Apple has the best hardware combination and it's matched to give the best performance. That's why you can have a Mac that still performs like day one. Software and hardware optimized. I can dump a 9 year old pc but I can still use 9 year old Mac. Sorry I am a Mac fan and the cost pays off over the years of service. When apple can't support a hardware configuration for their platforn they just stop supporting it no compromise.But you can still keep using it.
1 Like
typical mac fanboy response and logic. lolz. 
Not meaning to turn this in to mac vs pc debate...
But, win 10 runs fine on old hardware.
Linux runs even better.
And no, i work on hundreds of old Apple hardware each week, refurbish them and sell them, and have to deal with all the issues, faults, and broken things and proprietary hardware and common faults. They for sure do not run the same as day one when they are old, and considered obsolete by Apple after 5yrs of age.....the number of returns that happens from people that complain, why can't i install "latest MacOS" on this, why is it so slow? um, sorry, this 2011 laptop u paid $800 for refurbished can only run up to 10.15...etc.
I have a HP Probook from 2009 that runs Win 10 Pro fine, and is my mothers laptop.
You CAN install and run current windows os on obsolete hardware and it works fine.
You can't install latest MacOS on obsolete mac hardware.
Apple tried using their own cpus and chips many years ago, it did not go well.
I am skeptical, but tech has greatly advanced since then, and ARM or ARM based hardware chips, custom silicon, seems to be all the rage now.
Yes, Apple and others can optimize software to their own made hardware...but, that causes ripple effect of compatibility issues with many others software app etc. Like, how does boot camp work with M1 hardware?
Anyway, get what you want or what you can afford...its your money...but the fact remains, you can buy just as powerful, or even better, hardware, for much lower cost.
Heck, you can buy a at least, a retired 4x CPU 4x Zeon core each with 512gb ram, rackmount Dell server for under $500 on ebay.
What software you run, makes no real difference in price factor, not when u can take any PC hardware, and for free, run one of hundreds Linux distros, that run far more stable and optimized than Windows would...MacOS it self is Unix based, so it is essentially the same.
i would never recommend Windows, even Sever Os versions, for any always on type computer/network appliance.
Sure the newest mac thing, would work well....it freaking better, for the amount of $ they charge you for it. If you are fine with that...then you pretty much already have your answer to "what is better" and there is no point in debating things. What ever works for you, use it.
And as far as the topic goes, mac vis NAS....
A dedicated NAS, is just that, it is meant to be a place to store files over the network...not be a multi purpose device. Sure, companies can add in better hardware, fancy OS to them, and can try to make them do other things, but they are designed to be a NAS first and most optimally. meant to be lower power and always on.
You can build a normal PC, with a full OS and use that for everything, and it usually works well, since it has the hardware designed for the workload and use case.
But, if you really want to have a full desktop class computer always on..to just run, say a simple FTP server....that is overkil, and well, if u have no issue with that, and paying the power bill for it....enjoy.
Either way, BOTH devices mentioned in this thread(mac mini m1 or the NAS device) would run ChannelsDVR very well, and are in fact quite overkill for it.
1 Like
I own a mac mini and a nas. And a RPi, and an i7 windows 10 machine. I choose to run Channels on my NAS. But the question in this thread wasnāt about what I think is the best place to run channels. It was a question as to which offers superior performance, a qnap nas or an m1 mini.
The answer to the question in the OP is, without doubt, the M1 Mini.
1 Like
That is the same question though.
The best place to run said service(ChannelsDVR), would be on what device offers the superior performance.
Though, in reality, would the average user notice any real world difference between those 2 devices, most likely not.
The only exception would be for transcoding and comskip, neither of which did user post to what extent they utilize those features.
What is "best" boils down to usage case. And can be relative.
To which, the user who asked, has not stated to what extent their usage of Channels DVR is.
Are they needing 4+ remote transcode streams, do they have several users, many live viewers, and remote viewers, many daily recordings...want comskip to run on all of them, and as fast as possible?? If yes to all of that, they you should get the most powerful hardware they can afford.
If your use case is one or 2 users, who maybe remote stream from time to time, and may use comskip but don't care it it takes a bit to process cause you don't watch recordings immediately after they finish recording,, then cheaper, less powerful hardware will be just as good for you and you have no need for super high end hardware setup.
1 Like
I almost agree 100% and yes you can't install the latest mac os on old hardware. You can use some old hardware and run win 10 not the best performance but it will work. I am not very happy that Apple went with the Arm architeture but not my call that's why I still bought a Intel this year. As the sole IT for a small company for 20 years that only used Pc's I was happy to go home to my iMac until the display went on it and it was not worth replacing. The guts still going strong after 11 years.
Cheers and Happy Friday
Ps: thanks for calling me a boy (fanboy) at 66 years of age I am more like an old fan. LoL
Iām about to turn my 9 year old Mac mini into a dedicated IP camera viewer. It can view 9 cameras at the same time without dropping any frames, very impressive. Iām guessing an equivalent windows machine would do it just fine as well, but I donāt think thereās any denying that Mac minis have a reputation of high reliability over very long lifespans.
