a quick test) but (perhaps unsurprisingly because OS X just sees the target as a connected drive) spotlight worked instantly and was its usual blisteringly fast speed.

I can't believe I've owned this NAS for 18 months and didn't know about iSCSI. I work in the tech world (as a developer, so hardware isn't really my area) so I feel like a prize idiot. Still, that's the great thing about Forums like this and people like your good self, garyleecn. I've learned a valuable lesson in network storage today.

Of course, I was connecting straight to my Mac and not via a dedicated Mac with OS X Server. I imagine you're suggesting that so that the iSCSI targets are mounted on one machine and then shared from there to avoid the no doubt disastrous consequences of mounting iSCSI targets on more than 1 machine at the same time??

Thanks again for your help. I need to work out how to move to iSCSI. Whether to get myself a cheap Mac Mini, as you suggest, to run as a small server or whether (for me) I can get away with something simpler. Plus I'll need to work out how to migrate my existing data from normal NAS partitions across to iSCSI. Food for thought!

Very very happy with this.

 

[garyleecn]

Thank you so much for taking the time to compile such a detailed reply, garyleecn. I really appreciate it. Apologies to shinji for me hijacking the thread - although I think this area is very interesting and may be of use to others who either have or are considering purchasing similar equipment.

After I read your reply, garyleecn, I did some reading up on the Synology site and followed their instructions for creating a test iSCSI LUN on my NAS. As you suggested, it was very easy to do.

I then downloaded a trial version of GlobalSAN iSCSI Initiator and set up a small test connection to the target.

You could've knocked me down with a feather! Not only is the connection faster than a bog standard ethernet connection (at least that's my impression from a quick test) but (perhaps unsurprisingly because OS X just sees the target as a connected drive) spotlight worked instantly and was its usual blisteringly fast speed.

I can't believe I've owned this NAS for 18 months and didn't know about iSCSI. I work in the tech world (as a developer, so hardware isn't really my area) so I feel like a prize idiot. Still, that's the great thing about Forums like this and people like your good self, garyleecn. I've learned a valuable lesson in network storage today.

Of course, I was connecting straight to my Mac and not via a dedicated Mac with OS X Server. I imagine you're suggesting that so that the iSCSI targets are mounted on one machine and then shared from there to avoid the no doubt disastrous consequences of mounting iSCSI targets on more than 1 machine at the same time??

Thanks again for your help. I need to work out how to move to iSCSI. Whether to get myself a cheap Mac Mini, as you suggest, to run as a small server or whether (for me) I can get away with something simpler. Plus I'll need to work out how to migrate my existing data from normal NAS partitions across to iSCSI. Food for thought!

Very very happy with this.

glad you find it useful

but I think i've heard someone saying you shouldn't mount one iscsi target on more than one computers, since each computer recognizes it as internal drive. when you modify data from two computers at the same time, it may mess up the whole drive. not sure if you can even mount it on two computers. well, that's just what i've heard, not 100% sure
btw, i think license for 5 computers for globalSAN is almost the same as a mac mini, you should also consider that. lol so my suggestion is if you need to access a folder from different computers at the same time, don't use iscsi or just get a dedicate server and then share it.

as about moving files, since the iscsi is 'thin provisioned', it takes NO space until you put something in it. so you can just move (not copy&paste) all your data to iscsi drive with no problem, you don't need any extra spaces. and you can set up a hazel rule to automatize this process (let me know if you need help on that)

so, if you are a developer yourself, i guess you can handle the software set up yourself with no problem lol

good luck

----------

glad you find it useful

but I think i've heard someone saying you shouldn't mount one iscsi target on more than one computers, since each computer recognizes it as internal drive. when you modify data from two computers at the same time, it may mess up the whole drive. not sure if you can even mount it on two computers. well, that's just what i've heard, not 100% sure
btw, i think license for 5 computers for globalSAN is almost the same as a mac mini, you should also consider that. lol so my suggestion is if you need to access a folder from different computers at the same time, don't use iscsi or just get a dedicate server and then share it.

as about moving files, since the iscsi is 'thin provisioned', it takes NO space until you put something in it. so you can just move (not copy&paste) all your data to iscsi drive with no problem, you don't need any extra spaces. and you can set up a hazel rule to automatize this process (let me know if you need help on that)

so, if you are a developer yourself, i guess you can handle the software set up yourself with no problem lol

good luck

oh yeah, if you need more performance, just get a 'advanced switch' and enable link aggregation, 2 GB_E or 4 GB_E should be enough for most tasks.

