M1 Mac mini server

[samkkbse]

In my office we have been running a 2012 Mac mini for years as our file server for all our studio files, to which 4 Macs connect via SMB. It's been running Mac OS Sierra for the last few years since Apple removed the server software from newer versions of Mac OS, and the file sharing on the recent OS versions wasn't good at all and so unreliable. It's connected to an OWC NAS unit with 4 WD Blue 3TB drives inside in RAID 0 formatted with Mac OS Journaled, this is running well and is only a couple of years old.

We are now wary of the age of the Mac Mini and think this hardware should be retired before it goes.

My question is has anyone had a similar situation and what upgrade path did you go down?

If I simply bought a new M1 mac mini have Apple now fine-tuned the file-sharing feature to use in our office environment? Or would I need to serve the files in a different way?

Thanks!

 

[rm5]

(Please read through this carefully, and let me know if you have any questions.)

I had a similar but also very different situation. I used my old 2012 mini as a file server after I got this M1 MBA back in 2020. Then, in about July-August of 2021, I retired the Mac mini (sold it at a local shop), and bought a server.

This is where things are different than your situation.

1. I didn't use my mini in RAID configuration
2. I didn't have multiple clients connected

So, to answer your question: You COULD buy an M1 mini and use Mac File Sharing with your NAS, but I think it's a little unreliable. If you want to keep it simple, that's fine - go ahead and buy the M1 mini and use Mac File Sharing with your NAS. But I think you/everyone else in the office will be MUCH happier with an actual server (see below).

An alternate idea you may or may not like:
If you need a reliable system, do what I did and get an HP ProLiant server. Get one with lots of RAM for caching, and a pretty good CPU(s). Then, you said you needed at least 12 TB, so make that work in however many drive bays the server has. If you've got 8 like I have, you can get 16 TB (I know it's more than 12, like you specified, but the more storage, the better, right?) pretty easily with 8x 2 TB drives.

ALSO, you could get a server with LARGE FORM-FACTOR DRIVE TRAYS, and throw in the drives that are currently in your NAS. Just make sure to back up the NAS, because you might have to reformat the drives.

With my ProLiant (back when I used it for files), I was able to have 3-4 computers connected at once, all either copying files/rendering videos, etc - all over 1 ethernet connection (I can't afford QSFP+ direct-attach, so I stuck with ethernet).

If your office ends up expanding, an actual server is a benefit - If you have the infrastructure, time, resources, etc. to have & set up multiple NICs (Network Interface Cards), that will get you another 3-4 computers per NIC. Most 2U servers can have 2-3 additional NICs, so in total, you would theoretically be able to host between 6-12 additional computers, depending on the configuration.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

 

[glenthompson]

Is the OWC a NAS (standalone with network connection) or a DAS (connected to Mini via USB)? What causes you to say that file sharing on recent MacOS versions is problematic? I use a 2012 Mini as a file, media, and backup server and have no issues. It's in a home environment so it's a simpler use case. I has 2 OWC DAS units in a JBOD configuration.

What features of the Mac Server software are you using besides file sharing?

 

[rm5]

I personally think NASs are very clunky and inefficient, that’s why i suggested an actual file server, but, you’re right - an actual server is harder to set up.

 

[hobowankenobi]

The org I support switched from an Intel Mac Mini with an attached RAID array housing about 20TB to a Synology NAS for file sharing.

While not perfect, it is in fact better than the Mini running Server ever was. The RAID options, file serving options, as well as the options of a web interface, internet sharing, a good file sync client in Drive, and more...runs circles around MacOS + Server....when it was still a thing.

I see much fewer files permissions issues, or any other file sharing issues. It does require an occasional restart, which is less than ideal. But the hardware check for drives, and a host of other features make it a slam dunk for file sharing to a small/medium group of Macs, PCs, and even mobile devices.

The only other caution I would offer is not to buy their low-end stuff. They are underpowered (explains the very low price), which can slow transfer speeds, as well as limit what services you can run. Go with the Plus line...or better. The DS720+ is a good box if 2 drives are enough.

