Gus TO

Q: OS X Server and File Sharing

I work on two different computers and end up with half the files on one machine (Mac Pro) and the other half on the other (MacBook Pro). I have to regularly transfer recent files I’ve created or worked on, moving them from MBP to MP using a USB stick. This is tedious.

I understand I could turn on file sharing on both machines and establish a shared folder for both computers.

The problem is you have to establish a specific shared folder and manage the files that go into this folder at each end. This strikes me as also tedious.

 

My goal is to establish the Mac Pro as the location where all files reside, but have full access to all files on both machines. I want to be able to read, write and save changes for individual files from both machines.

 

It is my understanding to accomplish what I want I need to install OS X Server.

 

Questions:

1) Will installing OS X Server allow me to do what I want, or is there a simpler solution?

2) Can this be done wirelessly or do I need to run the server hard wired through the router?

3) Do both computers need to be running the same OS, for example, 10.10.5?

4) After setting up the Mac Pro as the server are there any limitations or shortcomings that this creates when using the Mac Pro.

5) Why do people talk about establishing a dedicated server on a hard drive or larger RAID enclosure, is that simply to provider access to a larger storage location, and faster transfer speeds in the case of a RAID setup?

 

Thanks for your guidance.

 

Gus

MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Mid 2014), OS X Yosemite (10.10.5), 16 GB RAM

Posted on May 16, 2016 1:47 PM

Close

Q: OS X Server and File Sharing

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

  • by Strontium90,

    Strontium90 Strontium90 May 16, 2016 2:50 PM in response to Gus TO
    Level 5 (4,077 points)
    Servers Enterprise
    May 16, 2016 2:50 PM in response to Gus TO

    Is this a business or home network?  If a business, I recommend a dedicated server that is not a user's workstation.  Workstations get rebooted, sleep, and are beholden to the user's will.  A dedicated server can be left alone and just operate.

     

    How much data are you working with?  What file types are you using?

     

    That being said, here are some thoughts on your questions.  I am assuming this is a home or very small business solution. 

     

    1:  Will installing OS X Server allow me to do what I want, or is there a simpler solution?

    Yes, but you can also use personal file sharing which is on all Macs and does not require the purchase of OS X Server.  If you are truly supporting a single client (assuming the other is also acting as the server) you will be server fine with personal file sharing.  This is enabled in System Preferences > Sharing.  But, I am a purist so I don't believe a workstation should act as a server.  Some other options you might want to consider is the purchase of a dedicated server, a NAS device, or possibly a cloud solution such as DropBox.  If you got the route of creating a server (off existing hardware, dedicated Mac server, or NAS) you remain at risk because you have not implemented a backup solution.  The cloud sync offerings, especially for small data sets and teams, provides versioning and separation of data from physical location.

     

    2:  Can this be done wirelessly or do I need to run the server hard wired through the router?

    For best performance, the server should be wired to your LAN.  However, it "can" be done over wireless but you will experience issues overtime your wireless decides to go wonky.

     

    3:  Do both computers need to be running the same OS, for example, 10.10.5?

    No.  A "file server" can vend files to any device that can communicate with the file services protocol offered.  OS X can offer SMB, AFP, WebDAV, and NFS.  This allows for support of a wide range of OSes and OS versions.

     

    4:  After setting up the Mac Pro as the server are there any limitations or shortcomings that this creates when using the Mac Pro.

    Using a workstation as a server can cause issues as mentioned above.  Now, if you are the only "user" and you have multiple devices, then obviously you know when you are about to restart the server and can manage accordingly.  Also, for server to be setup properly, you should configure additional services that are outside your focus.  If you only plan to use File Sharing, then you can likely do fine without the other services. 

     

    5:  Why do people talk about establishing a dedicated server on a hard drive or larger RAID enclosure, is that simply to provider access to a larger storage location, and faster transfer speeds in the case of a RAID setup?

    All of these reasons and more.  A dedicated server and dedicated storage adds resiliency and often flexibility to your deployment.  Let's take a simple example of a Mac Pro used as a server.  (I am assuming this is a canister Mac Pro not a tower).  Assuming you maxed the unit out a 1 TB, you are looking at a device with no removable (or movable) storage.  Should something go wrong with the host (the Mac Pro) your data is trapped inside the device.  Depending on what Apple decides to replace, that data may not come back.  So, having external storage (especially that is a RAID) means that if there is a problem with the host, the storage can be connected to something else and you continue to work.  Now, a note about RAID.  RAID is not backup.  RAID is redundancy.  Don't confuse the two and no matter what your solution don't forget to implement and TEST backup.  Now, how is RAID good?  If you are storing data on a RAID (mirror, 5, 6, etc) then you can lose a drive (or more) without losing data.  This is critical.  Drives fail.  Entrusting all your data to a single drive is asking to lose data.  Entrusting to 2 or more in a redundant configuration gives you a chance to recover from an independent failure.  As mentioned, RAIDs also provide greater capacity.  A single drive is topping out at about 8TB (12 TB if you have deep pockets).  But a RAID can be 40 or more depending on the case and drive size.  Just remember, larger data set, larger backup set.  Plan accordingly.

