Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Best NAS for a file server Mac and PC

bdpoop

bdpoop

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jan 23, 2016
11
3
North Yorkshire Dales, UK
Hi. I have an old client (design studio) who I still do bits of work for (Im semi retired) and they desperately need to replace their ancient Netgear Readynas which is basically used as a file server for two macs that do the design work but is also accessed by a couple of PCs. They basically have a shared docs folder on the NAS that everyone sees but its been fraught with problems for years, mainly on the Mac side. I am looking for a recommendation to replace it that I know wont throw up any issues with the Mac computers but that can also be seen and accessed by Windows.

Two that I have considered are this one https://www.broadbandbuyer.com/prod...YvuMiASpbpxygdGgjh0kxKQq-0Mh7L8EaAkpSEALw_wcB

and this one. https://www.broadbandbuyer.com/prod...o_DTSLT3pSN5nwiFQNoSzAljgSUC5krEaAoJ_EALw_wcB

They currently are storing about 300-400gb of data on the NAS.

Any thoughts?
 
Thanks. One suggestion has been to not bother with a NAS. Just use the main mac as the artwork PC with a time machine backup onto USB drives and use mac file sharing for the other mac to access the files on the main Mac. Im not sure if the PCs on the network even access the files now on the NAS, its just being used for backups and they could use onedrive for that.
 
bdpoop said:
Thanks. One suggestion has been to not bother with a NAS. Just use the main mac as the artwork PC with a time machine backup onto USB drives and use mac file sharing for the other mac to access the files on the main Mac. Im not sure if the PCs on the network even access the files now on the NAS, its just being used for backups and they could use onedrive for that.
Click to expand...

You could do that. It’ll work. Use something like Backblaze to also backup the Macs to the cloud and the shared drive. I’d also backup the PCs to Backblaze.

You want a cloud backup. In case the place gets robbed or burns down. You also want local backups. Because they may be restored much faster than cloud backups. When it’s just a drive or computer failure.

I’d do all file storage on decent SSD for speed. Just using hard drives for backups and archives.

The advantage of a good NAS. Is it is easy to setup RAID, replace failed drives or grow the storage pool. It also has software to back itself up to externals, mirror to another NAS (even offsite) and act as a cloud server. It may also be backed up to cloud services. But you’ll usually have to get a more expensive backup plan like B2Cloud.

Some of the more advanced models can be setup with a fiber optic card or dual 10GbE. Use NVMe SSD as a cache and paired with slower SATA SSD or HDD.

So, you can really speed up the network file access with a good NAS. Perhaps get them to upgrade to a managed switch with a couple SFP connectors for the NAS or 10GbE. Then allow the rest to connect by 1GbE or 10GbE if supported. These switches also offer wireless access points that pair well with them. To make network management easier and seamless handover on WiFi. Plus VPN support if anyone works remotely.

What you recommend really depends on what they need. If being slow is a complaint. Dropping several grand to upgrade their infrastructure can pay off in time savings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max2, hobowankenobi and bdpoop
velocityg4 said:
You could do that. It’ll work. Use something like Backblaze to also backup the Macs to the cloud and the shared drive. I’d also backup the PCs to Backblaze.

You want a cloud backup. In case the place gets robbed or burns down. You also want local backups. Because they may be restored much faster than cloud backups. When it’s just a drive or computer failure.

I’d do all file storage on decent SSD for speed. Just using hard drives for backups and archives.

The advantage of a good NAS. Is it is easy to setup RAID, replace failed drives or grow the storage pool. It also has software to back itself up to externals, mirror to another NAS (even offsite) and act as a cloud server. It may also be backed up to cloud services. But you’ll usually have to get a more expensive backup plan like B2Cloud.

Some of the more advanced models can be setup with a fiber optic card or dual 10GbE. Use NVMe SSD as a cache and paired with slower SATA SSD or HDD.

So, you can really speed up the network file access with a good NAS. Perhaps get them to upgrade to a managed switch with a couple SFP connectors for the NAS or 10GbE. Then allow the rest to connect by 1GbE or 10GbE if supported. These switches also offer wireless access points that pair well with them. To make network management easier and seamless handover on WiFi. Plus VPN support if anyone works remotely.

What you recommend really depends on what they need. If being slow is a complaint. Dropping several grand to upgrade their infrastructure can pay off in time savings.
Click to expand...
Really helpful thanks.