If you need (now or foreseeable future) more space than what a single drive will provide for usable space (say 10TB or so...drives keep getting bigger all the time) then look at models with at least 3 bays.
----

You said you have 3 drives in RAID 0...I trust you backup often. If you lose one drive, all the data is gone!

Please backup daily until you move to new hardware. RAID 0 stripes data across multiple drives, which is fast with little overhead, but is also prone to data loss; one of the highest risk RAID configs.

 

[samkkbse]

Is the OWC a NAS (standalone with network connection) or a DAS (connected to Mini via USB)? What causes you to say that file sharing on recent MacOS versions is problematic? I use a 2012 Mini as a file, media, and backup server and have no issues. It's in a home environment so it's a simpler use case. I has 2 OWC DAS units in a JBOD configuration.

What features of the Mac Server software are you using besides file sharing?

Thanks for the reply. The OWC is a DAS unit, using a FireWire connection. When I upgraded the system to use High Sierra (or Mojave) and the server software lost the file-sharing feature and it became part of the main OS I was getting frequent reports of connection dropouts, some users 5/6 times an hour. After spending a good couple of hours on live chat with Apple's support they acknowledged there was an issue with SMB connections.

The only other feature I use is the User manager, though this isn't essential as all users could access the unit from one account.

 

[chrfr]

In my office we have been running a 2012 Mac mini for years as our file server for all our studio files, to which 4 Macs connect via SMB. It's been running Mac OS Sierra for the last few years since Apple removed the server software from newer versions of Mac OS, and the file sharing on the recent OS versions wasn't good at all and so unreliable. It's connected to an OWC NAS unit with 4 WD Blue 3TB drives inside in RAID 0 formatted with Mac OS Journaled, this is running well and is only a couple of years old.

We are now wary of the age of the Mac Mini and think this hardware should be retired before it goes.

My question is has anyone had a similar situation and what upgrade path did you go down?

If I simply bought a new M1 mac mini have Apple now fine-tuned the file-sharing feature to use in our office environment? Or would I need to serve the files in a different way?

Thanks!

I'd strongly suggest buying a NAS like a Synology rather than use a Mac, and definitely stop using RAID 0 for this sort of storage– it's far too risky.

 

[chikorita157]

I'd strongly suggest buying a NAS like a Synology rather than use a Mac, and definitely stop using RAID 0 for this sort of storage– it's far too risky.

I highly disagree. I have used a 2014 Mac mini as a server for 7 years and didn't have any issues. I used a OWC Thunderbay 4 in a RAID 10 configuration using SoftRaid and it worked fine. Just recently, after 7 years, one of the original drive started to fail and I was able to rebuild it quickly with a new drive.

I don't really recommend off the shelf NAS since you are at the mercy of the manufacturer for OS/security updates support and of course, the extra vulnerabilities and ransomware malware due to vulnerability remote access functionality. If you want to go the NAS route, you may as well build your own and use TrueNAS or UnRAID.

Even so, there is some reasons why you want to use a Mac mini as a server. I built my TrueNAS server late last year to act like a SAN. Instead of sharing files, it gives block storage to the Mac mini via iSCSI through 10-gigabit ethernet. The SAN has 4 16 TB Seagate EXOS drives in RAIDz2 configuration using ZFS.I use ATTO iSCSI Initiator to mount the ZFS volume as a iSCSI device, which appears as a hard drive on the Mac mini. Of course, you don't need to have that complex of a setup. Just grab a OWC Thunderbay and use SoftRAID to use RAID 6 to have redundant storage.

This allows me to take advantage of ZFS while being able to back up the whole storage through Blackblaze, since it appears as a hard drive, not a network share. Therefore, I don't have to pay a lot of money to have all my data backed up to the cloud unlike the NAS, you have to pay by the terrabyte, which can get very expensive rather quickly. The ThunderBay now hosts all my backups, which also get backed up on BackBlaze.

