Recommended number of LAN ports and drives for NAS

[hajime]

Someone touched on it on the last page but I think it was missed. What older computers do you have access to?

I found buying a 2nd-hand mac mini 2014 a better prospect for me than a nas (due to prices in my country). Space/power supplies aren't a concern for me, and external HDs are cheaper than internal ones for some reason here (may not be true everywhere) before you add on the cost of the nas hardware. It allows me the same granular control of data backups as I have on my main mac in another room and I don't have to learn yet another system to control the NAS properly...

Only MBP 2010 but the battery will be dead anytime and I have no plan to invest more on it.

I think somebody mentioned in another thread that NAS allows files from different OS to be stored on the same drive without having different formats for different OS. Something like that.

 

[pldelisle]

I found buying a 2nd-hand mac mini 2014 a better prospect for me than a nas (due to prices in my country). Space/power supplies aren't a concern for me, and external HDs are cheaper than internal ones for some reason here (may not be true everywhere) before you add on the cost of the nas hardware. It allows me the same granular control of data backups as I have on my main mac in another room and I don't have to learn yet another system to control the NAS properly..

Mac Mini isn’t a storage server. You have no redundancy, no failover, nothing. Yes, it’s easy to use but it is strictly not a storage server.

 

[pldelisle]

1. I guess I would not want to spend more than US$600 on NAS+disks. Even if I buy a 4 bay NAS, I will just get 2 hd to see how it goes first before investing more hd perhaps 2-3 years later. Will that be OK?

You’ll have to remake the RAID array. You’ll have to copy everything to a single drive, destroy the current array, create RAID 5 and copy everything back from the single HDD. If you start with RAID 5, minimum 3 disks, you can add more drives in the future and the array will rebuild by itself (normally).

2. I think somebody said RAID 1 is better than 0 as it offers some redundancy in case one drive dies suddenly. If RAID 1 with 2 bays are OK and I can upgrade later, then that would be fine for the initial purchase.

if you upgrade RAID 1 you’ll only have more redundancy, not better performance nor more storage space. RAID 5 is what you want when you have greater than 2 HDDs. You have a couple of readings to do on RAID.

4 bay NAS can make you have a 3x HDD RAID 5 + 1 SSD for fast storage access. We usually see this with 2.5/5/10Gbps. But if you need to work ON the NAS it could be a nice to have.

That is the main purpose of buying a NAS to centralize the data from about 10-15 different old drives used over the past 30 years. Is NAS a good way to do it?

absolutely. If you want to have a remote access to this data and redundancy in case of HDD failure, it’s the way to go.

My iCloud account has also been full for about a year and my iPhone has not been backup since then.

Just pay the 1$ a month like everyone to get 50 GB storage ... lol.

 

[nicho]

Mac Mini isn’t a storage server. You have no redundancy, no failover, nothing. Yes, it’s easy to use but it is strictly not a storage server.

That doesn't mean it isn't the right or wrong product. If OP asked about a chainsaw for cutting his morning loaf, would you dismiss the suggestion of a bread knife?

Redundancy is important for working files, less so for the home. RAID 1 also doesn't protect against accidental deletion etc. or file level corruption. And if using time machine for backup, by some accounts it can be counterproductive. There are many accounts of slow or failed time machine backups to "compatible" NASs on here.

I have an rsync clone of my shared media on a second drive, and a CCC clone on a third drive. I have granular control of what files are copied to which drive. I can ensure my backups are conducted on one HD while my media files are accessed from another.

The mac mini is also capable of things that non-Apple NAS devices aren't:

Change content caching preferences on Mac

You're pushing OP into something that seems way beyond his needs. Since he only has an old MBP on hand, I wouldn't encourage him to go down this path... but it would have been a workable alternative if he did have something appropriate and hadn't realised. There's something I agree with in your subsequent reply though, the last line:

Just pay the 1$ a month like everyone to get 50 GB storage ... lol.

It does seem like @hajime would get better value for money out of just paying for cloud storage instead of investing in a NAS he'd have limited understanding of.

 

[pldelisle]

Redundancy is important for working files, less so for the home. RAID 1 also doesn't protect against accidental deletion etc. or file level corruption.