I need to check the specs of the two macs as I bet they are a few years old now and not SSD. Yep I get the idea of RAID on the NAS and to be fair they have not (So far) lost any data in all the time they had it. Its not so much it being slow thats the problem although it has got slower, its now reliability. They often have to reboot the system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max2
Apparently there is still one PC that logs in to retrieve artwork PDF files and the two Macs do have SSD drives with plenty of space so sharing from one of the Macs could still be an option but I dont know how reliable that is cross platform these days.
 
bdpoop said:
Apparently there is still one PC that logs in to retrieve artwork PDF files and the two Macs do have SSD drives with plenty of space so sharing from one of the Macs could still be an option but I dont know how reliable that is cross platform these days.
Click to expand...

Don't connect to the Mac by using the Windows network discovery. Assign the Mac a static IP address. Connect from Windows by IP address instead of navigating through the address bar and map the network drive. (ie \\192.168.1.1\shared)

Make your life easier on the Mac. The shared folders should have one word names.

I also do similar on the Mac. Connect to Windows by SMB address. Then save a link to the shared folder. Network navigation is unreliable in general. It's even worse when it is Windows to Mac or Mac to Windows. Static IP addresses and mapping the computer by static address. Gives a precise link, rather than hoping discovery works right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ericwn and bdpoop
velocityg4 said:
Don't connect to the Mac by using the Windows network discovery. Assign the Mac a static IP address. Connect from Windows by IP address instead of navigating through the address bar and map the network drive. (ie \\192.168.1.1\shared)

Make your life easier on the Mac. The shared folders should have one word names.

I also do similar on the Mac. Connect to Windows by SMB address. Then save a link to the shared folder. Network navigation is unreliable in general. It's even worse when it is Windows to Mac or Mac to Windows. Static IP addresses and mapping the computer by static address. Gives a precise link, rather than hoping discovery works right.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. It makes perfect sense. If they go this route it might be a case of try it for a month and see how it works. There would be very little cost in doing that at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ericwn and velocityg4
bdpoop said:
Thanks for that. It makes perfect sense. If they go this route it might be a case of try it for a month and see how it works. There would be very little cost in doing that at least.
Click to expand...
If you have trouble connecting from Windows. You might have to tell it to use Samba (SMB:\\192.168.1.1\shared). It's been quite a while since I've had to do direct links between the two. I did some long write up over ten years ago on this here. For some file sharing setting tweaks that are needed.

I've centralized my storage on a home server. So, don't do this anymore and businesses I deal with have a NAS or Server. If they need file sharing. Although most small businesses just use Google Drive or Onedrive now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdpoop
velocityg4 said:
If you have trouble connecting from Windows. You might have to tell it to use Samba (SMB:\\192.168.1.1\shared). It's been quite a while since I've had to do direct links between the two. I did some long write up over ten years ago on this here. For some file sharing setting tweaks that are needed.

I've centralized my storage on a home server. So, don't do this anymore and businesses I deal with have a NAS or Server. If they need file sharing. Although most small businesses just use Google Drive or Onedrive now.
Click to expand...

Yes most I know are now on One Drive and Sharepoint but for a design studio some of the files are fairly big and there are concerns of bottlenecks using the cloud or downtime if the internet goes off.
 
bdpoop said:
Yes most I know are now on One Drive and Sharepoint but for a design studio some of the files are fairly big and there are concerns of bottlenecks using the cloud or downtime if the internet goes off.
Click to expand...

Yes, some places are still better off with local storage. Large files or databases with lots of I/O need local network storage. Although if internet is critical. They should have two connections from different providers connected to a switch with failover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdpoop
bdpoop said:
One suggestion has been to not bother with a NAS. Just use the main mac
Click to expand...

That will work, but only if that Mac is turned on all the time when the other computers need access. I use a 2012 quad i7 Mac Mini as a file and time machine server with 20tb of USB external disks. It's "headless" with no keyboard, mouse or screen. I access it with screen sharing from another Mac and have an HDMI "dummy plug" on the Mini to make it think there's a screen.

You can get used 2012 and 2014 Mini's really cheaply these days. OWC (aka MacSales) sells them with warranty, or even cheaper from private sellers. I don't think you need very high specs just for a file server, but would still avoid the bottom spec 2014 non-upgradeable 4gb Mini and get at least 8gb of RAM. The 2012 Mini has user-upgradeable RAM.

