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

0339327

Cancelled
Original poster
Jun 14, 2007
634
1,936
So I do a lot of video work and, as such, have a lot of storage. I would like to setup an external drive on a MacMini to run Dropbox and have the same drive mount on my MacPro, at the same time, for use of the files.
This would allow my MacPro to sleep while the MacMini syncs with Dropbox.

I know that for a long time, connecting one drive to two machines was contraindicated, as the drive could be corrupted. I am wondering if anyone tried this or knows anything more. It would be a big benefit to my workflow.
 

Brian33

macrumors 65816
Apr 30, 2008
1,475
373
USA (Virginia)
I don't think you can directly-connect a hard drive to two different Macs using any of the standard interfaces (USB, Thunderbolt, etc.).

What I'd suggest is to have the hard drive directly-connected to the Mini, and then turn on file-sharing on the Mini. Then the MacPro can connect to the shared hard drive over your network (assuming both Macs are on the same local network). So the MacPro has network-connected access to the drive.

This is quite easy to set up (in Monterey, System Prefs-->Sharing-->File Sharing turned on).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basic75 and chown33

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
11,006
8,905
A sea of green
The only way I can think of to maintain TB-level speed is to use TB as the network connection between the computers.

See if you can set it up with this guide:

I found that page using search terms: mac network using thunderbolt

I don't know what the latency would be like with such a setup. The two hosts are doing file-sharing, which I think relies on SMB, so there's still a level it has to go through that isn't present with a direct TB-connected disk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basic75

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
11,006
8,905
A sea of green
If you have a spare TB cable, and you can move the two computers close enough for the cable to connect them, you could at least test whether a direct-TB connection gets you the latency and throughput you want.

My guess is that a direct-TB connection will have throughput (raw bandwidth) at least as good as a 10GB CAT6a wired connection.

The latency for both is probably similar, if not the same, because in both cases you'll still be relying on builtin file-sharing. So if the direct-TB latency isn't good enough, or the direct-TB bandwidth isn't good enough, then it seems unlikely to me that a CAT6a wired connection would be good enough. In short, you'd get a simple fail-early indicator without having to setup a CAT6a network.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basic75

Basic75

macrumors 68020
May 17, 2011
2,127
2,490
Europe
I don't think you can directly-connect a hard drive to two different Macs using any of the standard interfaces (USB, Thunderbolt, etc.).
You certainly can't connect a drive to two machines, and if you could you'd immediately corrupt the drive unless both machines mount it read-only (not too useful) or you use a special filesystem that is designed for this use case (which is not something you can just find on the app store).
 

Basic75

macrumors 68020
May 17, 2011
2,127
2,490
Europe
I think what I'm going to end up with is a CAT 6a network and thunderbolt to 10GB CAT6a interfaces. This isn't inexpensive but it should reliably work. My biggest expense is that a 10GB network switch will cost more than the Mac Mini.
Wouldn't it be simpler, making it also less expensive and more reliable, to just let the Mac Pro do the Dropbox sync? What's the big picture, what problem are you trying to solve here?
 

Basic75

macrumors 68020
May 17, 2011
2,127
2,490
Europe
I don’t want my MacPro to be “busy” syncing TB of data on a regular basis. Also, that eats up CPU power which is better used for editing.
How many percent of a single processor core does syncing dropbox use? Can your editing software even max out all processor cores simultaneously?
 

Basic75

macrumors 68020
May 17, 2011
2,127
2,490
Europe
Some plug-ins, especially third party plug-ins, are limited to single cores. I generally don’t run anything other than FCP and Mail when I’m editing.
Sorry but to me it sounds like you are trying to solve something that isn't really a problem. Unless you actually notice a serious performance impact from the sync and it's not just the idea that this might be the case.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.