Hi, I have a Mac (Mac OS, Windows Bootcamp), a PC (Windows, Linux), a Linux box, iPad, iPhone. For the past few years, I just buy external SSD for backup due to bad experience with hard drives failing unexpectedly even they are from Seagate, WD, Maxtor, etc. Considering to buy two Samsung T7 2TB SSD one for Mac and one for PC. However, they are quite expensive. In the long term, is it better buy a NAS even the initial cost "seems" high? Does using two hard drives as RAID makes them more reliable against hardware failure than a single hard drive or SSD as backup storage?
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.
In the long term, is it cheaper to buy a NAS rather than multiple SSD for different computers?
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most of the time for backups hard drives make more sense than SSD due to cost. As speed isn't very important.
A cheap NAS is more practical than multiple SSD. As it'll likely cost less. Plus you don't have to plug anything in. It's just always connected. As long as your devices are connected to your network.
RAID 1 will increase reliability. Although from a backup reliability standpoint. It would be better to have one drive in the NAS. Then a second external drive. Something you only connect periodically to backup the NAS. Then store the rest of the time in a fire/water resistant safe. Which is bolted to the floor or a wall.
Then you'll have your primary NAS backup. Plus at least a second emergency backup. Which while it won't have all the latest data. Will have most of your data.
A cheap NAS is more practical than multiple SSD. As it'll likely cost less. Plus you don't have to plug anything in. It's just always connected. As long as your devices are connected to your network.
RAID 1 will increase reliability. Although from a backup reliability standpoint. It would be better to have one drive in the NAS. Then a second external drive. Something you only connect periodically to backup the NAS. Then store the rest of the time in a fire/water resistant safe. Which is bolted to the floor or a wall.
Then you'll have your primary NAS backup. Plus at least a second emergency backup. Which while it won't have all the latest data. Will have most of your data.
I have been using a Synology DS211J since 2011 so, 10 years now... it has TWO 2TB drives in a mirror configuration, and backs up all the Macs on my home LAN (3 of them). I have had to replace the drives once in the last 10 years, so make sure you use "Server Level" devices... Time Machine does all the work, so it is 100% transparent to me... and it has saved my bacon a number of times
In my opinion, buying 2 or 3 external drives is cheaper than buying a NAS. Why spend $500 on a NAS when you can be just as efficient spending half that or less?
Not just cost.
A good NAS that is always can always backup...especially for mobile devices. Externals need to be plugged in, and often that does not happen as frequently as it should.
A NAS can house very large data sets, so you can have much more history or many devices too, which is a valuable feature. Bigger, multi-drive NAS boxes can often grow a data set on the fly without erasing and starting over, where single drives can't ever be expanded to increase usable space.
A NAS can backup multiple platforms without file system/drive format issues.
A NAS can back up remotely, even over the internet. I use a Synology with the Drive sync/backup feature to keep current backups of several machines that are not on site. As long as users have decent bandwidth, it works well.
The biggest advantage to local drives are:
A good NAS that is always can always backup...especially for mobile devices. Externals need to be plugged in, and often that does not happen as frequently as it should.
A NAS can house very large data sets, so you can have much more history or many devices too, which is a valuable feature. Bigger, multi-drive NAS boxes can often grow a data set on the fly without erasing and starting over, where single drives can't ever be expanded to increase usable space.
A NAS can backup multiple platforms without file system/drive format issues.
A NAS can back up remotely, even over the internet. I use a Synology with the Drive sync/backup feature to keep current backups of several machines that are not on site. As long as users have decent bandwidth, it works well.
The biggest advantage to local drives are:
- Easy to setup
- Faster backup/restore times
If you get a NAS you will also install NAS hard drives, which are more reliable and have longer warranties. You will also be able to do time machine backups over wifi so you won't have to connect and disconnect cables.
I bought a cheap entry level Synology NAS to mainly share files among all the devices at my home and I never regretted it.
I bought a cheap entry level Synology NAS to mainly share files among all the devices at my home and I never regretted it.
And a NAS can backup multiple computers transparently , and if you check... a small NAS isn't really all that much
Comparing apples and pears.
First of all, just to mention, technically an SSD is not a good drive to back-up, apart from speed. It requires to retain some static charge for retaining the data, and while are reliable for short/medium-term, in the long-run may fail, especially if they don't stay powered regularly.
For backup a RAID 1 system is the gold standard, possible on a NAS. Paired with a cloud storage backup (like the backblaze) a 2 or 3 disk NAS is fairly cheap and easy to maintain and it is cheaper in the long-run than having multiple xTB SSDs.
First of all, just to mention, technically an SSD is not a good drive to back-up, apart from speed. It requires to retain some static charge for retaining the data, and while are reliable for short/medium-term, in the long-run may fail, especially if they don't stay powered regularly.
For backup a RAID 1 system is the gold standard, possible on a NAS. Paired with a cloud storage backup (like the backblaze) a 2 or 3 disk NAS is fairly cheap and easy to maintain and it is cheaper in the long-run than having multiple xTB SSDs.
The OP doesn't need SSD for backup. He could buy 3 or 4 Toshiba or WD platter drives and still come out way ahead, provided one doesn't die an early death.
