Best way to share aperture library over network on two computers?

I was faced with a similar challenge when working with video. I frequently want to move from the Mac Pro to the MBP and continue working on a project. Final Cut does not support NAS either, only SAN. I have been experimenting with an iSCSI option and it seems to be working well "for me". I am using a Synology NAS which supports iSCSI SAN. I created the iSCSI volume on the Synology and "purchased iSCSI drivers. I have experimented with both ATTO and globalSAN drivers and both are working well. This solution allows me to mount the volume on either mac and work on the projects. I can easily unmount the volume and remount on the other mac in about 15 seconds. So far, everything works well and "I" have not lost any data. Just offering a possible alternative. I have NOT put my Aperture library on this solution, so you should investigate before trying it and have a backup. But I really enjoy the freedom of this solution more than lugging around an external drive. Also note that you should use a hard wired connection for iSCSI.

Why not store the photos on ext3 or ext4 partitions on a linux server and set up samba shares? Then use Finder - Go -Connect to Server to access the server shares.

Why not store the photos on ext3 or ext4 partitions on a linux server and set up samba shares? Then use Finder - Go -Connect to Server to access the server shares.

The Aperture Library needs to sit on a disk formatted Mac OS Extended.

Hi PTSaputo and Terence,

Why not store the photos on ext3 or ext4 partitions on a linux server and set up samba shares? Then use Finder - Go -Connect to Server to access the server shares.

The Aperture Library needs to sit on a disk formatted Mac OS Extended.

Terence is correct, that is indeed what Apple is recommanding.

Most (if not all) features supported by HFS (or HFS+) are also existing in ext4's Linux filesystem (actually ext4 is technically a much more modern and advanced file system than the outdated HFS(+)). So feature wise if Aperture library can reside on an HFS volume it could reside on an ext4 volume. However, one cannot speculate how the Aperture's developers have implemented the read/write mechanism for the Aperture library. And even though another filesystem could support this library, the software might not be able to store it properly.

And as you propose to share over Samba the volume, this is even more true. Depending on the Samba version (server or client), you might have or not support for advanced filesystem feature (such as metadata or symlinks/hardlinks, etc.) you would need to make sure that both the server and client support the right set of feature to be feature compatible with what the Aperture library requires. But as mentionned above this is no guarantee that the developers's implementation of the Aperture IO routines can take advantages of the proper features in the "filesystem" (Samba is then considered as the local filesystem) is it differs from HFS.

And even though another filesystem could support this library, the software might not be able to store it properly.

The software simply will refuse to do it. WHen I try to open an Aperture library on a Samba Share volume, I get this message in Aperture 3.4.5:

Aperture cannot switch to the ibrary, because the Filesystem is not supported.

I also had the same issue using a Synology Nas (using afp protocole to connect). Then I let my library on the Hard disk and transfer my projects from my MBA to Imac one by one upon my needs.

My originals are stored in the NAS without any issue up to now.

Can you explaine a little more your previous message in this post (10 nov. 2012 12:45) :

What does "but not keep the identity of the refernce files" means? Will it apply to a NAS configuration?

Ideally the library would be moved to a linux server. However, we achieve most of the objective if the photos are stored on a linux server and the library is stored locally. So long as the photos are set up as referenced, much of the goal can be accomplished - the bulk of the storage is not local. Only the referenced library is local.

Are we aware of any problems with this setup?

What does "but not keep the identity of the refernce files" means? Will it apply to a NAS configuration?

An Aperture library package contains many alias and references to other files and folders in the package. When you upload a library to Dropbox, it will create a copy on the server, with a different filesystem. And when you work with your local copy of the library, changes to individual files and folders will be synced to Dropbox, but it will not be synced consistently across all references in uploaded library. Meanwhile Dropbox has announced a beta release of the software that promises to sync iPhoto library correctly. So this might work with Aperture libraries as well.

The NAS does not sync but store remotely. The problems are different: An ancompatible filesystem, that may cause problems with files that cannot be written and database inconsistencies caused by transmission errors and broken database transactions. And you will need a very fast NAS; otherwise Aperture may be slow, if you have to access the database files inside your Library and not only the referenced originals across a network.

Aperture is already slow when the library is stored on the on the local driver!

Anyway, I understand that store the original in a NAS (Linux server?) but keep the library locally with referenced is safe and stable. 😀

I can continue to sleep well!

Thank you.

Aperture is not slow except when hardware is poorly chosen or improperly set up.

The big problem with Aperture is that it uses TinySQL for it's database. TinySQL databases isn't really meant to be shared among multiple users in parrallel. You can't have more than one person open/read/modify/write TinySQL databases at once.

Apple really needs to implement the Aperture database in a more robust database, such as MySQL, MariaDB, or PostGRES. At that point it would be possible for Aperture to have multiple users on different computers open up a shared database on a network server (or on a local computer).

It really shouldn't be too hard for Apple to convert to a more robust multi-user database though, as TinySQL is pretty much a subset of MySQL/MariaDB/PostGRES.

As a magazine, I need for dozen or so people to open up my single Aperture database at once, to operate in parrallel. Maybe the photographer imports the data from his computer onto a server, and other editors are reviewing photos seperately from their computers while reading from the main server.

Hi! I think your solution is the best. I try to do the same thing, but have a question: How to connect to iSCSI target? On Synology help page they use 14-day trial version of globalSAN iSCSI Initiator.

I believe there is should be some free option to connect iSCSI. How you connect it?