Hi, for file sharing and backup among Windows, iOS, Linux and Mac systems, what is the difference between using a SMB configured Mac with external storages vs a NAS? What are the pros and cons for each approach? I am the only one using the systems and I don’t intend to access the files from outside home via the internet.
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.
What is the difference between using NAS vs Mac configured SMB server for backup and file sharing across multi-platform/OS
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
IMHO the Mac is more flexible and easier to backup. Also better at running docker and VMs apps. It can end up costing more but that depends if your are recycling old systems or not. I have a 2012 mini happy running chairs to Macs, Windows, Linux and iOS devices. I have to admit a NAS is a cleaner setup, as far as wires etc. But why toss out perfectly good stuff if you can repurpose it.
The main difference is the NAS has built-in SATA slots for multiple hard drives. This means it can run some sort of RAID setup for both speed and redundancy. It can also lose a disk without any data loss, and achieve much greater read and write speeds than one (external) drive can provide.
Using a mac, you would also need an external raid array. Something like the TerraMaster D5-300C. Or use a Mac Pro with internal SATA slots. Or you could use multiple external drives using macOS software raid.
If you don't need RAID storage, I don't see a lot of use cases where the mac that won't suffice.
Using a mac, you would also need an external raid array. Something like the TerraMaster D5-300C. Or use a Mac Pro with internal SATA slots. Or you could use multiple external drives using macOS software raid.
If you don't need RAID storage, I don't see a lot of use cases where the mac that won't suffice.
Th
You can use TailScale if you'd like access to your files from the outside at a later point. You don't need to punch holes through your firewall. It's zero-config and secure.
Then there's really no point in buying a NAS. I am using a Mac Mini for file sharing and as a TimeMachine target. It works very well. I've added a 10 GbE interface, and get full speed all day long.
You can use TailScale if you'd like access to your files from the outside at a later point. You don't need to punch holes through your firewall. It's zero-config and secure.
Most NAS use newer old Raid as backup and they go with the newer raid 10+! This way a user can use any size of disks in slot of the NAS! That was bane of old rational NAS boxes and some manufacture buy their brand of disk, all from same vendor they arrive (and give these manufacturer a kick back)! I know the smart NAS maker Synology Forrest Linux with the new 10*+ raid they call their own name that use that 10+! So keep your old ways out of smart NAS boxes if your so sacred!
I'm also considering whether to get a dedicated NAS or whether to just use a regular computer (such as a Mac Mini) for a 24/7 file server and backup target. Something not mentioned in this thread is power consumption. I'm assuming NAS devices have much lower power consumption than devices like Mac Mini, particularly if external storage devices need to be added to the Mac Mini. Is this fair?
@hajime what did you end up going with?
@hajime what did you end up going with?
I got a NAS but it was defective so returned it. Replaced Mac Mini several times as this model has wifi/bluetooth issues and Silicon Mac cannot recognize multi-display correctly. So just an external drive for backup for the time being until something better is available.
Last edited:
From my research an M1 Mac mini and a NAS with the same amount of drives consume about the same amount of power.