Lastly, the Mac mini is a bit more easier to manage and more flexible. Unlike TrueNAS and UnRAID, you can set the Mac mini to do content caching and home media sharing, something you can't do on third party devices. For me, I have Plex running.

 

[hobowankenobi]

I highly disagree. I have used a 2014 Mac mini as a server for 7 years and didn't have any issues. I used a OWC Thunderbay 4 in a RAID 10 configuration using SoftRaid and it worked fine. Just recently, after 7 years, one of the original drive started to fail and I was able to rebuild it quickly with a new drive.

I don't really recommend off the shelf NAS since you are at the mercy of the manufacturer for OS/security updates support and of course, the extra vulnerabilities and ransomware malware due to vulnerability remote access functionality. If you want to go the NAS route, you may as well build your own and use TrueNAS or UnRAID.

Even so, there is some reasons why you want to use a Mac mini as a server. I built my TrueNAS server late last year to act like a SAN. Instead of sharing files, it gives block storage to the Mac mini via iSCSI through 10-gigabit ethernet. The SAN has 4 16 TB Seagate EXOS drives in RAIDz2 configuration using ZFS.I use ATTO iSCSI Initiator to mount the ZFS volume as a iSCSI device, which appears as a hard drive on the Mac mini. Of course, you don't need to have that complex of a setup. Just grab a OWC Thunderbay and use SoftRAID to use RAID 6 to have redundant storage.

This allows me to take advantage of ZFS while being able to back up the whole storage through Blackblaze, since it appears as a hard drive, not a network share. Therefore, I don't have to pay a lot of money to have all my data backed up to the cloud unlike the NAS, you have to pay by the terrabyte, which can get very expensive rather quickly. The ThunderBay now hosts all my backups, which also get backed up on BackBlaze.

Lastly, the Mac mini is a bit more easier to manage and more flexible. Unlike TrueNAS and UnRAID, you can set the Mac mini to do content caching and home media sharing, something you can't do on third party devices. For me, I have Plex running.

Some good points...but not really fair to compare off the self, user-friendly box like Synolgy with a homebrew setup such as you have described. Having run several of each, I don't share your enthusiasm nor would recommend to an average user.

While a good option, and superior in some ways, it is a much bigger learning curve for the inexperienced. SAN, ZFS, and iSCSI tech are generally not for novices. The OWC/SoftRAID option is pretty solid and fairly user-friendly though.

As for security, most users would have their NAS behind a decent router, and would be no less or more vulnerable than any other device on their LAN. The Synology Drive client coupled with their remote QuckConnect removes most (all?) of the typical vulnerabilities compared to traditional file sharing over the internet. A Mini offers no equivalent beyond paid iCloud sharing that I am aware of.

 

[chikorita157]

Some good points...but not really fair to compare off the self, user-friendly box like Synolgy with a homebrew setup such as you have described. Having run several of each, I don't share your enthusiasm nor would recommend to an average user.

While a good option, and superior in some ways, it is a much bigger learning curve for the inexperienced. SAN, ZFS, and iSCSI tech are generally not for novices. The OWC/SoftRAID option is pretty solid and fairly user-friendly though.

As for security, most users would have their NAS behind a decent router, and would be no less or more vulnerable than any other device on their LAN. The Synology Drive client coupled with their remote QuckConnect removes most (all?) of the typical vulnerabilities compared to traditional file sharing over the internet. A Mini offers no equivalent beyond paid iCloud sharing that I am aware of.

This can be accomplished by setting up a VPN server, either on the router or on the Mac mini itself.

