NAS Choice and Configuration Options

[franksr]

I recently discovered this forum and am hoping for advice on updating my current NAS setup. I'm computer literate but generally muddle my way through network issues. I have a ZyXel NSA-220 configured in RAID 1 with two 640GB Seagate hard drives. I've used it for a few years with no issues and am happy with it. I primarily used it to rip my many CD's to FLAC and transcoded them to Apple Lossless and MP4 for use on a Sony MP3 player. My trusty IBM T40P laptop died after 9 1/2 years of faithful service and I bought a MacBook Pro (never thought I'd say this but I love it!). I'd like to also use my NAS for Time Machine and normal backups, preferably over Wi-Fi in the background. The NSA-220 isn't Time Machine compatible so I've been looking for an alternative. I'm retired so bang for buck is important but I want quality hardware. I prefer supplying my own disk drives.

Would a two bay NAS with removable drives set up as independent volumes be the way to go? It seems I could then duplicate the drive and remove one to store in my safe. If this is the way to go, what would be a cost-effective recommendation? Although really more than I'd like to spend, I like the specs of the QNAP TS-219P II and the new TS-221. Alternatively, to maybe save some money what do you think about a single drive NAS backed up to an external USB drive? What about the ZyXel NSA-325 backed up to an external USB drive? I do prefer a low maintenance solution.

I'd like to continue using my Seagate 640GB drives for a while. I'm guessing the RAID 1 drives would have to be reformatted to be used as separate volumes and I don't know how I would do that. Would the drives just drop in another ZyXel NAS and work without having to be reformatted? Would the drives drop into a QNAP NAS and continue working? I have nowhere to back up that much data so I could reconfigure the drives.

Any advice and recommendations are welcome. The more I look the more confused I become. . .

 

[thiggins]

In general, you can't move drives from one NAS make/model to another without reformatting / reinitializing. You might luck out moving between say, the two ZyXELs you mention, but don't count on it. You'll need to back up your data first.

As long as the NAS you choose supports individual drive volumes (both QNAP and Synology do) you can do as you suggest. Be warned, however, that the SATA connectors in the NAS backplane are not designed for a lot of use. You could run into connection problems down the road. When, I don't know.

Backup to USB external drive is also an option, it will just be slower that using the internal SATA connection.

QNAPs and Synologys are premium priced because they have way more features than you want. Many NASes support Time machine backup including the NSA-325.

 

[franksr]

Follow-up questions

Thank you so much for your quick response. It's much appreciated. I do have a couple of follow-up questions.

Are all backplanes not designed for lots of use or just the more budget priced models? It seem counterintuitive that they are designed to be removed and not beefy enough to support the process.

It seems the ZyXel NSA-325 might be the way to go. I could buy it and an external USB drive for less money than just the QNAP alone. Plus, I might luck out and the drives work in the new box without much fuss. If not, would I just do a straight copy of my data from my NSA-220 to the new USB drive, remove the two drives and install them in the NSA-325, reformat them, and then copy my data back from the USB drive to the reformatted drives?

 

[thiggins]

Are all backplanes not designed for lots of use or just the more budget priced models? It seem counterintuitive that they are designed to be removed and not beefy enough to support the process.

It is the design of the connector itself, which is the same on all models with removable drives.
NASes with removable drives are not designed for the usage model you intend. It is not a typical process where a multi-bay NAS is run with drives as individual volumes and one backing up to another.

Removable drives are a convenience for drive replacement when a drive fails in a RAID configuration without having to shut down the NAS.

It seems the ZyXel NSA-325 might be the way to go. I could buy it and an external USB drive for less money than just the QNAP alone. Plus, I might luck out and the drives work in the new box without much fuss. If not, would I just do a straight copy of my data from my NSA-220 to the new USB drive, remove the two drives and install them in the NSA-325, reformat them, and then copy my data back from the USB drive to the reformatted drives?

That would be a better way to go.

 

[franksr]

Decided on. . .

Thank you very much for the info. I've decided to go with the Qnap TS-121 and a Western Digital 1TB My Passport for Mac. I believe the Qnap likely offers better quality and support with more configuration options over the ZyXel for a little more money. This setup leaves one of my 640GB drives as a spare and adds the portability of a USB drive. $309.56 delivered. Should suit my needs perfectly. Thanks again!

 

[stevech]

you should compare QNAP to Synology. They are each near-equals.

 

[TonyH]

Hi,
As a first timer using real NAS, Synology was easier to learn/handle in my case. Now I am all set with DS713+/DX213 combo and another USB drive enclosure as a back up to back up of critical stuffs.

 

[franksr]

Stevech, thank you for the advice. I'll continue looking at Synology but, so far, I believe I prefer the Qnap. With them being somewhat similar it will come down to the interface software and the actual look of the box itself. I like the look of the new QTS 4.0 operating system. I may wait a while to see if the price drops below retail. Any thoughts on how long it might be before we start seeing the Qnap discounted?

 

[franksr]

TonyH, thank you for your reply. I previously set up my current ZyXel NAS and there was certainly a learning curve since I was totally new to networking. However, with some experience and time on my hands since I'm retired now I don't mind learning a more complex device. I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[stevech]

I buy most stuff from Newegg. Rarely someone will beat their prices, but on average, and avoiding flakey vendors, I like them and they are super fast.

