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

Ideal way to set up MacPro as file server?

D

dsa420

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 23, 2007
440
14
So I have a sprare 2008 8 core Mac Pro that I will be using as a home file server for a while until I move into my new office. It has about 6TB's of hdd space storing mainly back up data from my other machines (files, picutes, video, music, etc).

In an effort to attain maximum transfer speed across my Airport Extreme base station, what is the best configuration? I was thinking I would employ an FTP client (filezilla) on all of my machines to allow for FTP transfer amongst all of them (all macs).

Any other thoughts on how to allow for faster data transfer? What other functionality should I be considering?
 
dsa420 said:
So I have a sprare 2008 8 core Mac Pro that I will be using as a home file server for a while until I move into my new office. It has about 6TB's of hdd space storing mainly back up data from my other machines (files, picutes, video, music, etc).

In an effort to attain maximum transfer speed across my Airport Extreme base station, what is the best configuration? I was thinking I would employ an FTP client (filezilla) on all of my machines to allow for FTP transfer amongst all of them (all macs).

Any other thoughts on how to allow for faster data transfer? What other functionality should I be considering?
Click to expand...

Since they are all Macs, why not just AFP sharing?

System Preferences > Sharing > File Sharing

That would be very simple, and no need to mess with FTP stuff.
 
UltraNEO* said:
congrats, i have one too!! :)
Click to expand...

how can you have a spare ~$4k machine lying around??

OP: i would recommend gigabit cat6 ethernet cabling to transfer data, you get much higher speeds then cat5e.

use AFP to allow clients to connect. share the hard disks from the MP and turn on file sharing, wala! its that easy.
 
Is there an alternative to using finder to view the screen in "share screen" mode? I dont have an extra display presently so this has been my only means to control computer.
 
Also, are there any settings I should play with to enable fastest possible transfer speeds within my home network?
 
dsa420 said:
Is there an alternative to using finder to view the screen in "share screen" mode? I dont have an extra display presently so this has been my only means to control computer.
Click to expand...

Apple Remote Desktop.
Great program if you want to manage a number of coumputers, but defnititely not worth the price for just one computer, particularly if it's a file server.
 
dsa420 said:
Is there an alternative to using finder to view the screen in "share screen" mode? I dont have an extra display presently so this has been my only means to control computer.
Click to expand...
apple remote desktop has been suggested, its great! tad expensive but well worth it. you could use some free VNC programs as well, but they dont have the features such as "drag n drop", copy & paste etcetc.

dsa420 said:
Also, are there any settings I should play with to enable fastest possible transfer speeds within my home network?
Click to expand...

like i said, make sure all clients are connected via gigabit and that will ensure fastest physical connections. FTP will probably yield a tad more speed then AFP, but not a noticable amount (FTP is more ugly too).
 
dsa420 said:
Is there an alternative to using finder to view the screen in "share screen" mode? I dont have an extra display presently so this has been my only means to control computer.
Click to expand...

vnc://computer-name.local
vnc://192.168.0.1

You can type those into Safari, or Finder's "Connect to Server" (from the Go menu), or even if you type out the url you want to connect to, select it, and then drag the text snippet to your desktop, it becomes a link.
 
Matthew Yohe said:
vnc://computer-name.local
vnc://192.168.0.1

You can type those into Safari, or Finder's "Connect to Server" (from the Go menu), or even if you type out the url you want to connect to, select it, and then drag the text snippet to your desktop, it becomes a link.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, on my computer, when i type in those into safari/connect to server it will open up the connection in the screen app.
 
DoFoT9 said:
OP: i would recommend gigabit cat6 ethernet cabling to transfer data, you get much higher speeds then cat5e. easy.
Click to expand...

wha? Gigabit is gigabit - call me uninformed, but how are you going to get higher speeds out of Cat6 without a 10 gigabit switch and cards on both ends. And to my knowledge you need Cat7 for that.

Please, details. I've used gigabit over cat5 and streamed 1080p video no problem, btw.

JP
 
JPamplin said:
wha? Gigabit is gigabit - call me uninformed, but how are you going to get higher speeds out of Cat6 without a 10 gigabit switch and cards on both ends. And to my knowledge you need Cat7 for that.
Click to expand...

ok sorry, but your uninformed.

if you have a gigabit switch/router (thats about as fast as cheap consumer models will get these days) cat5 can probably hit around 40MB/s total (320mb/s), cat5e will hit say 80MB/s (640mb/s) and cat6 will hit 120MB/s (960mb/s).

these are actual throughput rates. the diffence is not only because of overhead data, but from other things such as inteference (cat6 has better cabling) and other things.

