Using New Mac Mini To Replace NAS

[hajime]

Those who have owned a NAS and switched to Mac as a smb file server and NAS, is the Mac approch better? I considered to buy a Synology NAS but concern about them locking features of their DSM when third party drives are used. Also thought of QNAP but their NAS are infamous for ransomwear.

Given that I consider to backup and share files from iOS, MacOS, Windows,
is the smb taking care of getting files from different OS to work together without me worrying about compatibility issues among the OS?

Is it better to use a Mac dedicated for such purpose (i.e. no installation of other software) than to use it both as a computer and as a NAS?

 

[phrehdd]

Those who have owned a NAS and switched to Mac as a smb file server and NAS, is the Mac approch better? I considered to buy a Synology NAS but concern about them locking features of their DSM when third party drives are used. Also thought of QNAP but their NAS are infamous for ransomwear.

Given that I consider to backup and share files from iOS, MacOS, Windows,
is the smb taking care of getting files from different OS to work together without me worrying about compatibility issues among the OS?

Is it better to use a Mac dedicated for such purpose (i.e. no installation of other software) than to use it both as a computer and as a NAS?

Consider - QNAP had an issue but it certainly is not as much a concern as yesterda as they put in update to their OS and also give written guidance to avoid such woes.

Most traditional NAS might format the discs in ext3 or ext4. Neither are Windows, IOS, or Mac formats yet if the file resides properly it can be downloaded by those devices connected and uploaded. How were you going to use the NAS and what volume and RAID type are you thinking about?

In my case, I have mostly media files of all sorts, some PDF, Word docs (Win and Mac) and all accessible from Mac, Nvidia Shield TV streamer, previously Android phone, multimedia system (AVR, Blue Ray player, smart TV etc.).

Though I use QNAP, there is no reason to worry about Synology locking out features unless those features likely are advantages with their approved drives. You can certainly make an easy going NAS.

Alternatively, hook up a DAS to your main Mac and create "shares" from it. Lots of different options.

 

[hajime]

How were you going to use the NAS and what volume and RAID type are you thinking about?

Mainly for back up and sharing of videos, photos, documents files from PC, Mac itself, iOS devices and linux box. No plan of RAID. Currently maybe 4TB. Don’t expect over 8TB in the next 3 years.

Though I use QNAP, there is no reason to worry about Synology locking out features unless those features likely are advantages with their approved drives. You can certainly make an easy going NAS.

Alternatively, hook up a DAS to your main Mac and create "shares" from it. Lots of different options.

What is the recommended disk format if I use a DAS?

Some people mentioned that for stability and security reasons, they don’t install other program and dedicate a Mac as a NAS, smb file server. Is this recommended?

I don’t have an old machine (ports of MacBook Pro 2010 are too old and it has no TB) that can get the job done nor I want to buy used. So either a new base model Mini M2 which has a slower SSD and 8GB + DAS and a MacBook Pro for work or buy a mid-range Mac for everything.

 

[mcnallym]

Mainly for back up and sharing of videos, photos, documents files from PC, Mac itself, iOS devices and linux box. No plan of RAID. Currently maybe 4TB. Don’t expect over 8TB in the next 3 years.



What is the recommended disk format if I use a DAS?

Some people mentioned that for stability and security reasons, they don’t install other program and dedicate a Mac as a NAS, smb file server. Is this recommended?

I don’t have an old machine (ports of MacBook Pro 2010 are too old and it has no TB) that can get the job done nor I want to buy used. So either a new base model Mini M2 which has a slower SSD and 8GB + DAS and a MacBook Pro for work or buy a mid-range Mac for everything.

If you use a DAS attached to a Mac then then the disk format for a Mac would be APFS. It would then be shared out over the network and presented as an SMB share.

if you using as a file server then the ”slower 1550Mbps” SSD is not an issue as machine will fire up and then you are accessinng the DAS across the network.

”Shared Storage” would be on the DAS so the DAS is where would be concerned about.

I used to run a Mac mini 2009 with a drobo pro attached as an Elgato/iTunes Server. Upgrading the internal storage to and SSD from the original HDD made NO difference whatsoever to how fast could access the shared storage on the drobo from another Mac. That was in the days of SATA SSD so a hell of a lot slower then the NAND flash in an M2 mini.

if setting up shared storage on a machine that was going to be accessed whilst I was working on it then I would not be happy. If going the Mac as a NAS route then keep dedicated so not pulling resources whilst you working on a Mac.