Sure. RAID 1 provides uptime. I prefer to have a simple RAID 1 and not losing all my files than having to sync/copy from times to times My files to a bunch of HDDs. Counter productive. A NAS is just the right thing to have a central point to access all your files from anywhere in the world, redundancy in case of failure, plenty of storage space, Time Machine destination backup for all macs on the network (worked always flawlessly for me for 7 years) and many other network and file services.

I have an rsync clone of my shared media on a second drive, and a CCC clone on a third drive. I have granular control of what files are copied to which drive. I can ensure my backups are conducted on one HD while my media files are accessed from another.

Too complicated for a lambda user. A lambda user wants a clean, easy to use web interface to access its files, which both Synology and QNAP provides. A lambda user doesn‘t want to play with CCC, clones, rsync, whatever. It just want to click ’’Next’’ when setupping a backup of its NAS to a USB3 drive for its most important things, which Synology and QNAP does at a level of perfection.

You're pushing OP into something that seems way beyond his needs. Since he only has an old MBP on hand, I wouldn't encourage him to go down this path... but it would have been a workable alternative if he did have something appropriate and hadn't realised.

OP seems to need a lot of storage to access its files over network with multiple machines and devices. A NAS is just the right thing to do this pretty easily.

It does seem like @hajime would get better value for money out of just paying for cloud storage instead of investing in a NAS he'd have limited understanding of.

Maybe too. Maybe he hasn’t explored all its cloud options. A NAS procures several times the maximum cloud storage you can get from major cloud services (Dropbox, iCloud, Google Cloud for instance). It can take a decade of paying for cloud storage before reaching the price of a NAS + its drives.

 

[hajime]

You’ll have to remake the RAID array. You’ll have to copy everything to a single drive, destroy the current array, create RAID 5 and copy everything back from the single HDD. If you start with RAID 5, minimum 3 disks, you can add more drives in the future and the array will rebuild by itself (normally).

if you upgrade RAID 1 you’ll only have more redundancy, not better performance nor more storage space. RAID 5 is what you want when you have greater than 2 HDDs. You have a couple of readings to do on RAID.

4 bay NAS can make you have a 3x HDD RAID 5 + 1 SSD for fast storage access. We usually see this with 2.5/5/10Gbps. But if you need to work ON the NAS it could be a nice to have.

absolutely. If you want to have a remote access to this data and redundancy in case of HDD failure, it’s the way to go.

Just pay the 1$ a month like everyone to get 50 GB storage ... lol.

So if I want expandability, future proof, easy upgradability and security against data lost, it is better to get a 4-bay NAS and 3 HDD (perhaps 2-3TB each) and add one more HDD later than just get a 2-bay NAS with two 4TB HDD?

Somebody working in Apple Store suggested me to subscribe for iCloud and after using iCloud to back up all the 8000+ photos in my Phone to a personal external drive, cancel the subscription within a few days.

Some QNAP NAS are powered by Annapurna Labs AL314 Quad-core CPU. How is that compared with the Intel Celeron CPU?

 

[hobowankenobi]

So if I want expandability, future proof, easy upgradability and security against data lost, it is better to get a 4-bay NAS and 3 HDD (perhaps 2-3TB each) and add one more HDD later than just get a 2-bay NAS with two 4TB HDD?

Having 4 bays gives more flexibility, more room for growth at a higher cost.

Back up a step: How much data do you have now, and how much do expect it to grow? HDs have gotten so large, a 2 bay unit with larger drives may be more than adequate. Even 6TB drives are pretty cost-effective now, and obviously, over time, we should expect the price per GB to continue to go down.

Two 6TB drives mirrored provide the same amount of space as three 3TB in RAID 5: 6TB of usable space.

A mirror is technically more reliable than RAID 5. Splitting hairs, but both drives in a mirror contains all data. No single drive in a RAid 5 contains all data. RAID 5 failures are pretty rare, but they do happen.

Regardless of type, all data must be backed up. No RAID type is a backup.

 

[hobowankenobi]

Rating CPUs requires reviewing benchmarks.

As for the Mac Mini as a server, my 2cents:

If I had a spare, free one lying around...add some external storage, and it is adequate for home use. But would I buy one, plus storage over a NAS? Nope. a decent NAS has drive redundancy, internal drives (no cables or power supplies), truly headless, more robust OS for sharing. Plus so many other things, like: sending links to friends, easier remote access, easier to set up file syncing to all platforms, built-in snapshots, and on and on. Yes, there is a learning curve...but realistically, there is a learning curve to run any file server for those new to it.