 

[SaxPlayer]

glad you find it useful

but I think i've heard someone saying you shouldn't mount one iscsi target on more than one computers, since each computer recognizes it as internal drive. when you modify data from two computers at the same time, it may mess up the whole drive. not sure if you can even mount it on two computers. well, that's just what i've heard, not 100% sure
btw, i think license for 5 computers for globalSAN is almost the same as a mac mini, you should also consider that. lol so my suggestion is if you need to access a folder from different computers at the same time, don't use iscsi or just get a dedicate server and then share it.

as about moving files, since the iscsi is 'thin provisioned', it takes NO space until you put something in it. so you can just move (not copy&paste) all your data to iscsi drive with no problem, you don't need any extra spaces. and you can set up a hazel rule to automatize this process (let me know if you need help on that)

so, if you are a developer yourself, i guess you can handle the software set up yourself with no problem lol

good luck

----------





oh yeah, if you need more performance, just get a 'advanced switch' and enable link aggregation, 2 GB_E or 4 GB_E should be enough for most tasks.

Thanks for your comments, garyleecn. I have a managed switch and both my NAS and Mac Pro are connected to it using link aggregation. It hasn't increased the speed (because each process runs down one or other of the GigE cables) but it does offer some extra resilience and I suspect if I'm doing multiple things that require network access it will help on that front. I had the spare capacity in the switch when I bought it, so I decided to set it up anyway as it can't do any harm.

I'm conscious of hijacking this thread, so I've started a new one to discuss the points about iSCSI and, specifically, spotlight and OS X Server. My thinking id that if I have a Mac Mini with OS X Server "talking" to the iSCSI "drives" on the NAS then while this means I'd only need 1 iSCSI initiator license I'm not sure how the network shares I'd set up on the Mac Mini (as my intermediate server) would give me anything over the old shares I currently have on my NAS. Would the fact that OS X Server is doing the sharing (presumably under AFP rather than SMB) give me spotlight over the network? I'm not sure...

Anyway, the new thread I've started is here. I'd very much welcome your input.

Cheers

Andy

 

[srshaw]

I'm very dubious about the benefits of a proper NAS. I bought a readynas several years ago and had two disks in parallel raid, I backed this upto a portable drive.

I then had a hardware fault in my readynas (I think power supply) and couldn't find my backup drive. I later discoverd a new readynas drives wouldn't work with my older disks. Cue panic. I replaced the power supply on my readynas -- which worked for about 10 mimutes. Cue even more panic. I then found a replacement readynas off ebay. I put my old disks in a then finally it all worked, and I then discoverd my old backup drive. This was a serious relief.

After this episode I just use portable drives stuck to a raspberry pi for network attached storage and make sure everything is backed up well, and use another portable drive for time machine. I really don't see the benefit of paying for a NAS drive.

 

[SaxPlayer]

I'm very dubious about the benefits of a proper NAS. I bought a readynas several years ago and had two disks in parallel raid, I backed this upto a portable drive.

I then had a hardware fault in my readynas (I think power supply) and couldn't find my backup drive. I later discoverd a new readynas drives wouldn't work with my older disks. Cue panic. I replaced the power supply on my readynas -- which worked for about 10 mimutes. Cue even more panic. I then found a replacement readynas off ebay. I put my old disks in a then finally it all worked, and I then discoverd my old backup drive. This was a serious relief.

After this episode I just use portable drives stuck to a raspberry pi for network attached storage and make sure everything is backed up well, and use another portable drive for time machine. I really don't see the benefit of paying for a NAS drive.

Parallel RAID? Do you mean you had 2 disks in the enclosure as RAID 0? Or do you mean RAID 1 (mirrored)? If you only have 2 disks then mirrored really is the only option to give you some kind of data protection. If it was stripped then that really is playing with fire!

I think the point here is that not all NAS drives are equal and by that I don't necessarily mean the manufacturer, it's more to do with the level of resilience. I have a Synology NAS with 5 bays, 4 of which are occupied. If a drive fails I can pull out the enclosure and plug in a new drive without even having to power the unit down. No data lost. Will take about 5 minutes to fix. If I put a drive in my spare bay and flagged it as a "hot spare" the NAS would fix itself if a drive failed - again no data lost and this time 0 minutes to fix.

