Forum

Doability of Editing Final Cut Pro X on a Synology NAS  

   RSS

0

Hi,

I have a Synology NAS and would love to use it for my FCPX projects. Video projects takes lot of space and I would love to displace this content while editing to the NAS to save space on my internal drive. I could probably buy an external drive and do it from there, but I find this not very efficient when I already have the HDD space available on my NAS. I read FCPX may not be designed to work with network attached drives, but there is some workable solutions from what I read.

I use as the source video a Nikon D800 and a Canon Vixia HF G20 that can do 1080p video at best. Not going with 4K or anything too fancy at that point in time. My NAS is a Synology DS1515+ connected Gigabit Ethernet to a Linksys (Cisco) full Gig switch and my computer is connected to that switch via a gigabit Ethernet port.

I tried with NFS, and it looked to be working relatively well. I read that, in the past NFS was recommended, but this protocol is slower than SMB or AFP from what I can read in more recent tests. But if I'm trying to enable the same editing from SMB, it often failed and I'm loosing my work. AFP may be better, but I have not investigated this protocol. Maybe iSCSI could come to help, but Apple does not have native support for this protocol and the only option I found cost around $80.

Anyone doing this that can share some advises?

Thank you

2 Answers
1

You could create a sparse disk image stored on the Synology.  Then you can mount the Synology share by any means (NFS, SMB, AFP, etc...), and then mount the sparse disk image and point FCPX at that.

The Sparse disk image is 100% macOS compatible.

I use this trick for a Carbon Copy Cloner backup to my Synology.

I think that may be the solution I'm looking for. The disk image is sizing as it needs, so even creating an 500Gb or larger disk image is taking almost the same space it would if the FCPX document was on that drive directly.

I'll test it further, and report on my "progress" on this solution. If it works, it would be great. My 500Gb SSD is almost always full just because of these files. Using the Synology would just be the best solution.

0

I like @datafornothinandbitsforfree's answer best, but to round it out, you could go the iSCSI route. iSCSI essentially allows you to create a blob of storage space on your NAS and then treat it as you would an external drive. Only one user can "mount" it at a time, and, once mounted, you then format the "drive" and all of that.

iSCSI is natively supported by your Synology DiskStation, and some initial instructions are available at https://www.synology.com/en-us/knowledgebase/DSM/tutorial/Virtualization/How_to_use_the_iSCSI_Target_service_on_Synology_NAS

Unfortunately, iSCSI is not natively supported by macOS, so you'd need to add a 3rd-party extension to get this functionality. But I'm led to believe it works (I've never tried it).

The most recent release of iSCSI initiator (free) is from July: https://github.com/iscsi-osx/iSCSIInitiator/releases

globalSAN iSCSI Initiator says it's Mojave compatible, for $89:

globalSAN iSCSI Initiator

iSCSI Initiator X is free and version 3.10 is dated Jan 30, 2019: https://www.kernsafe.com/product/macos-iscsi-initiator.aspx

I haven't used any of these options, but I'd probably start with the last one given what I (now) know.

Still, the disk image/sparsebundle route is probably best.

Share: