NAS for Macs?

>> I have several Macs and want to use an NAS (network attached storage) to
>> access my movies and music from any of them - any recommendations?
>
> In all seriousness, you might consider a mini or a Cube plus an external
> FireWire drive. I haven't looked recently, but I'd be surprised if Cubes
> are terribly expensive on the used market. They used to go for more than
> what a new mini 3x the speed does now. I'm not sure if the presentation
> has enough cachet to make up for that.

Thanks but what would be the point of that? I already have 7 Macs. An NAS
*IS* an external harddisk with network port so you can just put it on and
access it from all your computers on a local network (or even remotely via
FTP).

Markus
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs? 

We tried a TeraStation from buffalo. In Raid-5 mode, it was
distressingly slow - 12MB/s over SAMBA - but it does work. We are using
it to distribute our indexed GenBank database for our GenBankInABox
product.

If you decide against it based on speed, let Buffalo know that this was
a problem.

Scott

--
Scott Ellsworth
scott DeleteThis @alodar.nospam.com
Java and database consulting for the life sciences
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs? 

> We tried a TeraStation from buffalo. In Raid-5 mode, it was
> distressingly slow - 12MB/s over SAMBA - but it does work. We are using
> it to distribute our indexed GenBank database for our GenBankInABox
> product.
>
> If you decide against it based on speed, let Buffalo know that this was
> a problem.

Thanks! That's the kind of advice I'm looking for :-)

Markus
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs? 

In article ,
Scott Ellsworth wrote:

> We tried a TeraStation from buffalo. In Raid-5 mode, it was
> distressingly slow - 12MB/s over SAMBA - but it does work. We are using
> it to distribute our indexed GenBank database for our GenBankInABox
> product.

How is 12MBytes per second "distressingly slow". A 100Base-T network's
maximum bandwidth is 100/8 = 12.5Mbytes per second.

>
> If you decide against it based on speed, let Buffalo know that this was
> a problem.
>
> Scott

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs? 

In article ,
Markus wrote:

> >> I have several Macs and want to use an NAS (network attached storage) to
> >> access my movies and music from any of them - any recommendations?
> >
> > In all seriousness, you might consider a mini or a Cube plus an external
> > FireWire drive. I haven't looked recently, but I'd be surprised if Cubes
> > are terribly expensive on the used market. They used to go for more than
> > what a new mini 3x the speed does now. I'm not sure if the presentation
> > has enough cachet to make up for that.
>
> Thanks but what would be the point of that? I already have 7 Macs. An NAS
> *IS* an external harddisk with network port so you can just put it on and
> access it from all your computers on a local network (or even remotely via
> FTP).

Well, no. An NAS is a dedicated (typically embedded) computer that has a
network connection and makes storage available to other machines on the
network.

The point of getting one of the smaller Macs to serve that purpose is
that you get a pretty fair guarantee that any network file system you'd
like to use from your "real use" machines is going to be fully supported
by your NAS host.

--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs? 

"Gregory Weston" wrote in message

> In article ,
> Markus wrote:
>
> > >> I have several Macs and want to use an NAS (network attached storage)
to
> > >> access my movies and music from any of them - any recommendations?
> > >
> > > In all seriousness, you might consider a mini or a Cube plus an
external
> > > FireWire drive. I haven't looked recently, but I'd be surprised if
Cubes
> > > are terribly expensive on the used market. They used to go for more
than
> > > what a new mini 3x the speed does now. I'm not sure if the
presentation
> > > has enough cachet to make up for that.
> >
> > Thanks but what would be the point of that? I already have 7 Macs. An
NAS
> > *IS* an external harddisk with network port so you can just put it on
and
> > access it from all your computers on a local network (or even remotely
via
> > FTP).
>
> Well, no. An NAS is a dedicated (typically embedded) computer that has a
> network connection and makes storage available to other machines on the
> network.
>

That's what he said. NAS boxes are really small now.

> The point of getting one of the smaller Macs to serve that purpose is
> that you get a pretty fair guarantee that any network file system you'd
> like to use from your "real use" machines is going to be fully supported
> by your NAS host.
>

NFS, AFP, SMB, FTP, SFTP, HTTP, what more do you need? If they're not out
yet they will be soon, harddrives with an ethernet port or wifi link and an
embedded OS running the aforementioned protocols. I know there are network
drives with AFP, SMB, HTTP and FTP now.

Greg
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs? 