1 Like
Do you use btrfs or ext4 for your volume?
I've been using a stock M1 Mac Mini (headless) for a Channels server since January, and it works like a charm. Setting up Channels on it was easy. I have the DVR library stored on an external Synology NAS as an attached volume, but I could just as easily attached an external disk -- which I would have done if I didn't already have the Synology. It's hard to imagine a simpler setup for Channels than this Mini. It just works, and it hasn't yet let me down. It doesn't labor at all when multiple simultaneous recordings are underway. I've never even heard its fan.
Configuration:
Apple M1 chip with 8ācore CPU, 8ācore GPU, and 16ācore Neural Engine
8GB unified memory
512GB SSD storage
$899.00
1 Like
Intel NUC $500 Cheaper .... Great Channels DVR server wit QuickSync.
Intel NUC NUC6CAYH Mini PC/HTPC, Intel Quad-Core J3455 Upto 2.3GHz, 8GB DDR3, 1TB HDD, WiFi, Bluetooth, 4k Support, Dual Monitor Capable, Windows 10 Professional 64Bit (8GB + 1TB HDD)
3 Likes
He already has the M1 Mini.
OK ... I am just wondering why would someone invest in a Mac MINI m1 just to have it run Channels DVR ? I see the Mac MINI M1 as a powerful machine ... that would be a waste to use it as a headless Channels DVR server. Just my Opinion.
@Edwin_Perez
If you read the posts above, i wondered the same thing.
And they posted their reason why.
But, you can't convince otherwise, when talking to a Apple Fan person.
Their money to burn...if its what they want, then that's their decision.
1 Like
While I agree that there are "Apple fan" people that are just going to buy Apple no matter what you tell them, not everyone that owns anything Apple is that person. I use what works best for a given use case and fits my budget needs. There are many factors besides just cost.
My point was that for similar CPU performance, a NAS in my experience is going to cost more than a Mac Mini. CPU performance is going to impact transcoding and commercial skip processing. If you want the fastest for that, my vote is for the cheapest M1. Couple that with the lack of any reasonable support from most NAS companies and the fact that NAS's are increasingly a target for malware. The Mini is going to just work, and simple to setup and support.
But even factoring $$$, I don't think its fair to say that someone buying a Min just has money to burn. My 9 year old Mac Mini that I paid $599 for (if my memory is right) ... they are going for around $250 now on Ebay. Most of the Apple stuff I've bought over the years I've sold off at some point and offset any premium paid when I bought it.
A no name WIndows machine wasn't the question of the thread, but of course they will be cheaper than either a Mac Mini or a NAS, as will a Rasberry Pi. Pros and cons with all choices.
2 Likes
btrfs volumes and about the malware you need an antivirus like most PC's and make changes in the nas config to secure it properly. I just like my Synology but I do have two mac's and two windows 10 boxes so I could chose any to run my server that's the neat part about Channels DVR it will run on almost everything you chose.
Very well said.
Well I would respectfully disagree with you that just configuring your NAS properly is sufficient. Here is a thread I started on the QNAP forum when I got hit with QSnatch that has 572 replies and went on for months. https://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?t=151402 My NAS boxes were not open to the internet, were simply used as file shares on my home network (no other apps) and were updated regularly, and yet still were infected... and not infected with the same variant on the two boxes. It was a pretty painful experience trying to get them back to functional. I don't have a Synology but my understanding was they've had similar attacks.
I'm not suggesting that no one should ever use a NAS, but simply that I believe a Mac in any form is a much more secure and easy to support device from my own personal experience. Its a consideration, especially if the user is not technical and doesn't want to be on the business end of Linux command line.
We can agree to disagree I am not a QNAP person anyway. That why I use Mac's for my more sensative information and I encrypt everything.
Have a good one. Cheers
1 Like
My QNAP server may be on the fritz. I cannot access it remotely during my snowbird status. When I get home I might be replacing it with a synology NAS. But for those of you that use the Mac mini, how do you configure it and with what software? Thank you
Not sure what you mean on "how do you configure it?". It really depends on if you are using it strictly as a server box or a desktop computer. If a server, then the main thing is to configure the user to auto login on boot so that it restarts on its own. Channels DVR then runs. You don't need to make any config changes to run it "headless" with no monitor, keyboard, or mouse. I use VNC to access it from my laptop, but I do also have a cable connecting it to the TV in my office so if I have any issues I can always drop back to that, but can't remember the last time I did that.
I looked at switching to Synology for my NAS needs when I was battling with QSnatch malware and I concluded after reading many reviews and reviewing both forums that they are pretty similar and both have some of the same challenges. The biggest things with Channels is that you need a fast CPU to handle transcoding and commercial skiip processing well and the NAS boxes with those CPUs get very pricey. It really depends on what you want. I use the NAS where protection of my stored files is important and I want redundancy.