 

[hajime]

If you use a DAS attached to a Mac then then the disk format for a Mac would be APFS. It would then be shared out over the network and presented as an SMB share.

if you using as a file server then the ”slower 1550Mbps” SSD is not an issue as machine will fire up and then you are accessinng the DAS across the network.

”Shared Storage” would be on the DAS so the DAS is where would be concerned about.

I used to run a Mac mini 2009 with a drobo pro attached as an Elgato/iTunes Server. Upgrading the internal storage to and SSD from the original HDD made NO difference whatsoever to how fast could access the shared storage on the drobo from another Mac. That was in the days of SATA SSD so a hell of a lot slower then the NAND flash in an M2 mini.

if setting up shared storage on a machine that was going to be accessed whilst I was working on it then I would not be happy. If going the Mac as a NAS route then keep dedicated so not pulling resources whilst you working on a Mac.

Thanks. So for smb and backup, it just uses the motherboard of the mini as an interface between the PC and DAS and the mini’s internal SSD speed does not matter? For such use case, is 8GB sufficient?

How about the case that I am the only user and file sharing/backup is not often? Perhaps backup of a few files from the PC at the end of each day and backup the PC and Mac once a week while I am not using the mini. Not sure about the concern raised by others about 3rd party programs could pose a security risk. In such case it is still better to get a cheapest mini dedicated ti do the job?

 

[Boyd01]

I don’t have an old machine (ports of MacBook Pro 2010 are too old and it has no TB) that can get the job done nor I want to buy used. So either a new base model Mini M2 which has a slower SSD and 8GB + DAS and a MacBook Pro for work or buy a mid-range Mac for everything.

I don't remember if you mentioned what kind of LAN you have. If it's gigabit ethernet, that is going to be the bottleneck for most things, no matter how fast the server is you will only get about 100MB/sec. If it's really just a file server, seems to me that a new base M2 Mini would be overkill (both in terms of cost and performance) for this. Maybe a base M1 Apple refurb would be a better deal , but nothing attractive in the US store right now (just a couple expensive Intel Mini's).

Really, it's the older Mini's that I find attractive for servers and even the much-maligned base 2014 1.4gz/4gb version works just fine for that.

 

[marstan]

Thanks. So for smb and backup, it just uses the motherboard of the mini as an interface between the PC and DAS and the mini’s internal SSD speed does not matter? For such use case, is 8GB sufficient?

How about the case that I am the only user and file sharing/backup is not often? Perhaps backup of a few files from the PC at the end of each day and backup the PC and Mac once a week while I am not using the mini. Not sure about the concern raised by others about 3rd party programs could pose a security risk. In such case it is still better to get a cheapest mini dedicated ti do the job?

You seem to have the simplest requirements for file management/sharing. All you need is a single mac mini or mini pro, 3 x 8TB drives (main direct attached + 1 onsite backup + 1 offsite backup) and you are done. Mini has extremely low power usage and works great with wake-on-lan function so no problem running 24/7. One machine as your daily driver and file server should work fine for your stated usage.

 

[phrehdd]

Mainly for back up and sharing of videos, photos, documents files from PC, Mac itself, iOS devices and linux box. No plan of RAID. Currently maybe 4TB. Don’t expect over 8TB in the next 3 years.



What is the recommended disk format if I use a DAS?

Some people mentioned that for stability and security reasons, they don’t install other program and dedicate a Mac as a NAS, smb file server. Is this recommended?

I don’t have an old machine (ports of MacBook Pro 2010 are too old and it has no TB) that can get the job done nor I want to buy used. So either a new base model Mini M2 which has a slower SSD and 8GB + DAS and a MacBook Pro for work or buy a mid-range Mac for everything.

Let me give you one scenario to consider -

2 bay drive NAS set up as a mirror. (RAID 1)

This type of NAS can be a simple unit that hangs on your network and may have USB port for backups and synching data as well as the expected ethernet port. It is a simple solution and some units allow for useful features such as expandable memory, USB 3.2 ports for backups and synching etc. and some makers offer a multi-bay enclosure that connects via USB and is recognized as part of the NAS.

From what you have said, you may only have about 3-4 items addressing the storage at the same time potentially. This should work fine. Only surprise would be that the prices vary from moderate to very high depending on features.

 

[marstan]

Let me give you one scenario to consider -

2 bay drive NAS set up as a mirror. (RAID 1)

This type of NAS can be a simple unit that hangs on your network and may have USB port for backups and synching data as well as the expected ethernet port. It is a simple solution and some units allow for useful features such as expandable memory, USB 3.2 ports for backups and synching etc. and some makers offer a multi-bay enclosure that connects via USB and is recognized as part of the NAS.

