Hi
Quite agree, but there’s always more than one vantage point.
-> A glass can be half empty, or half full is a common saying…
Advantages: You do have x copies floating around, in case sh*t happens, and you find out your backup device just dumps core… 
And users can work when Internet is flakey or not at all available.
There are more here…
True, if you have a lot of users, the cumulated disk space waste get’s high, and other “issues”.
My 2 cents
Andy
That’s why you keep more than one backup, on more than one device, in more than one physical location. And that’s a lot easier to organize from one centralized location (the server) than from a bunch of individual PCs.
Agreed. There are definite benefits to having a local copy of your data, and if it’s stored on a SMB share, you don’t. But there are also definite benefits to having it stored on a remote server (ideally with a mechanism to store local copies of an index, frequently-accessed files, perhaps thumbnails or lower-resolution photos–a lot like what Apple does with iCloud), not hogging storage space on your client machine (which may not have a lot of it to spare). That’s a large part of why I store my video files on my FreeNAS box rather than my desktop computer–I don’t have 30 TB of storage to spare in my desktop.
Like I said, I fully agree. I like the option on iOS to only download when first accessed (saves space and bandwidth usage…)
I also store my Media - mainly music - on NAS - and a synched copy on a cold USB Disk…
Andy
2020-07-11T03:00:00Z
Hello Guys, thanks for writing here.
@filippo_carletti I will check this solution, as it serves another scenario that we have here.
As @ danb35 commented, in this case I need the local data.
Note: I compared it with Linux DSM “customized by Synology”, based on ubuntu Kernel 3.10, SMB 4.10 - With DSM the search works very well with SMB as AFP, Macintosh or WIndows.
So I tried to understand the differences and read many articles, among them about File System, Red Hat recommendations, etc.
Linux DSM uses EXT4 or BTRFS.
Comparing EXT4 to XFS,
According to articles: "Ext4 tend to perform better on systems with limited I / O capacity. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (<200MB / s) and capacity up to ~ 1,000 IOPS. For anything with higher capacity, XFS tends to be faster … "
This is the scenario we are in trouble with. We have NethServe with two 1 Gbps network ports in LACP, and XFS data volume.
So I will test the reinstallation leaving the Data Volume at EXT4.
I tested it on another server: Most files are larger than 10 MB. The network is 10 Gbps. The SMB search worked fine with Macintosh, nor did I need to index spotilight.
When I finish the tests I’ll tell you here.
If you have any suggestions, please send them, I am grateful.
Below link of the articles I read for those who wish