How is everyone handling backups of your MAC devices and your iCloud items, especially photos? It would seem a traditional NAS might be a good approach but is there any benefit in going with a M1 Mac Mini hooked up to some additional drives if needed?
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.
Backups, NAS, and iCloud
- Thread starter PhoenixDown
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And Can I time machine to a NAS?
Never had a NAS before now I have questions too. thx.
Never had a NAS before now I have questions too. thx.
Yes many of the most common NAS units (QNAP, Synology, etc) all support Time Machine backups.
I just sync drives and folders to my file server. Then file server to external drives. Which then get stored in a safe.
Some files are also synced to iCloud and OneDrive. Not that I store much on the cloud. Just photos I haven’t offloaded locally yet and important documents.
You can also use a NAS instead of a file server. I just migrate my old desktop to a server roll. So, there’s no reason for me to buy a NAS.
Some files are also synced to iCloud and OneDrive. Not that I store much on the cloud. Just photos I haven’t offloaded locally yet and important documents.
You can also use a NAS instead of a file server. I just migrate my old desktop to a server roll. So, there’s no reason for me to buy a NAS.
But do you dedicate a mac as a file server? or just run it in the background of an older mac you have around.
I use a 2012 Mac mini as a dedicated file server, I manage my cloud backups from there (back blaze) iOS backups are done automatically with iMazing as well as time machine. I like the fact that I can have online and offline backups on the same machine.
I forgot, I still have my old intel imac.
Anyone know if I can setup it up as a file server but leave it in sleep mode.
Then say I am on my MacBook, I drag and drop a file to the file server and:
A) does the file server still show up if the intel imac is sleeping?
B) auto wake the intel imac so the file can be transferred?
thx
Anyone know if I can setup it up as a file server but leave it in sleep mode.
Then say I am on my MacBook, I drag and drop a file to the file server and:
A) does the file server still show up if the intel imac is sleeping?
B) auto wake the intel imac so the file can be transferred?
thx
I don't let mine sleep, but you could try wake on lan and then use screen sharing to wake it up.
Thanks, i just don't want to use electricity and generate heat when its doing nothing 99% of the time. Will try.
I actually do both: I time machine backup to a separate external USB disk as well as to my NAS. I do that for the redundancy in case one of the media fails. The NAS I use in this case is Synology. There are pros and cons to doing it this way:
Pros: as mentioned before, the redundancy. The NAS allows me to keep the backup local to my network (so obviously, my NAS is not exposed to the internet), but also allows that backup to be available whenever I am on my home network. Additionally Synology has a Time Machine-like backup solution native to it where I can use a separate disk to back up my NAS similar to how time machine operates, so I get the advantages of TM from that.
This method not only provides the redundancy of if that external USB drive fails that I still have a copy of that backup on my NAS; conversely, I can store that backup offsite in case something happens to my NAS, or more importantly, to my home. Obviously, I would also store the backup of my NAS offsite as well, so I'm doubly covered.
Cons: Not necessarily a con, but has to be stressed: When you use a NAS, especially one with more than a 1-disk solution, you have the option of using RAID. RAID IS NOT A BACKUP SOLUTION!!!! Do not count on RAID to save your behind when it comes to data loss because of a disk that has failed. It could be that that corruption has crossed over to the other disks in your RAID setup (especially if using RAID 0 or JBOD). If using a 2-disk setup, RAID 1 is recommended plus having backups. if a 4 disk setup, if you have the space, RAID 10 would be best for the redundancy; if you need the space, RAID 5 may help better. Be sure to look up the differences between RAID 5 and RAID 10 for what will work best for you.
