I see very few advantages to storing pictures (or libraries) on a Time Capsule. It's just a LOT slower than locally attached storage. Plus, it's tougher to back up.
Locally attached storage is BY FAR the best with Aperture from a performance and program reliability perspective. Use the fastest disk you can get.
An Aperture Library needs to be on a locally connected disk - Apple advises against network volumes of any kind, it is just not supported, see:
I understand that in order to RUN Aperture, the Library MUST be stored on a Mac OS Extended (Journaled) drive.
But what about backing up the Library?
I am currently backing up to multiple attached drives and also to a DroboPro, but was planning on adding a remote NAS (preferably the Synology DS713+, but if there is a solution that is more suitable to the Mac, I'd like to know about it.)
This is basically for an added level of safety to my backup strategy, and it is not my plan to ever launch the Aperture library from the NAS. (I'll be keeping it in another state, and will access over high speed internet connection.)
Will I even be able to write the Aperture Library to the Synology volume?
I have a Synology DiskStation DS413 running DSM 4.1-2668 sharing and mounted by Mountain Lion thru 1G switch network. I did a simple test as below, and it works fine.
(My photos in this testing aperture project already point to the same DSM mounted disk.)
1. Copy (rsync -av) local Aperture project to the DSM shared networked disk.
2. Open Aperture, File -> Switch to Library -> choose project on the DSM mounted folder.
3. Press 'N' to use face detection and add names on some pictures.
4. Close project which opened from DSM mounted folder.
5. Rsync -av "DSM aperture project folder" "My MBP local disk (~/Pictures/)"
6. Open Aperture, File -> Switch to Library -> choose project on my local disk (~/Pictures/).
7. Check the face name I just added, and those pictures still have names I just added.
It seems that the Aperture handle the project library based on file level and xml definiation, so that it , perhaps, still works. But I DONOT promise putting Aperture project file on mounted NAS disk has no problem at all, although Apple says that it won't work.
Of course, networked project solution is a little bit slow than local disk when I do the previewing photos and saving project. But if You have a MBP, a iMac and a NAS at your home, putting aperture library and photos in mounted NAS could be great when you want to edit your photos in both MBP and iMac.
So, now the question is who do we trust? Your simple test or the developer's advice
That's the advice of the people who actually made the application.
But unless I'm mistaken that would mean mounting the Disk Image each time you want to write to it. My Library is about 100GB (that's without the masters, which are Referenced), way too big to mount over the internet....
By using a non-Mac OS X Extended formatetd drive you are risking to corrupt your library; wrong references to files, conflicting filenames.
And by using a network connection you are loosing performance. I keep my Aperture Library on the internal SSD and really enjoy the increased processing speed and barely noticable response time. In combination with my 16GB RAM I now can finally work efficiently even with very large scans.
A second problem with network based access may be that database transactions may be interrupted by transmission errors. This may also cause a corruption of the library. From the fact that the support article does recommend locally connected volumes for Aperture databases I infer, that Aperture is not protected against interrupted database transactions.