Recommended number of LAN ports and drives for NAS

[pldelisle]

From user reviews, it looks like the expansion unit is also slower.

Yes of course. You have multiple HDDs ultimately connected to a single SATA connection.

A quick check to QNAP reveals it’s the same except for high end models. https://www.qnap.com/en-us/product/tvs-472xt the SSDs can be configured as storage pool. Price is insane thought.

 

[HDFan]

I think nascompareguy on Youtube said that the SSD in DS720+ can only serve as a cache for the HDD. They cannot be used for storage.

Yep.

Useless feature.

If you are a photographer and want to quickly backup your photos, or if constantly moving files from work home, of if ... Lots of uses.

if SSD could be used for storage, it would be more desirable.

the SSDs can be configured as storage pool. Price is insane thought.

This is a feature for both QNAP and Synology. If you have a lot of small files that are being used by multiple users putting them in cache gives much faster performance than getting the files each time from the hard drive. If you want an SSD storage pool you simply use SSDs in the HD drive slots.

I suppose it would be nice if the cache SSD's could be switched for storage, but if you think about it the hardware configuration for caching and for the storage pool are completely different.

 

[pldelisle]

suppose it would be nice if the cache SSD's could be switched for storage, but if you think about it the hardware configuration for caching and for the storage pool are completely different.

Exactly, that would be nice. But yeah it might not be wired to the same controller.

 

[Six Mac Abs]

@hajime Some decent QNAP devices which are price comparable to their Synology counterparts (720+ and 920+) are the QNAP TS-253D (2bay) and QNAP TS-453D (4bay), respectively. In terms of hardware, you get a lot more bang for your buck with these devices over the Synology equivalents, such as 2.5GB ethernet ports, PCIe expandability etc, which will offer some future proofing.

I would advise that you spend a couple of hours playing with the Synology DSM and QNAP QTS live operating system demos, online. I mention this as you may not understand the complexities included in a NAS OS and all of the features / settings on offer. Playing with these demos will give you a good indication of which you prefer out of the two, and also whether you would like to take this route for your file storage needs. As has already been mentioned, you may be better off with a simple cloud storage option for these files, which will involve minimal knowhow, minimal upfront expense and a user experience that is as simple as it can get. Based on your stated requirements, It will take years of paying for a cloud storage option before you reach the upfront cost of paying for the NAS and the drives.

 

[hobowankenobi]

You’ll have to remake the RAID array. You’ll have to copy everything to a single drive, destroy the current array, create RAID 5 and copy everything back from the single HDD. If you start with RAID 5, minimum 3 disks, you can add more drives in the future and the array will rebuild by itself (normally).

While this is true for RAID 5, Synology offers Hybrid RAID, which will allow this. One can start with two drives, and have essentially RAID 1, and add a third (or more) drives and it will grow on the fly to essentially RAID 5. This happens on the fly, no need to move data or start over. Very handy.

 

[HDFan]

While this is true for RAID 5, Synology offers Hybrid RAID, which will allow this. One can start with two drives, and have essentially RAID 1, and add a third (or more) drives and it will grow on the fly to essentially RAID 5. This happens on the fly, no need to move data or start over. Very handy.

Nice! QNAP has the same thing.

Changing the RAID Type of a RAID Group

Synology:

Change the RAID Type of a Storage Pool | DSM - Synology Knowledge Center

Synology Knowledge Center offers comprehensive support, providing answers to frequently asked questions, troubleshooting steps, software tutorials, and all the technical documentation you may need.

www.synology.com

 

[hajime]

@hajime Some decent QNAP devices which are price comparable to their Synology counterparts (720+ and 920+) are the QNAP TS-253D (2bay) and QNAP TS-453D (4bay), respectively. In terms of hardware, you get a lot more bang for your buck with these devices over the Synology equivalents, such as 2.5GB ethernet ports, PCIe expandability etc, which will offer some future proofing.

