Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

dimme

macrumors 68040
Feb 14, 2007
3,264
32,144
SF, CA
An option for WD My Cloud users is to install Open Media volt on you device, I know some models support this and it is excellent software, but it may take a bit of tinkering to get it setup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay-Jacob

satcomer

Suspended
Feb 19, 2008
9,115
1,977
The Finger Lakes Region
Thanks. The video says you have to create a share first. That was exactly my question to FilipeTeixeira, whether they did this. The "out of the box" just made me curious...

Yes on Networked device you have to make a share a folder that Time Machine will see. Plus time Machine is basic backup software at best and you create a share first so Time Machine doesn't take over the whole NAS!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: halloleo

ShiggyMiyamoto

macrumors 6502a
Mar 29, 2004
620
31
Just outside Boston, MA.
TrueNAS if you want to control hardware and have great backup reliability.
You beat me to mentioning this haha. I've been running first FreeNAS and now TrueNAS for years now, and it has a slight but not impossible learning curve to set it all up... I love it. I echo the fact that it depends on what you wanna do with your NAS... I have mine setup as a network share and a Plex Media Server... its hardware isn't great (3rd Gen Core i7 with 32 GB of RAM and 8x4TB HDDs in essentially RAID 5; RAID Z1 is how TrueNAS classifies it) but it still slaps and does what I need it to do (playback media over the network locally and remotely) quite well. I don't have a lot of 4k content, but even 4k streams across any network I've thrown at it quite well for what it is. Content is totally watchable. With that said, pre-built NAS units like Synologies have their uses too for more streamlined/simple stuff... Building a computer for TrueNAS or similar is only really recommended for tinkerers or people that feel comfortable building computers like I am.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dimme

drsox

macrumors 68000
Apr 29, 2011
1,739
225
Xhystos
If fan noise is an issue for you then IME Synology is noisy. The front covers don't isolate the drive noise and the back fans are small. I tried a 2 drive version for a few weeks and then went back to Netgear. Isolated front covers, bigger fans (so run slower). Synology interface is nicer and slicker, but IME, one only uses it now and then. NASs are supposed to just run and not demand attention.

I'm using a pair of ReadyNAS 424s with 4TB WD Red drives.
 

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,952
17,447
If fan noise is an issue for you then IME Synology is noisy. The front covers don't isolate the drive noise and the back fans are small. I tried a 2 drive version for a few weeks and then went back to Netgear. Isolated front covers, bigger fans (so run slower). Synology interface is nicer and slicker, but IME, one only uses it now and then. NASs are supposed to just run and not demand attention.

I'm using a pair of ReadyNAS 424s with 4TB WD Red drives.

That's interesting.. I've never had a noise issue at all with my Synology. I would expect to have even more noise compared to newer models, as I have the DS213j, which is the 2013 model. It's been running for 9 years without any problems whatsoever, especially in regards to noise. This is the 2-drive model, which I have 2 3TB WE Red drives in it, which I slotted into it the day I bought the NAS. Those drives are running fine with no noise louder than the ambient noise in my office.

Which particular model of Synology were you using that you say was noisy?

BL.
 

drsox

macrumors 68000
Apr 29, 2011
1,739
225
Xhystos
That's interesting.. I've never had a noise issue at all with my Synology. I would expect to have even more noise compared to newer models, as I have the DS213j, which is the 2013 model. It's been running for 9 years without any problems whatsoever, especially in regards to noise. This is the 2-drive model, which I have 2 3TB WE Red drives in it, which I slotted into it the day I bought the NAS. Those drives are running fine with no noise louder than the ambient noise in my office.

Which particular model of Synology were you using that you say was noisy?

BL.

It was a Diskstation DS220+. Maybe it's the difference between my quiet room and your office. I found the Synology noise to come from the front as well as the back (my units backed onto an acoustically "bright" wall). So do my Netgears do also, but the fan runs slower. Perhaps it's personal noise tolerance as well (I used to build very very quiet PCs).

Also the hum from the Netgears is at a lower frequency than the Synology - can make a noticeable difference in annoyance.

Update : Just checked the data sheets. The Synology fan is 92mm. The Netgear is 120mm. This will give a real difference in perceived noise.
 
Last edited:

hajime

macrumors 604
Jul 23, 2007
7,921
1,310
If you have a Mini to spare, this is a pretty good option. If starting fresh and buying hardware, I still vote for the Synology. Main points:
  • Very cross-platform if you want to share with other devices (Win, iOS, Android, etc)

Is a Mac with smb file sharing enable less good in any way? I am still back and forth between the two options.

I cannot verify if Apple capped the smb data transfer speed as some mentioned.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dimme

dimme

macrumors 68040
Feb 14, 2007
3,264
32,144
SF, CA
Is a Mac with smb file sharing enable less good in any way? I am still back and forth between the two options.

I cannot verify if Apple capped the smb data transfer speed as some mentioned.
I have both a Mac mini server & Linux server (backup server). The smb transfer rates are pretty much the same. The same goes for transferring from Windows to the two machines.
 

hajime

macrumors 604
Jul 23, 2007
7,921
1,310
I have both a Mac mini server & Linux server (backup server). The smb transfer rates are pretty much the same. The same goes for transferring from Windows to the two machines.
At what rates are you getting?
 

hajime

macrumors 604
Jul 23, 2007
7,921
1,310
Having run Mac file servers since OS 9 days, I find Synology to be a better, easier, and more reliable system than Mac OS Server ever was regarding file permissions. A secondary Synology bonus is that both SMB and AFP (now finally retired...but still very useful on any Mac OS before 11) are fully functional and useful.

So SMB under MacOS is not fully functional? What is not functioning when comparing with Synology's SMB?
 

dimme

macrumors 68040
Feb 14, 2007
3,264
32,144
SF, CA
At what rates are you getting?
Ant were from 108 MB/s to 34 MB/s. I find it really depends what I am copying to the server. Here is what a copy of a bunch of different size files from my office backups to my linux server. The source files are from a USB drive connect to my Mac mini server.
SS trans.jpg
 

hajime

macrumors 604
Jul 23, 2007
7,921
1,310
Ant were from 108 MB/s to 34 MB/s. I find it really depends what I am copying to the server. Here is what a copy of a bunch of different size files from my office backups to my linux server. The source files are from a USB drive connect to my Mac mini server.
View attachment 2172486

Isn't this quite slow?
 

dimme

macrumors 68040
Feb 14, 2007
3,264
32,144
SF, CA
Isn't this quite slow?
At the present I am archiving many small files, so yes they take along time. But it does not matter for me I setup these copy jobs up on these two servers and come back in a day. If I have more I set up the next job. There is also a few other machines connected to the Mac mini backing up hourly and it also host Time Machine backups and a VM running my DNS, so there is a lot going on. All my equipment is 1GB.
SS2.jpg
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.