I'm not sure where we disagree. Yes, SSD bad for backup drives. Yes, sudden death of back-up drives happens and because of Murphy's law, always happens when you need them the most.
A NAS may not be necessary, but a RAID-1 array is the best option for backup (provided that the amount of the data you backup justify that). Add a NAS in the equation and you get a set-up-and-forget backup system. if you have a 3-4 machines to back-up through, price-wise the difference between an external drive per machine and a cheap NAS system may be small.
I'm adamant you need somehow to protect your backups. An alternative is to buy some extra platted HDDs and use a cloning Hub, that are dirty cheap, like $30 or sth, to do differential backup of your external drives. not as easy as using a NAS, but cheaper.
My point is:
ALWAYS back-up your back-up.
Last edited:
I do not see the need for SSD's for backup. There are posts about SSDs failing which unlike HDs data cannot be recovered. However, having any drive fail leaves a bad taste in anyone.
I was considering a NAS at one time with two Macs, a PC and iPhone/iPad as well. But a NAS is not inexpensive with a reasonable set of server class drives. It also requires a LAN to interconnect and support everything.
But there are now other solutions not available before that incorporate the mysterious "cloud". iCloud Drive (Apple), Google Drive, OneDrive (Microsoft), etc. come to mind and are reasonable priced - free to begin with.
So I have used a combination of attached HDs and the cloud to provide a layered backup approach. I replaced the PC with Parallels VMs (XP and Win10) after trying and dismissing Bootcamp. The two iMacs are hardwired to a WIFI router in turn connected to the internet. Network shares have been set up between the Macs (my wife's and mine home office).
Ok backup. There are two 8TB USB HDs connected to each Mac. Each drive has three partitions; a 1TB Time Machine, a 1TB Carbon Copy Cloner and a 6TB Data. Time Machine is configured to write to both partitions. It alternates between the two every hour. CCC has two daily backup tasks running at midnight and 2 AM to update the bootable CCC partitions on each drive. The Data partitions contain my photo library archive which I manually sync. I'm looking at a CCC task to automate. And, I have a third USB drive as a scratch photo edit device to keep my SystemHD from clogging up (very bad for SSDs).
In essence, I have a RAID 1 (mirrored) setup. In addition, I have my Mac Desktop and Documents folders connected to iCloud. I keep key personal and financial files in these folders.
So, for one iMac, the "mirrored" 8TB USB HDs cost about $350 for the two. A Synergy DS220j with 2-8TB NAS Drives is about $580. A couple hundred more. With two iMacs, got to double the USB cost to $700. A Synergy DS220j 16TB NAS would be about $870, $170 more. (U.S. prices).
Up to you, a NAS is more expensive. BUT - just backup here, not other features a NAS can offer, i.e. streaming and other apps.
I have two concerns: 1. Recently I read some posts saying that NAS such as QNAP drives have been targeted for hacking. Hackers constantly trying all sorts of passwords to access the data. Is this true? Is Synology NAS more reliable than QNAP NAS? 2. I heard that NAS are very noisy.
Yea but you put it on network away from you! That’s the beautiful thing about NAS (Networked Attached Storage)!
Some NAS are noisy. Some aren't. People usually just stick them in a closet, cupboard or utility room anyways. So, noise doesn't matter.
Everything gets targeted for weaknesses. Your computer far more often than your NAS. NAS make the news because attacks are so rare. Computers don't because it's so common it's boring. Keep it up to date. If you want to minimize exposure. Disable internet access for it.
You don't have to use a NAS per se. All you're doing is storing files and backups. If you'd feel more comfortable. Just get an old computer off eBay. Then set it up to share drives. It'll probably be cheaper than an equivalent performance NAS.
Alternatively just leave one of your current boxes on 24/7 with file sharing enabled and a large external drive attached and partitioned for all your computers to backup to. As one is Linux. I assume you like to tinker. So, screw around with a FreeNAS VM.
If you like that then you can go really nuts. Build a Linux box with a FreeNAS VM and PFSense (or similar) VM. So, you can have a dedicated file server and enterprise grade router. Then you can add a mail server, CardDAV server, CalDAV server, web server, cloud storage and VPN server. Maybe route some security cameras and home automation to it for good measure.
Do you mean to avoid having the NAS being hacked, just use it in local home network and disable internet access for it?
Yes, while there's still some potential attack vectors. If it's not connecting to the internet. There's far fewer weak points to target.
Especially since attacks are en masse. They don't target single devices. Unless they believe there is something worthwhile to go after. As it's too inefficient.
Generally it's going to be exploiting something all them do. Such as update checks.
You can place it in any room as long as you can get an ethernet cable around. Most people will put it in a quiet, dry room and for extra protection somewhere with a solid floor (e.g basement, make sure will not flood) to avoid damage of the disks from vibration. Some people will hide the NAS somewhere, so in a potential B&E, they will not find it.
Most modern NAS (Synology, QNAP, WD, etc) would have some "cloud" option, where you can access your NAS remotely when you're not in the same network. If you disable this, you set up a strong WPA password, disable ports you're not using, and set up a firewall appropriately, generally would be really hard for someone to get to it.
Even if you don't, an appropriate WPA password and a 2FA cloud setup would discourage most hackers. I mean, they don't really know that you'll have one in the first place.