Actually, I do have a spare Mini lying around. And I still use a Synology.

Anybody want to buy an old Mini?

 

[Boyd01]

I also use a Mini for a file and time machine server and think it should at least be considered. Since its a Mac, you won't have to learn how to use anything new. And with the newer versions of MacOS you can setup file sharing and time machine with just a few mouse clicks. I have a dummy HDMI plug in mine and control it with screen sharing. That leaves all 4 USB ports available for disks (I have a total of 20 TB). Everything is automatically cloned with CCC nightly for redundancy.

I also have backblaze, bootable clones on external SSD's and disks with archival copies going back through the years. If you're concerned about ransomware, then you should also do regular backups and keep them offline where they are safe.

 

[hajime]

Back up a step: How much data do you have now, and how much do expect it to grow? HDs have gotten so large, a 2 bay unit with larger drives may be more than adequate. Even 6TB drives are pretty cost-effective now, and obviously, over time, we should expect the price per GB to continue to go down.

I checked. No more than 500GB of data for those files I have over the past 30 years. As I backup my MBP 16" and two desktop PC separately using separate drives, I only need a NAS that can store 1TB worth of data for the time being. Maybe in the next 2-3 years, a total of 2TB?

 

[pldelisle]

I checked. No more than 500GB of data for those files I have over the past 30 years. As I backup my MBP 16" and two desktop PC separately using separate drives, I only need a NAS that can store 1TB worth of data for the time being. Maybe in the next 2-3 years, a total of 2TB?

I don't think it really worth it to buy a NAS for 500 GB of data ...

 

[hajime]

I don't think it really worth it to buy a NAS for 500 GB of data ...

But it also serve as a dropbox and iCloud replacement. How about just get a 2-bay NAS with one 4TB HD? How come the cost for 1-4TB HD are so similar that it is not worth to buy anything below 4TB?

 

[pldelisle]

But it also serve as a dropbox and iCloud replacement. How about just get a 2-bay NAS with one 4TB HD? How come the cost for 1-4TB HD are so similar that it is not worth to buy anything below 4TB?

Always minimum 2 HDDs in a NAS for at least RAID 1 in case of hardware failure.

A RAID 1 with 2x4TB will still let you have 4TB of storage space in total.

 

[hobowankenobi]

I don't think it really worth it to buy a NAS for 500 GB of data ...

I would say maybe, if:

One needs to share seamlessly without needed to connect external drives (including local, mobile devices, and via internet), or wants to share with others.

Also, if one wants a backup destination that is always on for multiple devices.

A two bay NAS would be plenty, and a good one bay with a scheduled USB backup would be fine too.

It might make sense to consolidate the backups to the NAS, which could bump the storage up considerably.

 

[hobowankenobi]

How come the cost for 1-4TB HD are so similar that it is not worth to buy anything below 4TB?

Because materially, there is very little difference. The cost to make is nearly the same.

 

[hobowankenobi]

I checked. No more than 500GB of data for those files I have over the past 30 years. As I backup my MBP 16" and two desktop PC separately using separate drives, I only need a NAS that can store 1TB worth of data for the time being. Maybe in the next 2-3 years, a total of 2TB?

Yeah, 2TB is probably the min I would do. Keep mind that it's bad to fill drives...a good goal would be about 80% filled as a max...always factor in free space when considering future needs. 3-4 TB is probably the sweet spot for space vs. price.

 

[hajime]

My ISP set up the wireless router in the living room. It connects to another device which connects to the TV. Then, my computers are in another room. So it means I can access the NAS wireless most of the time unless I put a computer next to it and connect via ethernet ports. I may also use the USB 3 port of the NAS. In this case, does it matter whether the HD is 5900RPM 64MB with Cache or 7200 RPM 128MB with Cache?

Also, for security, can I set up the NAS so that only my own personal desktop and laptop computers with the right password can access it?

 

[pldelisle]

does it matter whether the HD is 5900RPM 64MB with Cache or 7200 RPM 128MB with Cache?

Very little. I doubt you'll ever see the difference between both. Between 5900 and 7200 RPM you mainly gain on access time, which is not very crucial for your use case.

Also, for security, can I set up the NAS so that only my own personal desktop and laptop computers with the right password can access it?

I don't think you can configure MAC address filtering *on* the NAS. If so, I'm not aware of it on Synology. You only have a user account for authentication.