I would advise that you spend a couple of hours playing with the Synology DSM and QNAP QTS live operating system demos, online. I mention this as you may not understand the complexities included in a NAS OS and all of the features / settings on offer. Playing with these demos will give you a good indication of which you prefer out of the two, and also whether you would like to take this route for your file storage needs. As has already been mentioned, you may be better off with a simple cloud storage option for these files, which will involve minimal knowhow, minimal upfront expense and a user experience that is as simple as it can get. Based on your stated requirements, It will take years of paying for a cloud storage option before you reach the upfront cost of paying for the NAS and the drives.

Thanks. Will have a look on those two demos. The TS-453D looks good but it seems that it does not support BTRFS.


Is USB 3.2 Gen 2 a new thing? Never heard of it before.

QXP-10G2U3A | Up to 10Gbps Speeds for Fast File Transfer and Storage Expansion

The QNAP USB 3.2 Gen 2 Expansion Card provides speeds of up to 10Gbps – double that of USB 3.2 Gen 1 – to greatly boost data transfer speeds. With two ports, the QNAP USB 3.2 Gen 2 Expansion Card provides compatibility with newer, faster USB 3.2 Gen 2 devices to accelerate file transfers and...

www.qnap.com

 

[pldelisle]

Thanks. Will have a look on those two demos. The TS-453D looks good but it seems that it does not support BTRFS.


Is USB 3.2 Gen 2 a new thing? Never heard of it before.

QXP-10G2U3A | Up to 10Gbps Speeds for Fast File Transfer and Storage Expansion

The QNAP USB 3.2 Gen 2 Expansion Card provides speeds of up to 10Gbps – double that of USB 3.2 Gen 1 – to greatly boost data transfer speeds. With two ports, the QNAP USB 3.2 Gen 2 Expansion Card provides compatibility with newer, faster USB 3.2 Gen 2 devices to accelerate file transfers and...

www.qnap.com

Been a while it’s out

BTRFS is nice, but already has been. I think Red Hat stopped any development of it. It’s a good file system thought and worths it when you have the possibility of having it but you should not stop yourself to this point only.

 

[hobowankenobi]

BTRFS is nice, but already has been. I think Red Hat stopped any development of it. It’s a good file system thought and worths it when you have the possibility of having it but you should not stop yourself to this point only.

Agreed. I would be happy with any modern file system. I think some end-users underestimate the importance and benefits of low-level data stability and protection, primarily at the file system and/or RAID level. To be fair, APFS closes the gap somewhat compared to HFS+.

Self-checking, snapshots, expandable volumes, etc. Synology did their own thing to end-run around RAID issues, and it seems to very stable and happy. BTRFS qualifies..at least the way Synology is using the more stable Linux RAID. While it is likely not as robust as ZFS, it seems by all accounts to be a good compromise between data protection features and resource needs.

Not putting QNAP down, just not in a position to evaluate or speak to their offerings. They do address the BTRFS question. Regarding their speed claims...our Synology RS815+ seems to saturate our 1gig network...so no complaints or concerns about speed.

The only thing that was ever less than stellar so far has been indexing..which has recently reported being resolved.

 

[hajime]

At the beginning of this thread, I considered to buy the DS220j but it was suggested to get one with BTRFS. So I moved on to consider the 220+ and other units. If BTRFS is not that important anymore, is there anything bad about the DS220j?

 

[pldelisle]

At the beginning of this thread, I considered to buy the DS220j but it was suggested to get one with BTRFS. So I moved on to consider the 220+ and other units. If BTRFS is not that important anymore, is there anything bad about the DS220j?

In all case take an Intel x86 based NAS. 220+ if you don’t need SSD Caching (so if you don’t want to work directly onto your NAS) or 720+ if you want. QNAP if you want more than 1gbps and if you have the networking gear to support more than 1 gbps.

 

[hobowankenobi]

I think Btrfs is well worth the price of entry!

I would not get any J model. Too anemic...not enough RAM or CPU to do much beyond basic file server, and slow at that. I don't think you need a full X86 CPU (it won't hurt...just may be a bit overkill).

The Value series is adequate, the Plus series is better still with more resources (better performance, more versatile).

So if you are asking what is the lowest cost, still adequate performing, I would say Value series, like the DS 218.

