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.
Use oMP for storage for nMP
- Thread starter bomberaia
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you have a fast wired network ( 1GbE with associated cable and switches )?
Backs-ups going to complete sufficiently fast over a fast wired network?
If so could throw OS X server ( or just file sharing if it is just with the new system ) and let you old MP 1,1 'retire' to being a local server box. could consolidate local network Moving iTunes and media sharing work to this box also so the nMP doesn't have to host any bulky casual media files locally. Likewise can archive old projects that are not very active anymore here (and pick them back up from any local Mac if necessary).
A MP 1,1 100% purely doing file serving work to 1GbE network is a bit of overkill, but it is likely already paid for. [ can crank the network between the two MP's to 10GbE but on a slippery slope to an external storage solution just for nMP being about as cost effective if it is just a point-to-point link needed. ]
if need faster access to a much larger local storage ( DAS direct attached storage) then the MP 1,1 is not a good fit.
Look at a diskless Pegasus 2 R4. If you are OK with not running RAID it should be a simple transition from my understanding.
+1 - My RAID-5/50/6/60 arrays are on a controller with 8 GiB of hyper-capacitor backed cache memory. They're not much slower than RAID-0 on the same controller.
Software RAID-5 is as slow as molasses in a polar-vortex January for writes. (And if it isn't slow, it's probably doing unsafe writes that will destroy the volume if the power fails at the wrong time.)
An old Mac Pro will be a serviceable network attached storage device. With OS X Server it makes a pretty nice Time Machine target. The only real downside is the power draw is absurd compared to a more traditional NAS device like a Drobo or Synology. I put my retired 3,1 to service this way. If you can find some other things to do with it, it's not a totally dumb idea.
I'm also doing bonded GigE (utilizing both ports on the old Mac Pro and my new Mac Pro) which is novel but in practice not really that useful since you still really only get single GigE speeds for any one connection. It's fun for tinkering, though.
So, compared to a NAS it's not power efficient at all, it requires more administrative hassle and overhead, it's noisier, and takes a lot more space. It's a bit more flexible and can also be put to other uses if you can think of any.
Compared to a direct-attached device like the Pegasus, it's brutally slow -- but as you say that's not really a concern for some uses like Time Machine and iTunes Library storage. Plus all the downsides already mentioned. Upside over DAS is that I can put it in another room since Ethernet runs can be nice and long.
I'm also doing bonded GigE (utilizing both ports on the old Mac Pro and my new Mac Pro) which is novel but in practice not really that useful since you still really only get single GigE speeds for any one connection. It's fun for tinkering, though.
So, compared to a NAS it's not power efficient at all, it requires more administrative hassle and overhead, it's noisier, and takes a lot more space. It's a bit more flexible and can also be put to other uses if you can think of any.
Compared to a direct-attached device like the Pegasus, it's brutally slow -- but as you say that's not really a concern for some uses like Time Machine and iTunes Library storage. Plus all the downsides already mentioned. Upside over DAS is that I can put it in another room since Ethernet runs can be nice and long.
I wish more people could understand this. This is definitely one of those cases where 1 + 1 ≠ 2 as far as one client is concerned.