In article ,
Alan Baker wrote:

> In article ,
> Scott Ellsworth wrote:
>
> > We tried a TeraStation from buffalo. In Raid-5 mode, it was
> > distressingly slow - 12MB/s over SAMBA - but it does work. We are using
> > it to distribute our indexed GenBank database for our GenBankInABox
> > product.
>
> How is 12MBytes per second "distressingly slow". A 100Base-T network's
> maximum bandwidth is 100/8 = 12.5Mbytes per second.

This was on gigabit. An SMB share from a dual G5 on the same network
ran at over 25MB/s reliably, and would often stay near 30MB/s.

Terastation write speeds are somewhat worse: ~8MB/s on the same gigabit
network, where the G5s did not slow down noticeably on writes at all.
(Of course, there is RAID-5 write overhead, but still...)

Direct from Buffalo support:
TeraStation (10/100):
Upload Speed - 4.1 MB / sec
Download Speed - 7.8 MB / sec

TeraStation (Gigabit):
Upload Speed - 5.4 MB / sec
Download Speed - 11.4 MB / sec


Scott

--
Scott Ellsworth
scott RemoveThis @alodar.nospam.com
Java and database consulting for the life sciences
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs? 

In article ,
"G.T." wrote:

> > > Thanks but what would be the point of that? I already have 7 Macs.
> > > An NAS *IS* an external harddisk with network port so you can just
> > > put it on and access it from all your computers on a local network
> > > (or even remotely via FTP).
> >
> > Well, no. An NAS is a dedicated (typically embedded) computer that has a
> > network connection and makes storage available to other machines on the
> > network.
>
> That's what he said.

If you ignore the "computer" part of it. I tend to think that the logic
and the communication protocols are a fairly important part of the
device.


> NAS boxes are really small now.

Um. Yeah. They have been for quite some time. Why do you mention it?


> > The point of getting one of the smaller Macs to serve that purpose is
> > that you get a pretty fair guarantee that any network file system you'd
> > like to use from your "real use" machines is going to be fully supported
> > by your NAS host.
>
> NFS, AFP, SMB, FTP, SFTP, HTTP, what more do you need?

The key phrase in my response justifying the suggestion that maybe a
small machine with an external drive was worth looking at for this
purpose is "fully supported" and ...

> If they're not out
> yet they will be soon, harddrives with an ethernet port or wifi link and an
> embedded OS running the aforementioned protocols. I know there are network
> drives with AFP, SMB, HTTP and FTP now.

.... I'd expect someone maintaining a network that's apparently Mac-only
(thus far) to be fairly interested in AFP in particular. How many of the
turnkey devices available today have a complete and modern AFP
implementation? How much do they cost?

--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs? 

"Gregory Weston" wrote in message

> In article ,
> "G.T." wrote:
>
> > > > Thanks but what would be the point of that? I already have 7 Macs.
> > > > An NAS *IS* an external harddisk with network port so you can just
> > > > put it on and access it from all your computers on a local network
> > > > (or even remotely via FTP).
> > >
> > > Well, no. An NAS is a dedicated (typically embedded) computer that has
a
> > > network connection and makes storage available to other machines on
the
> > > network.
> >
> > That's what he said.
>
> If you ignore the "computer" part of it. I tend to think that the logic
> and the communication protocols are a fairly important part of the
> device.

I still don't understand where you're coming from. The other person said
"An NAS *IS* an external harddisk with network port so you can just put it
on and access it from all your computers on a local network." Whether it's
a full-size computer with storage and network connectivity, or a harddisk
with a network port and minimal file sharing protocols, it's still Network
Attached Storage. We've tested at least 20 different vendors' NAS boxes
over the last year and they all basically are disks with network
connectivity, whether in a 6"x6"x2" package, a 12"x8"x10" toaster, or a 1U
rack system.

>
>
> > NAS boxes are really small now.
>
> Um. Yeah. They have been for quite some time. Why do you mention it?
>

Because you seem to think that the embedded systems in ethernet harddisks
aren't computers.

