Synology Advice

[samh004]

Greetings,

I have been increasingly looking at buying a Synology to serve content around the house, backup files from the computers, and maybe dabble in various online services. That said, I don't have all the information and need some help in choosing my path forward.

My main uses will be:

1. Time machine backups from at least 4 macs
2. Media content server to multiple iOS devices/Apple TV
3. Storage of installation files and other documents for my macs

On the side I might dabble with my own email server and stuff like that, but it's not necessary.

Most of my content is already in MP4/H264 codec, so wouldn't need to be transcoded, however sometimes you just can't get what you want in the right codec. I've had a look at the range and it appears some DS's have a "Hardware Transcoding Engine" separate to the CPU, and others do not. As it is unlikely I'll be downloading anything in too high a bitrate, is a "Hardware Transcoding Engine" really necessary for me? Can I make do without? Highest I would consider going is 1080p... not going anywhere near 4K.

For storage, I'm probably just going to buy 8TB drives straight out and use their SHR system to protect my data. I don't think I'm going to fill this in the near term, however I don't want to not think about the future. Expandability is important. Should I choose a 2-bay, 4-bay or even 5-bay+?

I've looked at a few models, and am probably looking in the wrong section altogether, but was thinking:

• DS716+ as I can expand by 5 drives in the future if necessary with a DX513, and importantly has that "Hardware Transcoding Engine".
• DS415+ as it has 4 drives out of the box, but cannot be expanded, nor does it have a "Hardware Transcoding Engine".
• DS1515+ as I can expand it by 10 drives in the future if necessary with two DX513's, but doesn't have a "Hardware Transcoding Engine".

Further, I don't think I've used a computer with less than 8GB RAM for a while. The one I'm using right now has 16GB. I realise the use cases are different, but is it worth looking at 64-bit systems considering the soon-to-be-released DSM 6 will be able to better leverage those systems, and see more RAM if I were to do an aftermarket upgrade?

I've read I can plug an SSD into the back (USB3) to use as an "SSD Cache". As portable SSD drives are relatively inexpensive and I want my content readily accessible, would this be something I should do to improve the efficiency?

I'm sure I had one final question... but forget it for now. I know I'm asking a lot, but if anyone has the answers I'm looking for, it would be of great help. Particularly, if I don't need a "Hardware Transcoding Engine" I might be able to save some money as while I don't think I'm going to be using 8TB within the next year, I certainly don't think I'll be getting to 24TB within the next 5-10 years. Though, never say never.

 

[trixydoza]

We have a DS1511+ and a DS415+. I bought the former with the expandability in mind, but when the time came it seemed to make more sense to take advantage of the significantly faster new models.

To put it another way, I ended up "expanding" by moving from a five-disk to a four-disk model while buying much bigger individual hard disks.

We stream quite a lot and the lack of hardware transcoding hasn't been an issue with the DS415+, there was the occasional hiccup with the DS1511+.

Time machine backups have worked smoothly with both units.

 

[samh004]

We have a DS1511+ and a DS415+. I bought the former with the expandability in mind, but when the time came it seemed to make more sense to take advantage of the significantly faster new models.

To put it another way, I ended up "expanding" by moving from a five-disk to a four-disk model while buying much bigger individual hard disks.

We stream quite a lot and the lack of hardware transcoding hasn't been an issue with the DS415+, there was the occasional hiccup with the DS1511+.

Time machine backups have worked smoothly with both units.

Thanks for the advice.

Sounds like I'm pretty much in the same shoes you were in not too long ago, and hearing that the DS415+, the cheapest of the three I'm looking at, is working fine in your case, which will probably be identical to my usage of it, really helps.

 

[Daver6]

I have a 4 bay DS413 which now must be about 3 years old. I love it! It is so much better than I could have possibly imagined.

No hardware transcoding and no issues. I don't use Apple products, but I've never had a file that couldn't be played and the various devices I use. It only has 1GB of RAM and that is not an issue at all. Having said that, I'm not running a web server, email server etc. I do have surveillance station running though.

The user interface is incredibly easy to use. Their support is excellent. I could not recommend Synology enough.

As for the SSD cache, I wouldn't worry about it. You can always add it later. It actually is useful for improving write speeds more than anything. The limiting factor is likely going to be your network, not the hardware. If you have multiple devices trying to read and write at the same time over wifi, its likely your wifi will struggle, not the Synology device. To solve this, I keep as much as possible connected via ethernet (ie TVs, media streamers etc). Then on wifi I have some devices using the 5GHz band (ie Denon HEOS - music streaming) and phones, laptops on 2.4GHz.

Hope my ramblings assist.

 

[samh004]

I do have surveillance station running though.

Hope my ramblings assist.

Thanks for the advice, and I am intrigued by the possibility of running surveillance... not that I think I need it, but just because I could if I wanted to. Perhaps a camera in the backyard or by the front door

 

[Daver6]

Thanks for the advice, and I am intrigued by the possibility of running surveillance... not that I think I need it, but just because I could if I wanted to. Perhaps a camera in the backyard or by the front door

Its actually pretty nifty. Will automatically record when movement is detected. Mine is just set up to see what the dog gets up to. Just keep in mind though, that surveillance is only licensed for up to two cameras. Anymore and you need to cough up a bit more.

 

[jb747]

My storage setup consists of two Thunderbolt raids attached to individual Mac Minis, and a Synology 1815+.