If I was paranoid about disks failing, I could make that fifth bay part of the raid and then up to 2 of the 5 disks could fail and I'd still lose no data.

Add to all that the software that comes with a NAS (it's effectively a server) and there's much to be liked about these units, provided (as you found out) that you have plans in place of what to do if any part of the system fails. (Even with the level of protection I have in my NAS I still keep a weekly off-site back up.)

As usual with anything like this, YMMV...

 

[srshaw]

I had two mirrored disks (raid1), but this was of little benefit since the readynas used some linux os which wasn't easily read by anything else.

As you say though, all NAS are not created equal, and in future if I where to buy another, I would certainly look at what happens if I get a hardware failure rather than disk failure. My particular problem was with readynas changing their architecture effectively leaving old customers in the lurch. I certainly wouldn't buy another readynas.

 

[SaxPlayer]

I had two mirrored disks (raid1), but this was of little benefit since the readynas used some linux os which wasn't easily read by anything else.

As you say though, all NAS are not created equal, and in future if I where to buy another, I would certainly look at what happens if I get a hardware failure rather than disk failure. My particular problem was with readynas changing their architecture effectively leaving old customers in the lurch. I certainly wouldn't buy another readynas.

That's a very good point and (to bring things full circle back to the original question in this thread) is exactly the reason why I didn't buy a Drobo because they use a propriety format. In theory, my drives from the Synology NAS should fit in any enclosure and be readable. Hopefully I'll never have to test that theory!

 

[Zwhaler]

I had a ***** of a time getting iSCSI to work on my Synology 2415+ and ultimately returned it. Lets say I have 2 drives installed. Drive 1 is boot drive, fine. If I set up drive 2 to be an iSCSI target and get everything set up properly and have the LUN working and everything is fine.... using Global SAN to connect, after I reboot the Synology ONCE the DSM (Synology OS) on drive 1 WOULD NOT CONNECT. It simply would not work after getting 1 or more LUNs and Targets set up on the Synology. Can someone explain what I was doing wrong? Synology's support was pretty useless and I'm convinced they hung up on my more than once. Pretty frustrating. I spent weeks and many hours trying to get that thing to work on iSCSI before sending it back due to running out of 30 day return period.

 

[SaxPlayer]

I had a ***** of a time getting iSCSI to work on my Synology 2415+ and ultimately returned it. Lets say I have 2 drives installed. Drive 1 is boot drive, fine. If I set up drive 2 to be an iSCSI target and get everything set up properly and have the LUN working and everything is fine.... using Global SAN to connect, after I reboot the Synology ONCE the DSM (Synology OS) on drive 1 WOULD NOT CONNECT. It simply would not work after getting 1 or more LUNs and Targets set up on the Synology. Can someone explain what I was doing wrong? Synology's support was pretty useless and I'm convinced they hung up on my more than once. Pretty frustrating. I spent weeks and many hours trying to get that thing to work on iSCSI before sending it back due to running out of 30 day return period.

I'm not convinced that using iSCSI is the best thing to do with a NAS drive. The point of network storage is its availability to any device on the network. By definition, iSCSI can be mounted read/write by one client on the network at a time kind of defeating the point of having network storage in the first place.

If you want dedicated storage with RAID then perhaps a Thunderbolt enclosure would be a better option? It wasn't something that was within a reasonable price bracket when I was looking for storage solutions in Summer 2013 which is why I went down the NAS route, however TB prices have stabilised making it a viable alternative to using a NAS.

That said, using my Synology as a NAS solution works well for me.

 

[Zwhaler]

I'm not convinced that using iSCSI is the best thing to do with a NAS drive. The point of network storage is its availability to any device on the network. By definition, iSCSI can be mounted read/write by one client on the network at a time kind of defeating the point of having network storage in the first place.

If you want dedicated storage with RAID then perhaps a Thunderbolt enclosure would be a better option? It wasn't something that was within a reasonable price bracket when I was looking for storage solutions in Summer 2013 which is why I went down the NAS route, however TB prices have stabilised making it a viable alternative to using a NAS.

That said, using my Synology as a NAS solution works well for me.

No Thunderbolt here. No good proven USB 3.0 options here either as far as I know. I'll probably wait til I get a new Mac Pro until getting a rig like this.

 

[dynamicranger]

Yes. Drobo Sucks.