What are my options for building a server-based storage solution wirelessly connectable to either an OS X or Windows 7 laptop?
July 13, 2010 5:35 PM   Subscribe

What are my options for building a server-based storage solution wirelessly connectable to either an OS X or Windows 7 laptop?

I currently have an Macbook Pro from early 2008. I'm considering keeping it or buying a new Windows 7 laptop. That's a whole other issue...

I have a desktop with a few hundred GB of music, videos, documents, and pictures that is currently on its last legs due to some weird hardware problems. I need to get rid of it and I'd like to move all of that data to some place I can connect to wirelessly with whichever laptop I end up using.

Since I'm not sure if I'm going to be using an OS X or Windows 7 laptop to access this server, what are my options for building one?

If I'm going Win7, what should I do?
If I'm going OS X, what should I do?
Is there any option that would work for both?


I'm fairly competent with computers but I'm not a programmer and not a fan of a ton of constant command line work. All of that data is basically stranded on that crippled desktop until I can figure this out and build something new. I don't want to just build a new desktop because in 2010 I'm sure I can build a server to access the data wirelessly from anywhere.

I'd obviously like to be able to read and edit this few hundred GB of data on the OS X or Win7 laptop. However, how well does music wirelessly stream over Wireless-G or Wireless-N if I want to listen to it through speakers that will be connected to the laptop I end up using?

Any help would be fantastic.
posted by decrescendo to Computers & Internet (21 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
I'm pretty sure a windows or linux PC will work fine with either a mac or windows client.

Windows server: share files by SMB, mac and windows should both be able to access that
Linux server: can share files by SMB to both, or can use NFS to share with mac

Most "network appliances" will probably work with both also. These are just boxes you plug into your network that do nothing but store files.

Even basic wireless (B?) can stream mp3s just fine. G can do movies also.
posted by RustyBrooks at 5:57 PM on July 13, 2010


Response by poster: Are there any problems with Mac not being able to access/edit a NTFS file server? I assume that's what the Windows Home Server would use.
posted by decrescendo at 6:03 PM on July 13, 2010


Remote file shares aren't like "native" file systems, i.e. it won't be NTFS, it'll probably be SMB which is just a protocol windows uses for sharing file systems.
posted by RustyBrooks at 6:07 PM on July 13, 2010


A handy keyword might be NAS (Network-Attached Storage). FreeNAS is a nifty FreeBSD/Linux based operating system that's designed to be controllable over a web interface.
posted by XMLicious at 6:07 PM on July 13, 2010


For example there are dozens of file systems you can use natively on linux. When you export a disk as a network share, it doesn't matter what the file system is, the client computer just "sees" it as an NFS file system.
posted by RustyBrooks at 6:08 PM on July 13, 2010


Very simple solution: Buy a Mac mini for a few hundred dollars on eBay. Connect a Firewire 800 or eSATA external hard drive and set up Mac and Windows file sharing from it.

The Mac mini has a very small enclosure, so it hides away nicely. No fan means it is super quiet, compared with Windows and Linux PCs. A used Mac mini is as cheap as building your own Windows or Linux PC and uses very little electricity compared with a desktop, and file sharing is literally a no-brainer, a two-click setup process. Performance over 802.11n is fine -- you'll be able to stream video and music over wireless with no problems. The PC and (particularly) Mac file services will also run better from a Mac than a Linux box.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:08 PM on July 13, 2010


Response by poster: A handy keyword might be NAS (Network-Attached Storage). FreeNAS is a nifty FreeBSD/Linux based operating system that's designed to be controllable over a web interface.

Yeah, I think that's what I'm looking for. I want all of these files to be available wirelessly just like they would if they were locally attached storage. I need to start figuring out all of the different NAS options available to me. I'm sure some are more complicated than others.
posted by decrescendo at 6:10 PM on July 13, 2010


I'll note that access to SMB shares from Macs is pretty slow in comparison to AFP. If you go the NAS route you'll want a NAS that supports native Apple (AFP) access (or you may as well go with USB 1.1 memory sticks for moving data back and forth, for the performance SMB gives).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:12 PM on July 13, 2010


Response by poster: I'll note that access to SMB shares from Macs is pretty slow in comparison to AFP. If you go the NAS route you'll want a NAS that supports native Apple (AFP) access (or you may as well go with USB 1.1 memory sticks for moving data back and forth, for the performance SMB gives).

Is Windows Home Server SMB by default? And, I take it Mac Minis allow access by AFP by default?
posted by decrescendo at 6:15 PM on July 13, 2010


Windows Home Server doesn't do AFP.

A majority of NAS devices do not serve AFP, but if you look and ask carefully you will find a few.

Mac Minis will provide both SMB and AFP services for Windows and Mac access.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:22 PM on July 13, 2010


Just thought I'd point out that the Wikipedia entry for FreeNAS states that it supports both AFP and CIFS / SMB (SMB is actually a really old version of the protocol, anything Windows XP or later is going to be running CIFS.) I know that Apple people are usually "Apple brand is better" but I'm skeptical that for a purpose as simple as this that a Mac, particularly a desktop OS, is going to be any better than a NAS running another operating system.