From what you have said, you may only have about 3-4 items addressing the storage at the same time potentially. This should work fine. Only surprise would be that the prices vary from moderate to very high depending on features.

The problem I have with NAS' is speed which often is somewhere between usb 2.0 and firewire 800 on a 1Gbs network due to NAS overhead. On the same network direct attached drives are usually in the 90+ MBs range and more if you are working on the local machine that the drives are attached to.

 

[phrehdd]

The problem I have with NAS' is speed which often is somewhere between usb 2.0 and firewire 800 on a 1Gbs network due to NAS overhead. On the same network direct attached drives are usually in the 90+ MBs range and more if you are working on the local machine that the drives are attached to.

Marstan, please know that I don't doubt your words at all. NAS units may range from weak ARM processors up to powerful quad-core processors. This will impact handling overhead and throughput.

DAS, given that if one use DAS and was to share those drives, one'll find there is a significant slowdown in serving up files through the network. It does *not* fair better than a good NAS. It does however serve the computer it is attached to exceedingly well in nearly all cases.

If I were shopping for 2 bay NAS this would be my requirements
Able to have at least 8 gigs of RAM
USB 3.1 or faster ports for copy/synch etc.
2.5 gig ethernet or 2 x 1 gig ethernet for aggregation
reasonably powerful processor

Beyond the above, the rest is a bonus.

I believe both QNAP and Synology would have something to match the above and perhaps other makers.

Last if I expect to need 8 terabytes of storage, I would opt for 10 terabyte drives so that OS overhead is accounted for and like any drives, you don't want a situation where you fill them entirely so the small bit left over is that part of the drive you intentionally do not fill with data.

 

[marstan]

Marstan, please know that I don't doubt your words at all. NAS units may range from weak ARM processors up to powerful quad-core processors. This will impact handling overhead and throughput.

DAS, given that if one use DAS and was to share those drives, one'll find there is a significant slowdown in serving up files through the network. It does *not* fair better than a good NAS. It does however serve the computer it is attached to exceedingly well in nearly all cases.

If I were shopping for 2 bay NAS this would be my requirements
Able to have at least 8 gigs of RAM
USB 3.1 or faster ports for copy/synch etc.
2.5 gig ethernet or 2 x 1 gig ethernet for aggregation
reasonably powerful processor

Beyond the above, the rest is a bonus.

I believe both QNAP and Synology would have something to match the above and perhaps other makers.

Last if I expect to need 8 terabytes of storage, I would opt for 10 terabyte drives so that OS overhead is accounted for and like any drives, you don't want a situation where you fill them entirely so the small bit left over is that part of the drive you intentionally do not fill with data.

Likewise, I don't doubt that these higher spec'd NAS' are faster. I don't have much experience with NAS' except this old Windows pc (core 2 duo, 4 GB ram) I have converted to a NAS (running Unraid Server). When I compared its performance in simple file reads/writes running as a NAS to the same hardware sharing files running Windows 10, Windows was noticeably faster.

With regards to performance of DAS sharing I have not noticed any issues sharing files from my old 5,1 Mac Pro or the new M2 mini Pro over a 1gbs network to the downstairs mini HTPC running Windows 7. Maybe it is slower than one of those modern NAS' but it has been good enough for my use and far cheaper (except for the energy guzzling Mac Pro which I haven't used in a long time).

So if you want performance, you'll have to pay for it; but do you need that performance?

Agree on the 10TB drives if those are cheap enough now.

 

[phrehdd]

Likewise, I don't doubt that these higher spec'd NAS' are faster. I don't have much experience with NAS' except this old Windows pc (core 2 duo, 4 GB ram) I have converted to a NAS (running Unraid Server). When I compared its performance in simple file reads/writes running as a NAS to the same hardware sharing files running Windows 10, Windows was noticeably faster.

With regards to performance of DAS sharing I have not noticed any issues sharing files from my old 5,1 Mac Pro or the new M2 mini Pro over a 1gbs network to the downstairs mini HTPC running Windows 7. Maybe it is slower than one of those modern NAS' but it has been good enough for my use and far cheaper (except for the energy guzzling Mac Pro which I haven't used in a long time).

So if you want performance, you'll have to pay for it; but do you need that performance?

Agree on the 10TB drives if those are cheap enough now.

I don't think we are that far apart in thought. I merely mention the 2 drive option because it can be populated with one drive, and for a level of safety a mirror drive. If one drive fails, reconstituting it or gen'ing a new drive isn't that long compared to other RAID. It has some advantages over Mac in a mixed environment.

