Western Digital MyBook Live has proven to be excellent for me! Plugs straight into an ethernet port on your wifi router and boom works straight out of the box. Ideal for TimeMachine back ups as well!!
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.
NAS advice
- Thread starter ValkXB70
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One of my backup is done with Time Machine, not specifically for the versioning capability but for the "plug and forget" approach. However, in 1 or 2 occasions I have been glad to be able to retrieve a several months old version of a file.
That said, I think the position of flynz4 about versioning = fire insurance is more about the protection against corrupted data than the ability to retrieve all the different versions of a file.
Let's say that you have all your photos in an Aperture library with an automatic daily backup to your NAS. A new version of Aperture comes with an hidden bug that corrupt your library. If you don't act quickly, your corrupted library is backed up and replace the previous, safe, version and you're done. Hence the need for versioning.
Last edited:
Yes, I can see the perils in having a database without versioning. But, to go back to iTunes, if iTunes 12.0.0 corrupts your iTunes database, does it corrupt your iTunes media ? Don't think so. So is the worst that can happen that you reinstall iTunes 11.9.9 and rebuilt the database from the extant media ?
This happened to me when iTunes went from 10.4 to 10.7, but my media was OK and nothing lasting occurred. But again, I don't use iTunes for anything other than inputting and managing track tags.
I guess this argument would go away if Apple had a native iNAS that it supported as well as Time Capsule. According to all the posts I read on NAS forums, the corrupting Time Machine issue concerns AFP and is entirely within Apple's control to fix or not.
That's OK for iTunes. OTOH, for iPhoto and Aperture a corrupt library, even a referenced one, means that you can loose a lot of things: images corrections, organization, metadata, etc.
There is also a new module in Synology OS called Time Backup that could do the trick, but it's only for backing up data from the NAS.
Seems to me this is a fault with the design of the database to be so lacking in resilience to corruptions. No provision for the maintenance of a clean set of data ?
Cheeky of them to imply a link to an Apple concept. Unfortunately it doesn't solve the basic problem.
I generally agree with your post and a failed music database is probably one of the most easiest to recover. Still... when an error occurs... the priority is to get your data back... not to sew together all of the pieces.
Apple does have a native "iNAS" that is supportive as well as a TC. It is any Mac running OSX Server. I have considered it... but at least to date... have not decided to buy one. There are some clear advantages compared to any other NAS that I have owned... but I'm still not sure.
/Jim
Yes, true. I did look at a Mac Mini but there were still important NAS pieces missing (easy access to RAID drives, RAID size, dependability of the firmware, extendibility, etc). I didn't consider attached USB drives to be appropriate.
From what I see it's going to be Synology that will make the best attempt to get a 100% TC on their units, but as yet it is only an attempt. Apple will never do it as they are going in the opposite direction.
I think that Synology seems to have the best NAS products in the market right now. I took a good look at their line at CES in January and I was impressed.
I agree that Apple will not move into the NAS space. In the past, they have been somewhat in the SAN arena by OEMing some Fibre Channel stuff in the XSAN products. I am not sure if that stuff is still alive, but it is out of range of consumers anyway. I think you would quickly be in to 10's of thousands of dollars.
Interestingly... Thunderbolt opens up so much more for Apple. The performance is really quite spectacular, at relatively affordable pricing. While it is not quite SAN performance levels... it is a fraction of the cost. Still... it is not down in the NAS space (at least yet). For example, my 8TB Pegasus R4 was about $1600 if I remember right.
The interesting thing about TB is that you can take a closed and non-expandable system (they type of products that Apple excels at) and expand it almost without limits... all at native (or better) performance. So far I've been impressed... although I do wish the ecosystem was growing faster. Still, the stuff out there (such as my Pegasus) seem quite good.
/Jim
Maybe that's where the answer will be found. A TB RAID NAS linked to a Mac Mini running OSX Server. TC would need to work without the AFP issues; RAID is expandable and accessible. May the Mac Mini can be avoided. Perhaps Synology has a TB NAS in their pipeline. Total cost might be high though.
Last edited:
why would you put thunderbolt on a NAS? synology isn't going to have anything like that anytime soon - most of the processors on the synology devices are so dinky it wouldn't be worth it anyway.
thunderbolt isn't any faster than a mac pro serving a RAID.
If a NAS isn't running by itself and is plugged into a server, it's just DAS.
thunderbolt isn't any faster than a mac pro serving a RAID.
If a NAS isn't running by itself and is plugged into a server, it's just DAS.
I wouldn't agree.
A Synology NAS over Gb LAN gets you 80-90 MB/s. Now add a thunderbolt port and you get a maximum your disks and array offer.
I think that a NAS / DAS combo would be a perfect solution for home users. You have your primary computer connected via thunderbolt and others via ethernet / wifi.
you don't get 80-90, you get 60-70 reading, go check the synology forums, I have two ds1812s
what is adding a thunderbolt going to do for that? if you have a mac pro you can serve up a full gigabit off a RAID (128 MB/S), or double that if you 802.3ad LAG. DS1812 with LAG still only hits 60-70.
I literally don't understand why adding a thunderbolt port to a NAS is going to make it a better NAS. It just turns it into a DAS at that point, and it's a fairly crappy DAS if you think about it.
If that's how you want to set it up just share it with OSX over the network. otherwise the money you are spending on the NAS's cpu and other features can be transferred to direct performance gains on a real RAID.
what is adding a thunderbolt going to do for that? if you have a mac pro you can serve up a full gigabit off a RAID (128 MB/S), or double that if you 802.3ad LAG. DS1812 with LAG still only hits 60-70.