The Synology is fully populated...6*4tb WD Reds, and two SSDs. At the moment it only uses one network connection, but I intend upgrading to a smarter switch, capable of aggregation, to let me make use of its 4 possible network connections. It works very well. I especially like the way Plex runs on it, now that it's become an Apple TV (4) app.

 

[samh004]

Thanks for the comments, seems like everyone is singing Synology's praises.

 

[trixydoza]

I've also used a QNAP and a Drobo, and the Synology OS is just streets ahead.

Like jb747, I'm also using mine to serve Plex to a new Apple TV, and love the way it works.

It's also very easy to set it up so I can access it from wherever I am at any given time.

Only thing I've been disappointed with to date is just how slow it is to copy from one DS to another.

 

[jb747]

Only thing I've been disappointed with to date is just how slow it is to copy from one DS to another.

The trouble with the very large storage systems that are available now, is that having amounts of storage that would have been commercial not that long ago, is relatively cheap. In total I've got something like 40tb. Copying terabytes of data shows just how limited a 1gb network connection can be. The Thunderbolt is dramatically faster, but limited to connecting to the Macs.

 

[RooFlyer]

I don't think my needs are as sophisticated as your samh004, but this article attracted me to the Synology 415+ (hope that article is not behind the paywall)

Very happy, Jan.

 

[samh004]

I don't think my needs are as sophisticated as your samh004, but this article attracted me to the Synology 415+ (hope that article is not behind the paywall)

Very happy, Jan.

Thankfully not behind a paywall and was a very comprehensive read

Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[jb747]

I think there's an error in the article....

You install drives in pairs with one a carbon copy of another in case a disk drive crashes and the NAS manages this process for you.

That is a particular form of RAID, and is just one of the options available. SHR is the one that I use, and in the case of the 415 it would use one of the drives for redundancy, so 4 * 6tb would offer 18 tb of storage, but it would recover from the failure of one drive without data loss.

This page from the Synology site might be useful. https://www.synology.com/en-us/support/RAID_calculator

If you do take the NAS route (and love mine), you'll need to ensure that you use appropriate drives. I use WD Reds (but there are others). Ensure that the drive is meant for use in a NAS. Using normal desktop drives will probably give you a pretty poor failure rate, as they aren't meant to be running all of the time.

 

[spudwa]

Looks like you mostly need a backup solution. A NAS even with RAID is 'not' a backup device

Data Recovery Tales: RAID Is Not Backup - SmallNetBuilder

 

[clazman]

I run a Thecus NAS and the reason behind my selection was you can schedule the device on and off.

 

[jb747]

You can do the same with the Synology.

 

[samh004]

I think there's an error in the article....

That is a particular form of RAID, and is just one of the options available. SHR is the one that I use, and in the case of the 415 it would use one of the drives for redundancy, so 4 * 6tb would offer 18 tb of storage, but it would recover from the failure of one drive without data loss.

This page from the Synology site might be useful. https://www.synology.com/en-us/support/RAID_calculator

If you do take the NAS route (and love mine), you'll need to ensure that you use appropriate drives. I use WD Reds (but there are others). Ensure that the drive is meant for use in a NAS. Using normal desktop drives will probably give you a pretty poor failure rate, as they aren't meant to be running all of the time.

I thought that was odd too, but was always planning on going the SHR route and have seen the calculator so know roughly how it works, I'm just not sure I fully comprehend how 1 drive can remember all the data on 3 drives, even if only 1 fails.

As for the type of drive to use, I realise it'll need to be able to stay constantly on and was looking at Seagate 8TB Archive drives, however I now see these aren't suitable, which is a shame as they had a low price point.

So I'm now looking at the Seagate NAS HDD, though don't think I'm going to be able to afford that 8TB drive any time soon

Looks like you mostly need a backup solution. A NAS even with RAID is 'not' a backup device

Data Recovery Tales: RAID Is Not Backup - SmallNetBuilder

It'll mostly be media server, but I also need to backup all the macs. At the end of the day, I'm not expecting the macs and the RAID to fail at the same time. Sure, it could happen, but I could also win the lottery

 

[clazman]

At the end of the day, I'm not expecting the macs and the RAID to fail at the same time. Sure, it could happen, but I could also win the lottery

Just remember off site backup ....

 

[samh004]

Just remember off site backup ....

My data is admittedly, not that important...

I know I should have a backup of my backup and all that, but I'm a student without a job, saving every penny just to have a media server and convenient backup solution at home. I certainly don't have enough money to go too much further than that at this stage, but perhaps in the future.

Thus far, I've been very lucky in that every time an external HDD (single) has failed with my backups on it, I've been able to buy another before encountering a problem with my mac. I think I'm ready to move up to a multi-bay system now, but it's going to take at least a year (or a lottery win) before I move on to offsite backups or backups of backups.

Currently the most valuable item on my mac is my photos, and I consider them reasonably safe as they're in sync between two macs, an iPhone, in the cloud and backed-up through Time Machine.

 

[jb747]

I thought that was odd too, but was always planning on going the SHR route and have seen the calculator so know roughly how it works, I'm just not sure I fully comprehend how 1 drive can remember all the data on 3 drives, even if only 1 fails.

If you have the sequence 1, 2, 3. The number 1 is written to the first drive, 2 to the second, and 3 to the third. The fourth drive would hold a checksum (1+2+3) of 6. Lose any of the first three drives, and you get its number by subtracting the two that survive from the checksum.

Whilst I'm sure that's not how it actually works, you'll get the idea....