>
> > > The point of getting one of the smaller Macs to serve that purpose is
> > > that you get a pretty fair guarantee that any network file system
you'd
> > > like to use from your "real use" machines is going to be fully
supported
> > > by your NAS host.
> >
> > NFS, AFP, SMB, FTP, SFTP, HTTP, what more do you need?
>
> The key phrase in my response justifying the suggestion that maybe a
> small machine with an external drive was worth looking at for this
> purpose is "fully supported" and ...
>
> > If they're not out
> > yet they will be soon, harddrives with an ethernet port or wifi link and
an
> > embedded OS running the aforementioned protocols. I know there are
network
> > drives with AFP, SMB, HTTP and FTP now.
>
> ... I'd expect someone maintaining a network that's apparently Mac-only
> (thus far) to be fairly interested in AFP in particular. How many of the
> turnkey devices available today have a complete and modern AFP
> implementation? How much do they cost?
>

I don't know how complete of an AFP v3.x implementation is contained in the
LaCie Ethernet Disk mini but I'm sure it will be of interest to most Mac
admins.

Greg
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs? 

In article ,
"G.T." wrote:

> I still don't understand where you're coming from. The other person said
> "An NAS *IS* an external harddisk with network port so you can just put it
> on and access it from all your computers on a local network." Whether it's
> a full-size computer with storage and network connectivity, or a harddisk
> with a network port and minimal file sharing protocols, it's still Network
> Attached Storage.

I think we've gotten off-track here. The OP asked for NAS solutions. I
offered one viable option and was challenged for relevance. I answered
that challenge. The wording of the challenge, and the fact that it came
at all, was such that I believed it was possible that the OP didn't
really understand what a functioning NAS solution would consist of so I
included that information in the response to the challenge.


> > > NAS boxes are really small now.
> >
> > Um. Yeah. They have been for quite some time. Why do you mention it?
>
> Because you seem to think that the embedded systems in ethernet harddisks
> aren't computers.

Considering the fact that I specifically mentioned embedded computers, I
wonder how you came to that conclusion.


> I don't know how complete of an AFP v3.x implementation is contained in the
> LaCie Ethernet Disk mini but I'm sure it will be of interest to most Mac
> admins.

That is an interesting looking drive that I hadn't previously heard of
and I'll be somewhat interested to see early reviews on it when it
ships. I'd be more than somewhat interested, but LaCie's support has
been miserable in my experience.

--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs? 

* Scott Ellsworth , 2005-07-13 23:47 +0200:
> In article ,
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > Scott Ellsworth wrote:
> >
> > > We tried a TeraStation from buffalo. In Raid-5 mode, it was
> > > distressingly slow - 12MB/s over SAMBA - but it does work. We are using
> > > it to distribute our indexed GenBank database for our GenBankInABox
> > > product.
> >
> > How is 12MBytes per second "distressingly slow". A 100Base-T network's
> > maximum bandwidth is 100/8 = 12.5Mbytes per second.
>
> This was on gigabit. An SMB share from a dual G5 on the same network
> ran at over 25MB/s reliably, and would often stay near 30MB/s.
>
> Terastation write speeds are somewhat worse: ~8MB/s on the same gigabit
> network, where the G5s did not slow down noticeably on writes at all.
> (Of course, there is RAID-5 write overhead, but still...)
>
> Direct from Buffalo support:
> TeraStation (10/100):
> Upload Speed - 4.1 MB / sec
> Download Speed - 7.8 MB / sec
>
> TeraStation (Gigabit):
> Upload Speed - 5.4 MB / sec
> Download Speed - 11.4 MB / sec
>
>
> Scott

Scottt, in
comp.sys.mac.hardware.storage might be of interest to you (as far as
RAID speed is concerned).

HTH

-Andre
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs? 

Markus writes:

>> We tried a TeraStation from buffalo. In Raid-5 mode, it was
>> distressingly slow - 12MB/s over SAMBA - but it does work. We are using
>> it to distribute our indexed GenBank database for our GenBankInABox
>> product.
>>
>> If you decide against it based on speed, let Buffalo know that this was
>> a problem.
>
> Thanks! That's the kind of advice I'm looking for :-)

You may want to check out comp.arch.storage. There's probably a lot in
the archives as well.

Since OS X can support SMB/CIFS, NFS, and AFP you can probably use
whatever you want. You don't give much detail though: how many Macs?
how much storage are you using? how much storage will you need in
1/2/3 years? what is your budget? does it have to interface with an
authentication system?

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs? 

> Since OS X can support SMB/CIFS, NFS, and AFP you can probably use
> whatever you want. You don't give much detail though:

From all I've read over the last few days the Buffalo Linkstation seems to
be a good choice. Surprisingly some networked harddisks don't support Macs
(like the MaxtorShared Storage Drive).

Thanks

Markus
 >> Stay informed about: NAS for Macs?