Please, details. I've used gigabit over cat5 and streamed 1080p video no problem, btw.

JP
Click to expand...
well streaming 1080p video isnt really an indicator as it hits a max of 40mb/s (or a MAX of 5MB/s) where as gigabit can theoretically handle 125MB/s.

Dr.Pants said:
Streaming compressed 1080p video isn't much of a problem. Uncompressed requires port teaming on gigabit ethernet.

Check it, this may or may not be true. Higher signel-to-noise ratio is a good thing, IMO.

Not to mention that the CAT6 can go to, like, 700 ft. wheras CAT5e can only go, like, 300? I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

no sure on the distances of cat6, i know cat5 can do around 100m. i was under the impression that cat6 couldnt go THAT much further then cat5.
 
Dr.Pants said:
URL="http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081121060700AAD96Ui"]Check it, this may or may not be true.[/URL] Higher signel-to-noise ratio is a good thing, IMO.

Not to mention that the CAT6 can go to, like, 700 ft. wheras CAT5e can only go, like, 300? I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Higher signal to noise is desirable.

CAT6:
  • Unshielded: 100 m (330 ft) for 10/100/1000baseT & 37 m (120 ft) for 10GbaseT (250MHz)
  • Shielded (CAT6a): 100 m (330ft) for 10GbaseT (500MHz)

CAT7:
  • Shielded: 100 m (330ft) for 10GbaseT (600MHz)
  • (CAT7a Draft): 100 m (330ft) for 1000GbaseT (1000MHz)
 
Dr.Pants said:
I'll trust an engineer rather than the internet. ;) Removed offensive line from previous post.
Click to expand...
The values I posted are spec, not what may actually have been obtained. It has carried for longer distances, it's just not a certainty, which is what the specification is meant to provide. :)
 
DoFoT9 said:
how can you have a spare ~$4k machine lying around??
Click to expand...

Umm.. There's a fair few Mac's here.
A couple of MacPro's, a few MacBooks, a few of PowerMac's plus a couple of old Macintoshes... most of them are just lying around, collecting dust and becoming home for small insects. :D
 
Dr.Pants said:
I'll trust an engineer rather than the internet. ;) Removed offensive line from previous post.
Click to expand...

where as i was talking more from a practical point of view :)

i hope the offensive post wasnt aimed at me!

UltraNEO* said:
Umm.. There's a fair few Mac's here.
A couple of MacPro's, a few MacBooks, a few of PowerMac's plus a couple of old Macintoshes... most of them are just lying around, collecting dust and becoming home for small insects. :D
Click to expand...

WHUT!! noway!! hahaha maaannn im jealous

twoodcc said:
why not sell a few?
Click to expand...
i concur
 
DoFoT9 said:
i hope the offensive post wasnt aimed at me!
Click to expand...

Nonono! Read on.

nanofrog said:
The values I posted are spec, not what may actually have been obtained. It has carried for longer distances, it's just not a certainty, which is what the specification is meant to provide. :)
Click to expand...

I removed what I posted about the potential length of CAT6 - I said that it could go up to 700 FT, which is beyond specification. Sure, there are some exclusions to any specification, but I'd just have to eat my words depending on actual published material for how CAT6 was supposed to be used.

Maybe I should have written, "my previous post"? ;)
 
Dr.Pants said:
Nonono! Read on.



I removed what I posted about the potential length of CAT6 - I said that it could go up to 700 FT, which is beyond specification. Sure, there are some exclusions to any specification, but I'd just have to eat my words depending on actual published material for how CAT6 was supposed to be used.

Maybe I should have written, "my previous post"? ;)
Click to expand...
ahhh im with you now! mybad - i had just woken up and saw "offensive post" and presumed it was something i had written that was ridiculously wrong and got scrutinized for it. ;)

thanks for clarifying

Tesselator said:
It was! It's all your fault too! We were all talking about you behind you back while you were reading in that other thread. Muahahahhaaaa....
Click to expand...
it generally is my fault. korea..nam.. WWIII...the reason why Q4 sucked... its all my fault :p
 
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