OpenVPN Enabler for Big Sur

It can be done with Docker as well. Even so, I would not recommend a prebuilt NAS if one has the IT expertise to build an actual file server or a custom built NAS given the poor track record. I can’t vouch for Synology’s remote connection feature as it’s most likely proprietary and nobody knows how secure it is compared to something open source like OpenVPN, StrongSwan, etc or commercial VPN solutions like Cisco. Look no further than the recent ransomware attacks on NAS solutions:

eCh0raix Ransomware Variant Targets QNAP, Synology NAS Devices

Some bad actors are honing tools to go after small fry: This variant was refined to target not one, but two vendors’ devices that are common in SOHO setups.

threatpost.com

BreachExchange: StealthWorker botnet targets Synology NAS devices to drop ransomware

seclists.org

Asustor warns users of Deadbolt ransomware attacks

The hackers are demanding bitcoin ransom payments from an unknown number of users.

www.zdnet.com

At least with TrueNAS and UnRAID, it‘s more secure as they don’t have half-baked remote access features. Exposing the NAS to the internet is generally a big no-no unless it’s through a VPN. I think with these NAS/SAN OSes have a better track record in regards to security than the off the shelf NASes.

 

[rm5]

I agree with @chikorita157.

A few things:

• NASs are VERY cost-ineffective, but easier to set up
• Servers are MUCH cheaper but harder to set up
• The other thing to consider is power consumption. Those Xeons draw a TON of power compared to a NAS.
• Like @chikorita157 said, if you run TrueNAS/other server OS, you are less likely to get hacked/ransomware

I built my server setup for around $500 (first server specs in my signature), which is less than one DISKLESS NAS costs. Granted, I only have 2 TB of storage, so adding more drives for ~12 TB will add a significant cost, but it is still cheaper than a NAS w/ the same amount of storage.

I ALWAYS prefer things that cost less money/a bit more complicated, but get the job done in the end.

Now, I am an enthusiast, not an IT professional, so that's about as far as I can go with my reasoning.

 

[glenthompson]

I dumped my Synology for the Mini because it’s a lot easier to deal with just one operating system. The Mini is a lot easier to backup since I’m using the same software as the other Macs.

 

[dimme]

I'm running a 2012 Mac mini as my main file server w/ 2 OWC DAS units for a total of 16 TB of Storage. I have a Unbuntu backup server w/23TB of storage. Both run with very little maintenance. The Ubuntu server was pretty easy to setup because I chose the desktop version with a minimal install. Having a Mac mini as a server has some advantages over a NAS. It has ample power to run iTunes server, networked time machines backups, iPhone backups. I run pi hole as a vm and cloud backups. With both systems if I have a major hardware failure I can access the data via any Mac or Linux box.

 

[hobowankenobi]

This can be accomplished by setting up a VPN server, either on the router or on the Mac mini itself.

Making my point.

Possible, and capable. A good option. But much more to figure out and configure for a non-tech user. Dockers and VMs are another level.

I also don't buy that the NAS boxes are any more of a security risk than a Win server. Both need to be properly secured and protected. Any platform can be protected by a good VPN and firewall, including NAS boxes. All platforms get at least occasional zero-day threats, including Macs.

 

[dimme]

What I like about using a MacMini as a server is the ease of backing up my data. I can just plug in a portable HD and run carbon copy cloner and I have a Mac formatted hard drive. I believe with a off the shelf NAS if you want a Mac formatted backup you need to preform it over the network, which can be very slow.

 

[glenthompson]

What I like about using a MacMini as a server is the ease of backing up my data. I can just plug in a portable HD and run carbon copy cloner and I have a Mac formatted hard drive. I believe with a off the shelf NAS if you want a Mac formatted backup you need to preform it over the network, which can be very slow.

There's also a significant cost savings for cloud backup. With a Synology you need to by by the byte for BackBlaze B2. With the Mini you can backup as much as you can connect for a single price. I have almost 5tb backed up to BackBlaze for one low price.

 

[hobowankenobi]

What I like about using a MacMini as a server is the ease of backing up my data. I can just plug in a portable HD and run carbon copy cloner and I have a Mac formatted hard drive. I believe with a off the shelf NAS if you want a Mac formatted backup you need to preform it over the network, which can be very slow.

A plus for using a Mac for sure. Any file server with a different file system adds a hurdle and/or speed bump to backing up the server itself, or trying to recover data directly from drives.

On a Synology box, there is a backup to USB option (to clone the NAS contents), and that drive can be formatted EXFAT or HFS+ last time I checked.