     

    Hope this helps get the thought process going.  OS X Server is a capable product but if you are looking to solve a problem for one person with two machines, it may be a little too much.  Sort of a swiss army knife when you really just need a pen knife. 

     

    Reid

    Apple Consultants Network

    Author - "El Capitan Server – Foundation Services"

    Author - "El Capitan Server – Control & Collaboration"

    Author - "El Capitan Server – Advanced Services"

    :: Exclusively available in Apple's iBooks Store

  • by woodmeister50,

    woodmeister50 woodmeister50 May 17, 2016 4:30 AM in response to Gus TO
    Level 5 (5,510 points)
    Mac OS X
    May 17, 2016 4:30 AM in response to Gus TO

    You may want to consider keeping and working on files locally on each machine

    and use some synchronization app to keep things in sync between them.  There are

    many available that can be set up in a variety of ways.

     

    I suggest this because I have been burned working on files over a network in

    a variety of ways.


    Also, always a good idea to have multiple copies of work files rather than depend on

    a single copy, i.e. backup.

  • by Gus TO,

    Gus TO Gus TO May 17, 2016 8:44 AM in response to Strontium90
    Level 1 (13 points)
    Servers Enterprise
    May 17, 2016 8:44 AM in response to Strontium90

    Reid thanks very much for your thorough reply.

     

    You have answered a number of key questions on Servers that I've found difficult to get clear answers on.

    As you may have gleaned, I'm still in the information gathering stage.

    If I keep my goal narrow, working on a limited number of primarily text files on two machines, it looks like using personal file sharing would keep things simple.

    While prudence suggests keeping things simple is the best practice, my inclination seldom leads me down the easier path.

     

    I still need to decide on a global strategy for all my needs. My primary work is in video and still photo. I am the only one using the machines I have, which includes an aging Mac Pro (Tower) a newish MacBook Pro, and an old iMac, dedicated to file transfers and backups, including raw HDs, Blu-rays and DVDs.

     

    Currently I have a RAID (5) drive (8 TB) dedicated to video editing. At the same time I have a dedicated internal HD (1 TB) for photo editing, enhancements, and external HDs (4 TB) used for photo storage.

    I have established a robust backup strategy, with multiple copies of all material on and off site.

     

    Keeping video and photo separate has worked well for me up to this point, but I can see there would be advantages to establishing a Server to have access to all files all the time. My concern is I don't want to spend too much time setting up, managing and trouble shooting a Server, when my current setup works.

    Because my video/photo file volume and size is large I don't see using a cloud solution, since my ISP can only provide about .8 Mbps upload speed for my residential location, which is useless.

    In addition I have security concerns with cloud based storage, not so much with video and photo files but personal documents. I keep my personal data, including banking and financial files offline most of the time, and only access them when updating.

     

    Thanks again for your help. I expect I will be back in the future with a few more detailed followup questions once I process all the info I've been gathering.

     

    Best,

     

    Gus TO

  • by Gus TO,

    Gus TO Gus TO May 17, 2016 9:02 AM in response to woodmeister50
    Level 1 (13 points)
    Servers Enterprise
    May 17, 2016 9:02 AM in response to woodmeister50

    woodmeister50 - thanks for suggesting I look at file synchronization apps.

     

    For security reasons I prefer to keep inside a closed system, so using a non cloud based app has appeal.

     

    My cursory look into those type of apps reveals some possible pitfalls.

    One synchronization app, AeroFS, note on their website that “residential internet providers can sometimes interfere with email delivery from inside the AeroFS Appliance”. Have you experienced problems with this issue.

     

    BitTorrent Sync looks like another option some have used with success.

    This does not appear to be a mainstream product, and I have concerns regarding their lack of tech support or a comprehensive manual for setting up and using this app.

     

    Is there one you have used with satisfaction?

     

    Thanks

     

    Gus TO

  • by woodmeister50,Helpful

    woodmeister50 woodmeister50 May 18, 2016 7:02 AM in response to Gus TO
    Level 5 (5,510 points)
    Mac OS X
    May 18, 2016 7:02 AM in response to Gus TO

    There are several that are not cloud based and only work within a network.

    Chronosync is a popular and reliable one.  The one I currently use is GoodSync.

    These can be set up to do periodic synchronization or can be done manually.

    They can also be used to via built in OS X scheduling to sync on boot and shut down.

     

    I'm not sure about Chronosync, but I know that Goodsync can also be set up to sync

    with off site FTP servers.  This last feature may be useful for off-site, non-cloud based

    backup and usually more secure.

     

    I can seem to find it, but there is also another one that works like the common

    cloud type services but does not use any cloud based service and is strictly local.

  • by Gus TO,

    Gus TO Gus TO May 18, 2016 7:07 AM in response to woodmeister50
    Level 1 (13 points)
    Servers Enterprise
    May 18, 2016 7:07 AM in response to woodmeister50

    Thanks for your help. I will look into using GoodSync.

  • by woodmeister50,

    woodmeister50 woodmeister50 May 18, 2016 8:20 AM in response to Gus TO
    Level 5 (5,510 points)
    Mac OS X
    May 18, 2016 8:20 AM in response to Gus TO

    You can test it out and also use Goodsync free, though the free part is pretty limited

    compared to the paid version.