Which server/file protocol?

Question

Level 1

4 points

Which server/file protocol?

Hello

We're running currently a mac mini with a raided NAS as our office file server and the files are accessed over afp (all clients are macs). Since our starting hardware is starting to get old we need to replace our servers with newer ones soon. We work with lots of large files so cloud storages aren't an option.

Our business is growing and requirements for server performance are growing too. On the other hand Apple is running down afp and the Apple hardware availble nowadays isn't really that good for a server.

We've been thinking about migrating our servers to Windows and using smb. Now that I've done some research on subject it seems that smb has already been slow on OSX and latest OSs have been even slower. I did some speed tests with a windows desktop acting as a server with smb share and OSX 10.10.5 client: using smb, writing to a server disk is considerably slower compared to our current server.

So we'd like to get a new server with more realiable hardware and software than what Apple has to offer but we do not want to compromise with network performance.

What options do we have besides macOS+afp and Windows+smb?

Posted on Aug 1, 2017 4:14 AM

Reply

Answer 1

MattiHoo Author

Level 1

4 points

Nov 6, 2017 3:04 AM in response to Strontium90

Actually we have a really simple environment; ~20 users on 2 fileshares. Really straightforward access rights.

I've been thinking of ditching the Mac Mini connected to the NAS and replacing the current NAS (Promise Pegasus R6) with a more robust one like QNAP TVS871:

QNAP NAS can do afp sharing (and smb if needed) so why not? The filesharing would be handled on the NAS and it would be backed up offsite on its own versioning replication client. It would be simple in both good (simple and cost effective, easy to maintain) and bad (limited features, no 6h onsite warranty repairs) way but enough for our needs I'd say.

To me the idea seems really appealing since it's really simple and 2xNAS costs something around 4000–5000edepending on the disks used. Too good actually. Am I missing something?

Reply

Answer 2

Aug 1, 2017 11:49 PM in response to MattiHoo

I am no fan of SMB. Apple just can not get this right. Couple that with the continued deprecation of AFP and many of us are in a tough spot.

If you are going the Windows server route, I will encourage you to investigate Acronis File Connect. This used to be called ExtremeZ-IP. Think of this as a modern replacement for Services for Macintosh. It integrates into AD and kerberos on Windows and provides Spotlight-compatible search. Search is a huge issues with my customer so this product fits the bill for corporate locations that won't put a Mac mini in a data center. Plus, since it is a Windows server, we can benefit from all the existing infrastructure, like SANs, clustering, DFS, backup, etc.

Hope this helps. You are not alone going into this era of uncertainty, especially with the already revealed announcements for APFS and AFP.

What Apple seems to fail to realize is that they still have customers that use Macs and have a lot of data. I am not sure how they expect users of .PSB, video, and animation to use cloud solutions. Internet speeds are not fast enough to support these workflows nor is it cost effective (both from the data fees and from the lost time of waiting on uploads and downloads). Unless I support the last bastion of content creators, they still remains the most common implementation of Macs. And their file sizes and workflow complexity is not getting any smaller.

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

Reply

Answer 3

MattiHoo Author

Level 1

4 points

Aug 1, 2017 11:49 PM in response to Strontium90

Thanks Strontium90, I've heard of Acronis File Connect and thought it might be the way to do it.

Any idea if NFS could do the job – how's the perfomane on OSX/newer macOS? With a linux server we could have better hardware and have the filesharing done without afp…

I know that afp will be around for many years still but it is a legacy file protocol after all, so I'm not that interested in building a new system that's reliable on such technology.

Reply

Answer 4

Aug 3, 2017 8:29 PM in response to MattiHoo

I feel NFS is viable for limited and focused deployments. If you don't have complex access rights, it can work rather well. On OS X Server, it supports Kerberos and is easy to configure and access. Performance is good. I use it commonly as a method to integrate non-fibre connect systems into an Xsan, especially for render nodes. I've never tried to use it as a corp wide file services solution. As mentioned, you need to examine your permission needs to make sure NFS an work for you.

Reply