Compare the three...and you can see differences. A couple of things jump out:

DS218 cannot have RAM upgraded
DS218 cannot run VMs
DS720 can handle VMs well


DS220 seems like the sweet spot between cost/performance, unless you need multiple VMs, or have many users connected.

 

[hajime]

I think Btrfs is well worth the price of entry!

I would not get any J model. Too anemic...not enough RAM or CPU to do much beyond basic file server, and slow at that. I don't think you need a full X86 CPU (it won't hurt...just may be a bit overkill).

The Value series is adequate, the Plus series is better still with more resources (better performance, more versatile).

So if you are asking what is the lowest cost, still adequate performing, I would say Value series, like the DS 218.

Compare the three...and you can see differences. A couple of things jump out:

DS218 cannot have RAM upgraded
DS218 cannot run VMs
DS720 can handle VMs well


DS220 seems like the sweet spot between cost/performance, unless you need multiple VMs, or have many users connected.

Thanks. I run Parallels VM on my Mac sometimes. How does VM related to NAS? Can NAS run VM like a Mac?

 

[pldelisle]

Thanks. I run Parallels VM on my Mac sometimes. How does VM related to NAS? Can NAS run VM like a Mac?

You can store the Parallels VHD (virtual hard drive file) into the NAS. But Parallels can't use all the NAS' virtualization feature. ESXi can, Hyper-V can, maybe KVM (big maybe). Not Parallels.

The NAS, if x86, can run Docker and have container virtualization on it.

 

[HDFan]

The TS-453D looks good but it seems that it does not support BTRFS.

As above, not an issue:

QNAP uses ext4

QNAP uses ext4 and OverlayFS technology, providing high-efficiency volume and block-based iSCSI LUN snapshots to well protect important data.

www.qnap.com

Is USB 3.2 Gen 2 a new thing? Never heard of it before.

Nope. Been around for a while:

USB 3.2 explained: Making sense of current and confusing USB standards

Get to know the different versions of USB 3.2 as you await the arrival of USB 4.

www.cnet.com

Can NAS run VM like a Mac?

Yes. Both Synology and QNAP support virtual machines. However for reasonable performance you have to spend more to get faster CPUS and more memory.

How to choose Best Qnap NAS for Virtualization

How to choose Best Qnap NAS for Virtualization x77 Series can go up to 8cores 16threads 16489U can go up to 2x10 core Xeons

nascompares.com

 

[hajime]

Thank you. I don't use VM often. So, being able to run VM on a NAS is no use for me.

 

[hajime]

Given that laptops are moving to Wifi6, will less expensive NAS with Wifi6 be available in the next few months? If I upgrade the home internet to support Wifi6, will I get noticeable performance compared with access files via Dropbox?

Today DS220j' price dropped to a new low level. It is temping but it has no Btrfs support. Those with Btrfs such as 220+ remain to be the same or similar price as in the summer.

 

[pldelisle]

Of course anything local will always be faster. No question ask.

As for model, it’s been too long. I can just refer to what I already said.

 

[HDFan]

am considering to buy a NAS for file sharing and backup among multiple devices and OS.

Given that laptops are moving to Wifi6, will less expensive NAS with Wifi6 be available in the next few months?

I wouldn't depend on WiFi 6 as the primary connection to the NAS.

1. The Synology unit which you mentioned has a slow 1 GbE network connection. Not only will WiFi 6 be slower that that in most cases, WiFi in general is unreliable as frequencies are shared with your neighbors unless you live alone in the country.

2. I didn't read through the 4 pages of responses, but if you are using it for file sharing you need to be very careful. Using ethernet it might work for static documents such as word files, but for any heavy use (video, photos) even 1 GbE can be painfully slow at times.

 

[hajime]

Thanks. I skip BF sale.

 

[hajime]

Merry Christmas to all.

Currently I have one MBP (running both Mac OS and Windows Bootcamp). I use two Samsung T5 2TB SSD for backup each OS. I also have a workstation PC which I have never backup. I am going to use this workstation PC more often. I also have some some computers which I just pack up using USB thumb drives.