Considering price of HDDs, I would recommend you to get a DS720+ with 2x4TB in RAID 1 + 1x2TB external USB3to backup to NAS to. With this setup, you‘ll be good for a long, long time.

 

[hajime]

Considering price of HDDs, I would recommend you to get a DS720+ with 2x4TB in RAID 1 + 1x2TB external USB3to backup to NAS to. With this setup, you‘ll be good for a long, long time.

Thanks. DS720+ seems to be 2 bays just like the DS220+. How come Amazon lists it as 7 under Maximum Drive Bays with Expansion Unit? Is it expandability the reason you recommended it over the DS220+?

 

[hobowankenobi]

I don't think you can configure MAC address filtering *on* the NAS. If so, I'm not aware of it on Synology. You only have a user account for authentication.

A few ways to protect beyond simply password. One could go with a VPN, MAC filtering...typically on your router, or Synology offers two-factor authentication along with other strategies to minimize risk.

 

[pldelisle]

Thanks. DS720+ seems to be 2 bays just like the DS220+. How come Amazon lists it as 7 under Maximum Drive Bays with Expansion Unit? Is it expandability the reason you recommended it over the DS220+?

Yeah it can have an expansion unit connected with eSATA I think.

DS720+ Can also have SSD in it. Greater expandability. Would be my choice.

 

[HDFan]

Some QNAP NAS are powered by Annapurna Labs AL314 Quad-core CPU. How is that compared with the Intel Celeron CPU?

I would go with an Intel 64 bit chip if possible.

I don't think it really worth it to buy a NAS for 500 GB of data ...

Agree. A NAS is overkill for that amount of data. Just put it on a drive, attach it to your computer and share it to the other ones.

Also, for security, can I set up the NAS so that only my own personal desktop and laptop computers with the right password can access it?

Yes.

 

[hajime]

Yeah it can have an expansion unit connected with eSATA I think.

DS720+ Can also have SSD in it. Greater expandability. Would be my choice.

What is the model number of the expansion unit with eSATA? How is the total cost and performance of a DS720+ with the expansion unit vs. a 4-bay NAS, say DS420+?

I think nascompareguy on Youtube said that the SSD in DS720+ can only serve as a cache for the HDD. They cannot be used for storage. Also, he said that the DS220+ has a convenience button for saving data via usb3. Just pressing a safe button and backup is automatic. Does it work for all mobile devices and external drives? Too bad the DS420+ does not have this feature. He mentioned that the DS720+, 420+ and 220+ have only 1GbE and more models with 10 GbE would be out at the end of this year. Perhaps better to wait until BF in November?

 

[pldelisle]

What is the model number of the expansion unit with eSATA?

Easily findable on Synology website. There’s not a ton of expansion unit from synology.

How is the total cost and performance of a DS720+ with the expansion unit vs. a 4-bay NAS, say DS420+?

Probably higher. You can do the count yourself pretty easily.

I think nascompareguy on Youtube said that the SSD in DS720+ can only serve as a cache for the HDD. They cannot be used for storage.

After verification, yes, he’s right. I thought they could be used for storage. But that’s weird that it can’t....

Also, he said that the DS220+ has a convenience button for saving data via usb3. Just pressing a safe button and backup is automatic. Does it work for all mobile devices and external drives? Too bad the DS420+ does not have this feature.

Useless feature. Your backup to the external usb drive will be setup once and will be automatic and periodic. No need of a button to do this. It can be setup in the web interface very easily.

He mentioned that the DS720+, 420+ and 220+ have only 1GbE and more models with 10 GbE would be out at the end of this year. Perhaps better to wait until BF in November?

If you really need for more than 125MB/s and have 10gbps home networking, yes. Otherwise, no.

 

[hajime]

Easily findable on Synology website. There’s not a ton of expansion unit from synology.



Probably higher. You can do the count yourself pretty easily.


After verification, yes, he’s right. I thought they could be used for storage. But that’s weird that it can’t....


Useless feature. Your backup to the external usb drive will be setup once and will be automatic and periodic. No need of a button to do this. It can be setup in the web interface very easily.



If you really need for more than 125MB/s and have 10gbps home networking, yes. Otherwise, no.

Yes, buying that expansion unit is more expansive than buying a 4-bay NAS initially. From user reviews, it looks like the expansion unit is also slower.

If SSD could be used for storage, it would be more desirable.