 

[franksr]

More Questions

Well, I continued my research and decided to buy the Synology DS-213. It looks like a killer box and I really like the software. Then, I ran across the following posts, among others, stating there are file problems between the MacIntosh file system and the EXT4 system on both the QNAP and Synology NAS's. The QNAP also does EXT3 internally but I don't know if this would make a difference as far as file compatibility. I noted that the QNAP does HFS+ externally whereas the Synology doesn't. I don't want to edit file names, create disk images, etc. I want a system that doesn't require unnecessary fiddling and wasting of my time. It's looking more and more like there isn't an easy solution. Could someone please provide guidance and possible solutions to this issue?

funky_pat
Re: Best MAC compatible NAS device?
Feb 28, 2012 7:17 AM (in response to Laplace)
From my brief experience with Synology, I would like to elaborate on something Laplace noted.
*
Synology is not Mac-friendly. It is the antithesis of Mac-friendly if only for one reason:
*
The ext4 file system.
*
The ext4 file system disallows particular file name character combinations to the extent that many files on an HFS+ file system (i.e. Mac's) simply cannot be transferred onto the device.
*
Including, but not limited to, ANY invisible Mac file. Or any file with an underscore at the beginning. And the list goes on.
*
Why custom partitioning is not allowed is a mystery to me. If there is no way around the issue, it's a bad system for Macs, period. Anyone who tells you otherwise probably doesn't use NAS for network file storage and sharing, which is supposed to be any NAS's main job.
*
In summary, Synology and Mac, as they currently stand, do not mix well.
*
Not to mention, file names with underscores at the beginning, etc., are not too uncommon on NTFS file sytems either (i.e. Windows'). So Windows users should keep an eye out as well.


funky_pat
Feb 28, 2012 2:16 AM
Hi, when trying to transfer .band files or various other Mac-related files to an ext4 file system (for an NAS), an error message appears noting that the files could not be copied due to unallowed characters - e.g. a period or underscore at the beginning of a file name, etc. Please help.
Safari 5, Mac OS X (10.5.8), 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo


Niel 
Re: Transfer .band files to an ext4 file system. A discrepancy in allowed file name characters is being a culprit. Please help. 
Feb 28, 2012 9:16 AM (in response to funky_pat) 
You can't put a file with a name containing ASCII character 0 or a / on an ext4 drive. If you can't edit those out of the names, use the Disk Utility in the /Applications/Utilities/ folder to create a disk image, copy the files to it, and then copy the image file there.

 

[stevech]

the interoperability among file systems - Windows NTFS, FAT16, FAT32, Linux/BSD (Apple) Extfs, et al, is via each computer or NAS and its SMB (SAMBA) file sharing capability. This "hides" the file system time. THere are some issues, such as FAT 32 does not have all the date/time modified and so on that all other file systems have, nor does FAT support essentially unlimited file sizes.

But NTFS and Linux file systems are fine.

I read that lots of people use MACs with NASes like Synology. I use an Android tablet with a file system browser on Android.

Apple tends to dumb-down things where it's difficult for techies to configure things to work with non-Apple hardware - this happens for WiFi and file sharing, Windows/NAS etc. But it can work.

 

[franksr]

Stevech, thank you for the reply. This is all quite confusing but I think I understand most of what you're saying. As I understand it, I'll likely run into some Mac file system incompatibility no matter which NAS I decide on (except for perhaps the Apple Time Capsule, which I'm not interested in). Per Qnap's & Synology's specifications, is one brand inherently more compatible with Mac than the other? I'm particularly concerned about the statement that, "many files on an HFS+ file system (i.e. Mac's) simply cannot be transferred onto the device." It seems that would be a point of great concern.

 

[stevech]

Stevech, thank you for the reply. This is all quite confusing but I think I understand most of what you're saying. As I understand it, I'll likely run into some Mac file system incompatibility no matter which NAS I decide on (except for perhaps the Apple Time Capsule, which I'm not interested in). Per Qnap's & Synology's specifications, is one brand inherently more compatible with Mac than the other? I'm particularly concerned about the statement that, "many files on an HFS+ file system (i.e. Mac's) simply cannot be transferred onto the device." It seems that would be a point of great concern.

I would not worry. The statement "FHS+ file systems... cannot be transferred.." - makes no sense. Individual files are transferred using the SMB standard that all computers, Apple/BSD included.

To confirm, call Synology or QNAP sales or tech support and ask. Once and only once, I called Synology with a newbie question - got a fast answer by an English-speaking person, and it took like 2 minutes.

Apple has to support SMB properly, to talk to Windows PCs and servers. So do NASes.

I use the Time Backup on the synology - to keep all file versions in a large set of shared folders, for many months. A few times, it saved my buns when I hosed up a file.

 

[franksr]

After much research and decision-making I ordered a Synology DS-213 yesterday. I want to thank everyone for the guidance provided as it's been very helpful. No doubt, I'll be back here in the future for further assistance. Thanks again!

 

[stevech]

you probably know about the forum
http://forum.synology.com/enu/index.php