I am considering to either buy another Samsung 2TB SSD to back up the workstation PC or a NAS. Looking at the total cost, a higher end NAS such as a 220+ or QNAP with two 4-6GB HD costs about $1K compared with just a 2TB SSD (should have bought it easier so I don't need to buy three T5). Shall I just consider this as a one time purchase that ends up cheaper in the long term?

 

[satcomer]

Yep.



If you are a photographer and want to quickly backup your photos, or if constantly moving files from work home, of if ... Lots of uses.






This is a feature for both QNAP and Synology. If you have a lot of small files that are being used by multiple users putting them in cache gives much faster performance than getting the files each time from the hard drive. If you want an SSD storage pool you simply use SSDs in the HD drive slots.

I suppose it would be nice if the cache SSD's could be switched for storage, but if you think about it the hardware configuration for caching and for the storage pool are completely different.

If you really want speed on your network you could do 10g on your network for less than $250 dollars!

 

[satcomer]

How about Linux, Androi and iOS?

Few years ago, Synology NAS was considered to be the best. How about the QNAP?

The only advantage in QNAP sells a 10G home smart But Synology teased a 10g card that will fit in some 4 bay models!

 

[HDFan]

I am considering to either buy another Samsung 2TB SSD to back up the workstation PC or a NAS. Looking at the total cost, a higher end NAS such as a 220+ or QNAP with two 4-6GB HD costs about $1K compared with just a 2TB SSD (should have bought it easier so I don't need to buy three T5).

An SSD for backup is a waste of money except for challenging environments. You are paying for speed that you don't need since backups run in the background. Unless you buy expensive SSDs, if you have a lot of churn they can wear out quickly. Other than the first backup, the incrementals are quite fast even on hard disks. I have one CCC 30 TB incremental backup job that can take just a couple of minutes. Use the money you save to buy a bigger disk so can use more history (if using TM). Just be sure to have a 3-2-1 backup strategy with no more than one TM backup.

With the NAS what program are you considering to to the backup? I have not been able to get reliable TM backups on either QNAP or Synology. CCC backups are fine, particularly on a QNAP that has thunderbolt or 10 GbE.

Synology units tend to have 1 GbE interfaces, although that is slowly changing. No thunderbolt. The speed differences between QNAP 10 GBe and thunderbolt are dramatic. In a 5 drive RAID 5 test my thunderboldt read speed was ~6 times greater than the 10 GBe speed (1244 MB/s vs 244 MB/s), although write speed was about the same. Evidently thunderbolt over IP is slower than a direct thunderbolt connection.

 

[hajime]

An SSD for backup is a waste of money except for challenging environments. You are paying for speed that you don't need since backups run in the background. Unless you buy expensive SSDs, if you have a lot of churn they can wear out quickly. Other than the first backup, the incrementals are quite fast even on hard disks. I have one CCC 30 TB incremental backup job that can take just a couple of minutes. Use the money you save to buy a bigger disk so can use more history (if using TM). Just be sure to have a 3-2-1 backup strategy with no more than one TM backup.

With the NAS what program are you considering to to the backup? I have not been able to get reliable TM backups on either QNAP or Synology. CCC backups are fine, particularly on a QNAP that has thunderbolt or 10 GbE.

Synology units tend to have 1 GbE interfaces, although that is slowly changing. No thunderbolt. The speed differences between QNAP 10 GBe and thunderbolt are dramatic. In a 5 drive RAID 5 test my thunderboldt read speed was ~6 times greater than the 10 GBe speed (1244 MB/s vs 244 MB/s), although write speed was about the same. Evidently thunderbolt over IP is slower than a direct thunderbolt connection.

Thank you for your info. Will keep that in mind. One main issue I use SSD is that I am very sensitive to noise. The NAS will be in my bedroom. If the NAS and internal drives are noisy even they are not in use, it will drive me crazy. Are QNAP and Synology NAS silent when they are idle?

I read some users mentioning that they have issue using TM backups on the Mac with Synology and QNAP. What is the problem? For Mac, I use both CCC and TM. For Windows, I use True Image. For Linux, I just drag and drop.