The Mini-ITX / Mac Mini form factor is a good idea too, though again I'm not so sure that brand is very important.
posted by XMLicious at 6:24 PM on July 13, 2010


Response by poster: All Windows shares, regardless of the version of the OS, are SMB.

Macs can share a folder with both AFP and SMB at the same time. Windows can only connect to SMB shares, while a Mac can connect to both AFP and SMB shares. AFP is preferred on a Mac.


However, I read above that if I used SMB (so both OS X and Windows clients could connect to it), the OS X client performance would be very slow. Correct?

And on the server side, OS X-based machines can share in both at the same time? Whereas Windows Home Server of any flavor can only share in SMB?

Just trying to get my story straight since this is all new to me.
posted by decrescendo at 6:25 PM on July 13, 2010


Also, anecdotally, this guy claimed that NFS outperformed AFP for him when testing over wireless.
posted by XMLicious at 6:35 PM on July 13, 2010


However, I read above that if I used SMB (so both OS X and Windows clients could connect to it), the OS X client performance would be very slow. Correct?

Correct.

And on the server side, OS X-based machines can share in both at the same time? Whereas Windows Home Server of any flavor can only share in SMB?

Yes, to both questions.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:35 PM on July 13, 2010


Agree with BP - SMB is slow enough from Windows, but it's even slower from Macs. Part of that is the default settings of the SMB server are tuned for Windows (even SAMBA on Linux is slow with the usual defaults) and can be cured somewhat by tweaking the settings, but native AFP tends to be faster still. Despite its somewhat archaic nature, AFP on OS X will generally tend to be faster than even native SMB on Windows by a small but noticeable amount.

NFS can be problematic at the best of times unless you know what you're doing, especially with non-permanently attached clients (i.e. laptops).

Music will stream fine over -G or -N (or even -B); you may run into problems with higher-bitrate SD video over -G; HD video pretty much mandates -N (and even then you're likely to run into problems).
posted by Pinback at 6:41 PM on July 13, 2010


At home I have 3 Windows clients connected at various times to a Windows Home Server with about 10TB of storage space. I love it, and it's pretty fast (usually get 300+Mbps transfer on my GigE network). However, I have 0 experience with Macs, so if you're not going Win7 for the laptop then BP and others are probably the ones to listen to. If you're going to end up in Windows-land WHS can be handy for setting up Libraries and Media Center sharing and other things that can certainly be done without it but are easier with (especially if you also have Windows Media Center extenders like an Xbox 360).
posted by wildcrdj at 6:46 PM on July 13, 2010


Jumping to say, regardless of what you're going to be running on your laptop, FreeNAS is pretty sweet. I've got an ancient box out in the garage that runs freenas from a livecd and serves 2.5TB of media and provides great backup storage for my household (Mac/PC, wireless & wired). I've setup a couple of linux boxes in the past, but none was as easy as FreeNAS. I don't think I could recommend it highly enough for this type of use. And if you want to get a little geeky, you can setup a ZFS redundant array of hard disks and have some protection from drive failure and bit rot....
posted by gofargogo at 9:27 PM on July 13, 2010


However, I read above that if I used SMB (so both OS X and Windows clients could connect to it), the OS X client performance would be very slow. Correct?

Correct.


My file server is running WS03 with standard SMB shares and I have never experienced slow SMB performance from my desktop Mac. It is slower than Windows clients but i still get ~10MB/sec.

Plus, you're not going to even come close to that on a wireless connection.
posted by wongcorgi at 9:37 PM on July 13, 2010


Response by poster: At home I have 3 Windows clients connected at various times to a Windows Home Server with about 10TB of storage space. I love it, and it's pretty fast (usually get 300+Mbps transfer on my GigE network). However, I have 0 experience with Macs, so if you're not going Win7 for the laptop then BP and others are probably the ones to listen to. If you're going to end up in Windows-land WHS can be handy for setting up Libraries and Media Center sharing and other things that can certainly be done without it but are easier with (especially if you also have Windows Media Center extenders like an Xbox 360).

Yeah, it seems that the easiest way (if I end up with a Windows 7 client) is to use Windows Home Server. That being said, I don't think I can get that up and running until I have both a Win7 laptop and WHS hardware.
posted by decrescendo at 6:46 AM on July 14, 2010


I recommend Time Capsule

Zero config for the Macs, not too difficult to mount it as a drive on the windows boxes. Plus automatic backups, and it's a router.
posted by empath at 5:47 AM on July 15, 2010


You might want to look at this.

Started out in quite a similar situation to you, and have now built two linux servers happily talking to each other in a mixed windows/mac environment.

Streams music, does remote file sharing, and is capable of being controlled completely via GUI (although, having gotten used to linux, I am no longer fearful of the command line (or being eaten by a grue)).
posted by MadMage at 1:51 PM on July 15, 2010


« Older I will call it "my cell"   |   Living without a lease... risks? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.