What's the Best NAS for Time Machine?

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by rayward, Dec 30, 2013.

  1. rayward, Dec 30, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2013

    rayward macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    I have a 2TB WD MyBook which is directly connected to my iMac for iTunes storage (it's up to about 1.75TB currently). I used to backup my whole system on a 4TB WD Sharespace NAS, but that functionality was broken by Lion (fixed) and then again by Mountain Lion (not fixed). I'm now on Mavericks but, no matter, my 4TB NAS has been bricked since WD stopped bothering to update their ShareSpace firmware.

    My plan is to move my iTunes library onto the 4TB Sharespace (directly connected to my iMac) and add a new NAS for Time machine backups. I am looking for recommendations for the new NAS; here's my wishlist:

    • Consistly supporting Time Machine through OS updates
    • Expandable / Chainable (I'll be starting with 4/5TB)
    • Plug 'n' Play preferred
    • Ethernet connection
    • RAID not essential (it's for backups only)

    Price is a concern, of course, but I am willing to pay up a little to get certainty of performance and compatibility over time. WD, for example, rendered my expensive 4TB drive useless for its intended purpose by abandoning Time Machine support not long after its purchase. That's a big waste of money, so it's worth paying more to get longevity out of the thing.

    Any ideas / suggestions are appreciated.

    TIA
     
  2. priitv8 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2011
    Location:
    Estonia
    #2
    Is there a reason it needs to be a NAS? Why not consider a DAS?
    At the minimum, TimeMachine compatibility should become a non-issue.
     
  3. rayward thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #3
    Mostly so that it's out of the way, and separate from, the iMac.
     
  4. FreakinEurekan macrumors 68040

    FreakinEurekan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    #4
    This narrows the list to one.
     
  5. rayward thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #5
    If only they made one bigger than 3TB...
     
  6. takeshi74 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    #6
    I think some would say "none of them are".
     
  7. FreakinEurekan macrumors 68040

    FreakinEurekan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Eureka Springs, Arkansas
    #7
    Yep. For now 3TB is handling my needs but I'll add an external USB disk when I need to.

    Also you mention that you're moving your Media library to the ShareSpace NAS - which means you won't be backing it up with Time Machine (TM backs up only attached disks, not network storage). So you might look at two solutions - a TC for your Mac internal & any attached disks, plus a 4TB USB drive plugged into the ShareSpace using the USB Auto Backup feature of that device.
     
  8. rayward thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #8
    The Sharespace will become attached storage to the iMac, so Time machine will include its contents in the backup process. I have lost my media drive before, without a backup, so this is a critical issue for me - I do not want to have to go through the process of reconstituting all that data again!
     
  9. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #9
    Synology NAS all have time machine support, and because it's based off of Linux, if they ever stop supporting it, someone will probably create a package that adds it back in.

    I have a 213j, but not issues or complaints to speak of.
     
  10. rayward thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #10
    Thanks. I have been searching the interwebs, and I keep coming back around to Synology's DS413. I was thinking I could load it with 2 x 2TB drives to start, and then add drives down the road as necessary.
     
  11. blueroom macrumors 603

    blueroom

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #11
    I also have a Synology DS212j and TM works great.
     
  12. 7akeem macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    #12
    I would recommend Synology DS414. it is just a little more expensive than DS413, yet has double the ram and will perform better.

    I have DS412+, it is great, personal cloud on the go and much more, connected to Mac Pro with gigabit cable, and using wifi dongle to the rest of MacBooks.
     
  13. rayward thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #13

    It's only going to be used for Time Machine backups so, unless there's some major slowdown with the 413 (or even the 412+), I'm not sure I need to spend the extra for the higher performance. Make sense?
     
  14. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #14
    Yeah, but...

    You say that now :p

    My NAS (for example) is a host for my and my girlfriends' time machine backups, runs a VPN server, SVN server, iTunes server, DLNA server, and network drive. My RAM usage is somewhere around 50mb while idle, but my point is that you never know just what you'll end up using it for :)

    P.S. It can also be a mail server, web server, blog host, and about a gazillion other things
     
  15. 7akeem, Dec 31, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2013

    7akeem macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    #15
    Any hard disk with high capacity can do the job you want (Time machine storage).
    However the Synology or other NAS usually have RAID where you can protect the storage as well, so your personal data in the computer are saved in the time machine, and the data in the time machine are protected against HDD failure.

    Now if you agree on a NAS as the needed tool.
    All the models mentioned will more or less do the same. I can't predict your future needs. The main difference is the concurrent users at the same time.

    A friend of mine has the DS413j and it does satisfy his needs. (Time machine and remote access storage).

    The least expensive is supposed to be DS413j, then DS413, DS414. If I were in your shoes and I have the money I will go with DS414.
    I think your budget should narrow your options and guide you which one to go with.


    This link should help you
    http://www.synology.com/en-uk/support/nas_selector
     
  16. davidelkington macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    #16
    I use a DS1513+ with 5x4TB WD Reds in Raid 6 which handles all 10 macs in the office fine.
     
  17. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #17
    :confused:

    1. Not my exeperience. Time Machine doesn't try to back up any mounted network drives
    2. Even if it did, just add that to the "Exclude this list from backup" and back up the NAS on the NAS as FreakinEurekan suggested.

    B
     
  18. GimmeSlack12 macrumors 603

    GimmeSlack12

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #18
    I agree completely. I got the 212j and now I often think to myself "Why didn't I get the 212+???".

    At first the Synology is a little overwhelming with it's functionality, but as you ease into it you realize it is much more than simply Network Storage.
     
  19. glenthompson macrumors 68000

    glenthompson

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Location:
    Virginia
    #19
    A bit more pricey but works well with Time Machine is a Mac mini server. You can add tons of external space. For the price, I think the Synology is a better deal.
     

Share This Page