Catalina is the max version of MacOS for the 2012 Mini and Monterey for the 2014 Mini. If you are only using this on your own local network, not sure that it matters to run an old version of MacOS. Still running Catalina on mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max2 and bdpoop
I have been happy using a Mac mini as a fileserver for years for Macs, pC and a few linux boxes. I have a few OWC raid boxes for the storage drives and run a few services on the mini. Sadly Apple does not support the server software anymore, but the standard OS and a few add ons work fine in my setup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boyd01 and bdpoop
Thanks. I think they were talking about using one of the existing Macs as the file server though. So it would be an active workstation as well as sharing the artwork files with another Mac and a PC occasionally.
 
I have been using a WD My Cloud for some years now*, and have been quite happy with it, in general.
I can connect to it using AFP, SMB and NFS, so it works with Apple, Windows and Linux clients.
It works well enough that I can transfer files to and from it nearly as fast as my 1 Gbit network allows.

However....

I also use a Raspberry Pi 4, using Raspberry Pi OS, running off a USB SSD.
I have several drives attached via a USB 3 hub and manage it via Webmin.
I can access it via the aforementioned AFP, SMB and NFS, even faster than my WD My Cloud.
And, I have more flexibility than with the WD My Cloud.
For example, it is also my Plexmedia Server, which the WD My Cloud can't do,
and I can back up certain precious areas of files with MEGAsync.

Yes, you could do the same with an old PC or Mac Mini that you aren't currently using, but if you have to buy a new system to do this, then a RPi 4 is a good way to go.


* So long, in fact, that it is no longer eligible for updates...
 
  • Like
Reactions: dimme
Honestly, a NAS is the way to go for a small business... in all cases. At home I have two 4 TB drives in my NAS and I consider my usage to be negligible at best. They need to think more about how they will be using the setup in the future and not how they have used it in the past. Look at it this way, when you first bought your home, traffic to work was x... now it's likely tripled that. Data usage follows the same path in almost every use case. Systems like these are fairly cheap... any business should be able to afford one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max2 and hobowankenobi
hobowankenobi said:
Any big pros/cons between the two? Historically, I read Synolgoy wins on OS/Features/Interface, while QNAP wins on hardware specs. Is that your expericence?
Click to expand...

I have had the QNAP longer, but I like the Synology better. The user interface to me, is better.

I have the eight disk version of the Synology and a four disk version of the QNAP. I only use the QNAP as back up for certain files that reside on the Synology. I won't buy another QNAP if that answers your question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max2 and hobowankenobi
Besides the obvious file sharing benefits of a nas. I am curious what other features nas users use. I know RAID is not a substitute for a backup, so to me having a large nas creates a backup dilemma. This coming year I will need to update my Mac mini server, so I am looking at a nas, but as of now I will probably go with another (newer) mini as a server. I like the fact with the mini there is not one point of failure. If the mini goes down just connect the disk to another Mac, I drive enclosed goes bad, pop the drive in another enclosure. The mini server is messy with cables and power bricks galore. But the ease of making "Mac formatted disk" backups, and having off line backups is a big plus. I do have a linux machine I uses for some file archiving that I store for my job, but it's power hungry and my wired network is gigabit so moving terabytes of data is slow, Could I be happy with a nas.
 
I debated this a lot too recently. I had a Hackintosh tower workstation I've been building and upgrading for years for video and photo editing and file server for all our other devices with 3 6TB HDDs. Last year instead of upgrading the desktop I got a 14" M1 Pro MacBook Pro and I found myself using the MBP more and more, even "docking" it at my desk and using it over the tower which basically sat running 24/7 as a super energy inefficient file server for a year.

I ultimately went with a used OWC Thunderbolt 2 enclosure I found super cheap locally from a Videographer that was upgrading for the RAID drives from the tower and a used i3 2018 MacMini from OWC and a new TB 2/3 dongle. My reasoning was overall flexibility for about the same as I'd spend on a decent NAS. I like that I can upgrade the RAM in the mini to be able to spin up a Windows VM if I ever need it. Easy to attach additional devices/drives as needed, still have a computer available at the desk for quick use if my MacBook isn't docked, and, when the MacBook is docked, I've got a 20Gb/s Thunderbolt Bridge network connection between the two Macs which is fast enough to read/write to the HDD array at full speed. Cabling is not bad, the Mini has power, ethernet and two TB cables. The enclosure has in internal power supply so no power bricks. Very happy with the setup so far.

Edit to add: Also running it as a TimeMachine server and Caching Server. Caching Server is probably one of the most underrated features of macOS. If you are in an a home with a desktop Mac and bunch of other Apple devices it's awesome to have software/app updates, shared iCloud Photos and data cached on the local network.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dimme
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back