Today, lots of devices can exploit NAS in a network including some smart TV, AVR, Disc players, streamers etc. I would like to see how Hajime scores ippon on a solution.

 

[tollickd]

Yes I am looking for a NAS and very tempted to buy a old 2014 Mac mini! i have seen an old 5.1 Mac pro for a bloody good price with 2 xeon quad core and 16 GB ram i might for about 250 EUR. But the issue is price for running it. Thats why i think a mac mini might be a better option.

 

[marstan]

Yes I am looking for a NAS and very tempted to buy a old 2014 Mac mini! i have seen an old 5.1 Mac pro for a bloody good price with 2 xeon quad core and 16 GB ram i might for about 250 EUR. But the issue is price for running it. Thats why i think a mac mini might be a better option.

The old 5,1 consumes too much power to run 24/7. I have one - single CPU/32GB ram - and it consumes almost 200 watts at idle with just 2 spinning HDDs. With ECC ram, two ethernet ports, robust fans and quiet operation it would otherwise be great as a NAS. So the feasibility of a home NAS turns largely on power consumption. And, for that, a mini can't be beat.

 

[tollickd]

The old 5,1 consumes too much power to run 24/7. I have one - single CPU/32GB ram - and it consumes almost 200 watts at idle with just 2 spinning HDDs. With ECC ram, two ethernet ports, robust fans and quiet operation it would otherwise be great as a NAS. So the feasibility of a home NAS turns largely on power consumption. And, for that, a mini can't be beat.

Oh hell no then mini it is then

 

[hajime]

If I don’t use docker nor Plex, what are the cons of using a Mac as a NAS/smb server replacement?

 

[phrehdd]

If I don’t use docker nor Plex, what are the cons of using a Mac as a NAS/smb server replacem

It would depend on how you would set up a Mini as a NAS before one can pick at it.

 

[hajime]

It would depend on how you would set up a Mini as a NAS before one can pick at it.

What is the recommended way to set up a Mini as a NAS?

 

[phrehdd]

What is the recommended way to set up a Mini as a NAS?

This is a bit of a challenge due to using external drives where ports may drop off (for some it happens during locked screens, sleep, etc.).

The simplest way is to have a single large drive attached externally that you from time to time back up. You offer it up as a share and use permissions to set up the other devices to access. It might be a good place to start. If you are wanting to go with RAID later, you can add the same size/make drives to create a RAID.

RAID - while you can use multiple ports on a Mac to create at least RAID 0 or 1, you assume more risk by using more than one port. This might leave two options - add a hub and hang drives off of it and use software RAID or go for a multi-bay enclosure that also connects to a single port on the mini. I think the latter is a better way to go and USB 3.2 gen 2 or USB4/TB is more than fast enough to serve up and take multiple device requests. In theory, hardware RAID should have an advantage over software RAID. Software RAID has overhead but if there is an issue, it is much easier to work with software RAID than hardware RAID which is often just some switches or a dial on the RAID enclosure. For many, hardware RAID enclosures work great until they don't and saving data is less likely to happen upon failures.

I am sure others have had their own experiences that may differ enough to be contrary to mine. I'll simply say I hope this gives you some ideas of what you may want to do.

There are several makers of external enclosures. The most obvious maker or distributor under their own label is OWC / MacSales. They also make available Software RAID. You may want to research multiple companies and look for hands-on write-ups.

I look forward to seeing what you get and after some time maybe you can share your experience here.

 

[marstan]

Good advice from phrehdd. Just start with the simplest setup and keep modifying it until it does what you want.

 

[splifingate]

The old 5,1 consumes too much power to run 24/7

heh . . . mine's on 24/7 (though it usually sleeps most of the time)

I was once thinking of re-purposing my Mac Pro 1,1 as an NVR for some PoE cams, and the electric-consumption math (in that instance) didn't add-up.

 

[splifingate]

Dare I say that the power consumption of a M1 Mac Mini (+ HD's) might compete with that of my Synology 920+ (4x14TB spinners).

I don't monitor consumption, but that litte Syno Critter just sits in the other room--maybe making a few odd 'tnk' noises once-in-a-while--and doesn't tax the LiON battery backup if the power-line drops (which it rarely does).

Elec costs are quite minimal where I live, so I really don't spend any time monitoring such things. If costs were higher, I'd probably ditch the 5,1 before the Syno

 

[mattspace]

Just bumping this thread as I'm very umming and ahhing about the options between a Synology, and a Mac Mini setup, with something like a Thunderbay 8 & Softraid. The pricing options are similar enough, that it's an ease of use / utility question, not cost or value for money.

