Can you put Mac OS or most of it on an x5 and run an always on Mac mini 2018 off it?

[FilmIndustryGuy]

I have the 128 gb MM and Software only use 20 gb but iCloud is taking up most of the drive which makes my FCPX pop up a message saying Drive is almost full as I'm in the middle if working on the project due to it rendering the effects. I have 2TB of iCloud and don't want iCloud saving itself on my Mac but can't control this.

I was thinking of just getting a X5 drive and putting everything on that so that I can just edit off it but ideally Id like to get rid of iCloud holding onto all these files on my main drive. Any solutions for me? My Mac mini is always on but sleeping. I guess the best solution would be to somehow no allow iCloud to save itself on my main drive and then having Lightroom and FCPX hold all its projects on a separate drive. Right now I edit by putting all video and photo files on a T3 but the renders are still saving to the main drive and clofggin g it up with the combination of iCloud.

 

[velocityg4]

Just make sure you format it correctly in Disk Utility to use as a boot drive (GUID + APFS for SSD in 10.13 and later). Samsung says it is compatible and user reviews say it works as a boot drive in their Mac.
https://www.macobserver.com/tips/quick-tip/how-to-format-drive-guid/

You should be able to use most any external drive as a boot drive. I'd go with an SATA SSD (860 Evo or MX 500) in a USB 3.1 Gen 2 enclosure or go with an NVMe SSD in a Thunderbolt 3 enclosure if you want to spend the extra money.

OWC makes a Thunderbolt 3 NVMe enclosure. It supports up to 4 NVMe SSD. Initial cost is higher when paired with a single Samsung 970 Evo. The per TB cost goes down with multiple drives. With two 1TB 970 Evo the OWC enclosure is cheaper than two X5 and a lot cheaper than three or four. As a large chunk of the X5 cost is Thunderbolt 3.

 

[F-Train]

You can run Final Cut on a 128GB internal drive, but you have to be aggressive in keeping that drive clear of unnecessary data.

Your current workflow is going to be problematic regardless of what iCloud is doing. The problem is the size of the rendering files, which can easily exceed 128GB, and by a lot. I have personally seen render files swamp a 500GB internal drive.

I'd suggest that you read this Apple article on managing Final Cut render files: https://support.apple.com/kb/PH12704?locale=en_GB

Also, if you aren't familiar with it, have a look at Arctic Whiteness's Final Cut Library Manager, which is very helpful in keeping render files under control. At €25.00, I think that it's a true bargain: https://www.arcticwhiteness.com/finalcutlibrarymanager/

I would also turn off iCloud synchronisation and either use iCloud solely for external storage or move storage to external drives.

Those issues addressed, it's mostly a matter of how many GB of editing space you need, having regard to things like whether you are using proxies, and where you keep your media files. With a 128GB internal drive, the media files really need to be on an external drive for a longish or multi-camera video.

As external drives, I'm currently using a Samsung T5 and a Samsung X5 equivalent (third party enclosure with a Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD). I think that both of these can work with your setup, assuming that you aren't talking about editing RAW 4K on an external drive. An X5 is nice, but it's a lot more money.

You might find it useful to look at the following thread. In the last couple of pages of it, I wrote some posts comparing the T5, my X5 equivalent and so-called middle ground options: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/samsung-t5-x5-equivalents.2167739/




[doublepost=1550623395][/doublepost]

Just make sure you format it correctly in Disk Utility to use as a boot drive (GUID + APFS for SSD in 10.13 and later). Samsung says it is compatible and user reviews say it works as a boot drive in their Mac.

https://www.macobserver.com/tips/quick-tip/how-to-format-drive-guid/

You should be able to use most any external drive as a boot drive. I'd go with an SATA SSD (860 Evo or MX 500) in a USB 3.1 Gen 2 enclosure or go with an NVMe SSD in a Thunderbolt 3 enclosure if you want to spend the extra money.

OWC makes a Thunderbolt 3 NVMe enclosure. It supports up to 4 NVMe SSD. Initial cost is higher when paired with a single Samsung 970 Evo. The per TB cost goes down with multiple drives. With two 1TB 970 Evo the OWC enclosure is cheaper than two X5 and a lot cheaper than three or four. As a large chunk of the X5 cost is Thunderbolt 3.

I think that it makes more sense to sell the mini and replace it with one that has a larger internal drive than to go down this road. That said, I'm pretty sure that his current problems can be fixed with better data management and the addition of a reasonably fast external drive, used for media storage or as a supplementary workspace or both.

A 1TB T5 is currently $218 ($185 for WD's equivalent), so it's pretty cost-effective. By comparison, a 1TB X5 is $450. If you want to purchase the latest Samsung or WD NVMe SSDs, the 2TB versions won't even be available until April, which is one reason that I chose Samsung's 1TB for my X5 equivalent.

 

[velocityg4]

I think that it makes more sense to sell the mini and replace it with one that has a larger internal drive than to go down this road. That said, I'm pretty sure that his current problems can be fixed with better data management and the addition of a reasonably fast external drive, used either for media storage or as a supplementary workspace or both.

A 1TB T5 is currently $218 ($185 for WD's equivalent), so it's pretty cost-effective. By comparison, a 1TB X5 is $450. If you want to purchase the latest Samsung and WD NVMe SSDs, the 2TB versions won't even be available until April, which is one reason that I chose Samsung's 1TB for my X5 equivalent.

I'd just go with a USB 3.1 Gen 2 enclosure and a Crucial MX500 or Samsung 860 Evo. Same thing as the Samsung T5 but only $150 to $175 for 1TB. There is also the option to choose between SATA M.2 or SATA 2.5" form factors.

There is also the option of buying a lower end NVMe to pair with a USB 3.1 Gen 2 enclosure. One which supports NVMe that is. It won't be as fast as a 970 Evo in a Thunderbolt 3 enclosure nor an X5. It would be faster than SATA models. It would total about $225 for an enclosure with something like an AData XPG SX8200 960GB.