I literally don't understand why adding a thunderbolt port to a NAS is going to make it a better NAS. It just turns it into a DAS at that point, and it's a fairly crappy DAS if you think about it.
If that's how you want to set it up just share it with OSX over the network. otherwise the money you are spending on the NAS's cpu and other features can be transferred to direct performance gains on a real RAID.
Read the rest of the thread. The main anti-NAS argument is that LAN connected AFP to NAS corrupts the NAS Time Machine backup over time and it has to start again. A TB connected NAS doesn't suffer from this (see Promise website).
Ergo a TB NAS has some benefits, esp for Time Machine versioning (the main advantage IMO of Time Machine)
No, it doesn't. Just get a DAS then. You are taking a NAS and making it DAS. Being able to serve itself on the network doesn't change that. You might as well serve it over the network by OSX because it is a lot more powerful.
promise doesn't make a TB NAS so I'm not sure what there website would have about this
promise doesn't make a TB NAS so I'm not sure what there website would have about this
100% agree.
People seem to think a NAS is the solution to everything. Personally I found it restrictive with what I wanted to do, so ended up purchasing a Mac mini server with a Drobo 5D to attach to it. It does tons more then a NAS and is a lot more flexible.
From the first post, it seems you are looking for everything a DAS does and don't really need a NAS in the first instance.
NAS is no different than having a DAS hooked up to a networked computer, it just minimizes the 'computer' you need. So you are spot on.
Besides that, most of the software that come with NAS' are TERRIBLE and you need to manage the data with another computer anyway.
Besides that, most of the software that come with NAS' are TERRIBLE and you need to manage the data with another computer anyway.
So you say the weakest link in transfering data from/to a Synology NAS is the processor and not the network interface?
I find that hard to believe...
I find that hard to believe...
I don't think that's what anyone meant.
A NAS is very limited with regards to its software and general flexibility.
When I had my Synology Ds1511+ I always had to look into how to try to do certain things, or how to try to stream it with different devices etc.
With a dedicated ever that's no longer an issue. Add a DAS with RAID to a dedicated server and you have everything a NAS can do, and much, much more.
I have owned many NAS boxes over the years... and they have continually been one of my least used pieces of technology. They are ideal for sharing data across several computers.
My biggest problems with them are they generally are inept in supporting cloud based backup. Because of this... I have been reluctant to keep any primary data on the machines. Since I do not not keep primary data on the NAS... then I just do not need a lot of NAS capacity.
BTW: Regarding backup of a NAS. Many have some sort of cloud backup capability... but when I do the math... it is prohibitively expensive. Most that I have seen plug into Amazon S3, and the charges are just too high. Your suggestion of a DAS attached to a Mac Mini (or equivalent)... allows any Mac supported cloud backup program to run on the Mac and back up the data natively. For those of us with a Crashplan+ family license ($6/mo) it is zero incremental cost to cloud backup the "server"... with its terabytes of data.
Finally... and to try not to sound too judgmental... it seems that many view getting a NAS as some type of "rite of passage" into manhood or something. The answer is "NAS"... now what was the question again?
/Jim
I don't, but then again I did the math. Synology's tests are only for 5GB files transfered over NFS on a LAG interface. If you have to do smaller files, the processor can't keep up and feed enough data to the network interface. Heck, a 7200 RPM drive barely has the bandwidth to saturate a 1Gb interface - so why on earth would you think the interface was the limit?
Interesting to see folks jump into a focussed discussion we were having about why TM won't work on a NAS and flail about on NASs in general.
So we both end up with a RAID storage box attached to a MacMini as a likely answer to all these questions, except for the total cost. And all to be able to run TM on a better box than TC.
As you know I don't use TM and don't use versioning, but I have used NASs for years (not Synology - and mine do achieve >100MBps with a single Gbit NIC). My setups work fine with the OS on SSDs and Data on NASs. With the MBA some of the data is on iCloud, but only minor stuff.
I wonder what the OP has made of all these forum diversions ? Probably given up and already bought something.
Cheers.
ok, and seeing as you have trouble understanding our point... the OP doesn't need NAS. He can be fine, and will have more luck, with a DAS. You can feel free to waste your money (or suggest that he do the same with his) as much as you want.
I'd love to see the settings you have that allows you to pull 100MB/s off of your NAS... is it QNAP? Are you using AFP? What size are the files being transferred?
I'd love to see the settings you have that allows you to pull 100MB/s off of your NAS... is it QNAP? Are you using AFP? What size are the files being transferred?
They are ReadyNAS units (as you can read), ProPioneers with CoreDuo CPUs. Test files are 1GB in size. Runs over AFP to/from a TBA-Ethernet adaptor into an MBA and over SMB to/from a Win7 box. Single Gbit NIC connected over a CAT6 LAN through Gbit switches. Look at the ReadyNAS specs on the ReadyNAS site. I have 2, 5 and 6 drives in 3 units.
If you care to read the whole thread posts you will see that I made no recommendations at all to the OP.
that's pretty good, none of the non-rack-mountable synology's can read that quickly. I'll definitely be keeping readyNAS in mind for my next purchase. How's the software? I find the synology software lacking. we didn't originally look at readyNAS because they don't offer an 8 bay product. maybe we wont need that for our next purchase.
and congrats on not making a suggestion to the OP? I did - he should stick with DAS. I think that's on topic.
and congrats on not making a suggestion to the OP? I did - he should stick with DAS. I think that's on topic.