The Synology (DS 1522+) probably has:

• better data integrity - BTRFS Vs. HFS+ / APFS - no bitrot, read-only snapshots.
• Upgradable RAM
• Easy(ish?) SSD caching

On the other hand, the Synology:

• can't see inside package files, so will snapshot the whole thing (eg a 20+gb photo library), Vs. Time Machine doing incremental snapshots.
• Can't host files that require HFS+/APFS like Aperture / Photos libraries, so then sparse disk images in those formats are required which need to be mounted on machines when using them, and have to be kept in a separate non-snapshot share volume.
• Separate Time Machine snapshotting required for the contents of the disk images (for photo libraries etc).
• Synology Snapshot browsing requires manual recovery of a snapshot via a web UI before checking its contents to see if the overwrite-disaster recovery is at that location
• Is tech I've never used.

The Mac Mini:

• Maybe uses less power - 7w (mini alone) idle, and probably almost zero during sleep.
• Can sleep automatically when I'm not using it overnight.
• Can be networked to my Mac Pro over Thunderbolt, while using Ethernet for the rest of the network?
• AU$150 Vs. AU$250 (Synology) for 10g networking upgrade.
• Is tech I already know, and have tools to work with (ARD, CCC, Chronosync, Keyboard Maestro, Hazel, Automator, Folder Actions etc).

Any other Pros or Cons?

 

[phrehdd]

Just bumping this thread as I'm very umming and ahhing about the options between a Synology, and a Mac Mini setup, with something like a Thunderbay 8 & Softraid. The pricing options are similar enough, that it's an ease of use / utility question, not cost or value for money.

The Synology (DS 1522+) probably has:

• better data integrity - BTRFS Vs. HFS+ / APFS - no bitrot, read-only snapshots.
• Upgradable RAM
• Easy(ish?) SSD caching

On the other hand, the Synology:

• can't see inside package files, so will snapshot the whole thing (eg a 20+gb photo library), Vs. Time Machine doing incremental snapshots.
• Can't host files that require HFS+/APFS like Aperture / Photos libraries, so then sparse disk images in those formats are required which need to be mounted on machines when using them, and have to be kept in a separate non-snapshot share volume.
• Separate Time Machine snapshotting required for the contents of the disk images (for photo libraries etc).
• Synology Snapshot browsing requires manual recovery of a snapshot via a web UI before checking its contents to see if the overwrite-disaster recovery is at that location
• Is tech I've never used.

The Mac Mini:

• Maybe uses less power - 7w (mini alone) idle, and probably almost zero during sleep.
• Can sleep automatically when I'm not using it overnight.
• Can be networked to my Mac Pro over Thunderbolt, while using Ethernet for the rest of the network?
• AU$150 Vs. AU$250 (Synology) for 10g networking upgrade.
• Is tech I already know, and have tools to work with (ARD, CCC, Chronosync, Keyboard Maestro, Hazel, Automator, Folder Actions etc).

Any other Pros or Cons?

Why one or the other? Get both a NAS and use external drives (likely SSD) attached to your Mac or a quality TB hub attached to your Mac.

The directly attached storage (DAS) is more interesting as you can use SSD, enclosures that mirror drives for data protect and more. There are RAID units that directly attached via USB and some TB. I know know that some people have found that after sleep and such, some drives drop off.

Synology and QNAP (among others) seem like good options. As you mentioned an interest in 10 gig ethernet option, know that Asustor makes an all NVMe NAS with 12 slots (each capable of 4TB MVMe drives) with a 10 gig port.

 

[mattspace]

Why one or the other? Get both a NAS and use external drives (likely SSD) attached to your Mac or a quality TB hub attached to your Mac.

Primarily because I want to externalise all my storage from my workstation, so multiple machines (iPads, laptops etc) can work with the same files. That's why I'm wondering about Thunderbolt networking - if it gives me a speed equivalent to directly attached, but keeps the storage networked.

The directly attached storage (DAS) is more interesting as you can use SSD, enclosures that mirror drives for data protect and more. There are RAID units that directly attached via USB and some TB. I know know that some people have found that after sleep and such, some drives drop off.

I imagine that's a combination of drives and enclosures that don't work out quite right.

Synology and QNAP (among others) seem like good options. As you mentioned an interest in 10 gig ethernet option, know that Asustor makes an all NVMe NAS with 12 slots (each capable of 4TB MVMe drives) with a 10 gig port.

Yeah, I don't need an all SSD solution - ssd caching, certainly, but I'm fine with spinning storage. The real issue is that the NAS doesn't store files in a format that is perfectly compatible with Mac clients - hence the palava with HFS disk images etc.