Secondly, WiFi is great for portability, but horrible for backups. What I mean is that WiFi is great in the fact that you are not tied to a desk for your work; however, WiFi speeds will never be faster than a CAT5 or CAT6 cable plugged directly in from your Mac to a switch, with your NAS on that same switch. Take modern WiFi down to its least common denominator: 802.11g, which will get you 54Mbps per second. If your switch can offer 1Gbps speeds, there is no way that backing up a 512GB Mac or larger is going to run faster over WiFi than it would directly plugged in to a switch. Hardwired will always be faster, plus provide more consistent backups (WiFi signals can drop). So if you can, plug directly into your switch or router. When I run backups for my Mac, (16" M1 Pro, 2TB) I'm using a USB-C dongle/hub that supports RJ45 at 1Gbps speeds. So I use CAT5 cable from my NAS to my router, CAT5 from my router to my Mac, and TM backup that way outside of my external disk. Faster, more consistent backups.
Outside of that, TM Backup to a NAS? Works great, especially if planned out properly.
BL.
I use Synology, both at home and for a department at work.
Redundant drives are great, cost is good, amount of power and being headless (no monitor required), and the feature set is all good/very good.
I don't recommend using a NAS as a TM backup destination...while it works, my experience is that it has been less than stellar. I find the Synology Drive tool to be better, both for live data syncs and scheduled backups. Not perfect, but better (faster, more reliable, better feature/options) than TM. Added bonus: with their QuickConnect option, one can back up portables across the internet without dealing with ports, port forwarding, and the associated hurdles.
Redundant drives are great, cost is good, amount of power and being headless (no monitor required), and the feature set is all good/very good.
I don't recommend using a NAS as a TM backup destination...while it works, my experience is that it has been less than stellar. I find the Synology Drive tool to be better, both for live data syncs and scheduled backups. Not perfect, but better (faster, more reliable, better feature/options) than TM. Added bonus: with their QuickConnect option, one can back up portables across the internet without dealing with ports, port forwarding, and the associated hurdles.
Synology Drive works more like a personal cloud solution, which you specify a folder or directory on your client, and when you drop files into that folder, will sync it between those clients and the NAS. That works great for that folder, but doesn't provide a backup of your entire Mac like TM would do.
I use Synology drive when I need files replicated across all of the devices I use between it and the NAS, which helps tremendously. But again, it isn't a solution for a full backup of a Mac.
Ugh.. this would require exposing your entire NAS to the Internet, which is not a good thing to do. There are a lot of security risks and factors involved in doing that, especially if you store sensitive information (PHI, PCI, PII, etc.) on your NAS. The risk of that being exposed is too great to have a NAS internet facing. Better to VPN into your home network, then get to your NAS that way, then going straight over the internet.
BL.
Perhaps you have not used the backup feature. And yes, one can use both at the same time.
It is better in many ways than TM. Like deciding exactly how many versions you of data to keep and how long, and easy access without having to do a full restore, and seeing a log on both the server and client what was (and wasn't) backed up. And scheduled backups, as well as automated. It is also faster and more reliable, in my experience.
I don't need a backup of my "entire" Mac. Most folks really don't. They need their unique user data, which Drive easily handles, outside of a few caches in the user Library.
Neither is perfect, and I have used both at the same time. If I could only use one for network backup, Drive easily wins.
Last edited:
One would not be exposing their entire NAS using QuickConnect.
Only the stream of backed-up data would be available outside the firewall, but the connection is end-to-end encrypted between the server and the client (with the SSL option enabled). This would roughly be the same level of security that many tools in use today have, for file syncing, data sharing, screen sharing, and so on. Stuff like Zoom, DropBox, OneDrive, iCloud, etc.
I certainly wouldn't recommend it for PCI or anything else sensitive. I thought we were talking about typical user data and family pix here, no?
Sure, if a weak user name/password was chosen...it could be hacked. Same for VPNs. Synology does offer the handy option to block access of IPs after a number of failed attempts, as well as locking accounts with too many failed logins, which certainly reduces the risk of brute force attacks.
While I would agree the strength of security using QuickConnect with SSL encrypted backups is not enterprise-grade, you seem to be implying that this method would leave the data and/or NAS wide open. It would not.