First NAS: QNAP TS-451+ or...?

[seadan]

I'm in the market for my first NAS device. Initially, my primary usage scenarios are:

1. Local Backup storage from 3+ computers (est capacity: 5TB not including space for multiple backups)
2. Centralized file store for music and photos (2TB+ and growing, much of this is counted in the backup size above)

Streaming is not critical at the moment, but perhaps in the future? I suppose I'd like to have the option to go this route if possible, but I'm not sure how much $ it's worth to start.

I've narrowed my brand choices down to QNAP and Synology. I was looking at 4-bay minimum devices for capacity and redundancy, though I'm open to larger devices if it makes sense. From research and reading here, these are the main models I was investigating:

• QNAP TS-451+
• QNAP TS-453A
• Synology DS416play

With the current "cyber monday" sale at B&H, the TS-451+ is $354 which seems like a great deal, and would likely work well for my needs. Is it worth it to spend a little more for a Synology or higher end QNAP?

Or, I guess I can always start with the TS-451+ now and then later upgrade to a more powerful QNAP at a later date if necessary, and transfer over my drives without losing any data.

Thoughts?

 

[sfx2000]

Regarding the TS453A vs TS451+, there was another similar question about those two, and the 453A was perhaps a better purchase due to upgrade on the CPU (newer chip with AES-NI, and a much improved GPU side).

Don't know much about the DS416play...

 

[seadan]

Regarding the TS453A vs TS451+, there was another similar question about those two, and the 453A was perhaps a better purchase due to upgrade on the CPU (newer chip with AES-NI, and a much improved GPU side).

Don't know much about the DS416play...

I did see that thread, and I suppose I'd probably lean towards a TS-453A with all things being equal...but, with the special pricing on the 451+, is the 453A worth $230 more if streaming is not a primary use scenario?

 

[sfx2000]

I did see that thread, and I suppose I'd probably lean towards a TS-453A with all things being equal...but, with the special pricing on the 451+, is the 453A worth $230 more if streaming is not a primary use scenario?

Depends - might be, might not be - it's not just streaming where the Braswell chip helps, encryption is quite a bit faster, but again, if it's a $230 difference, go with the 451+ perhaps...

Remember, both can have RAM expanded, so don't pay QNAP's price there (they're even worse about RAM pricing than Apple, and that's hard to do...)

 

[aviphysics]

Regarding the TS453A vs TS451+, there was another similar question about those two, and the 453A was perhaps a better purchase due to upgrade on the CPU (newer chip with AES-NI, and a much improved GPU side).

Don't know much about the DS416play...

Hardware wise, the DS416play is pretty similar to TS451A, except it doesn't have HDMI ports, so you can't use it as a stand alone computer and it has only 1 GB of RAM*. On the other hand DS416play uses the BTRFS disk format, which has a number of advantages.

*I believe you can upgrade the DS416play's RAM, but Synology discourages it.

If I were going to go with QNAPS, I think I would look at the TS451A. It is priced pretty similarly to the DS416play. Compared to the DS416play, you give up BTRFS for a little more RAM, HDMI, and direct USB access (i.e. you can access it over USB3 like a large desktop USB drive.).

From a hardware/feature perspective, I would only go for the TS451A, if I wanted to also use it as a slow standalone computer or a media center PC.

The thing is I don't know a lot about the software side with QNAPS. My IT friend recommended them, but I don't think he is very familiar with Synology.

 

[seadan]

Hardware wise, the DS416play is pretty similar to TS451A, except it doesn't have HDMI ports, so you can't use it as a stand alone computer and it has only 1 GB of RAM*. On the other hand DS416play uses the BTRFS disk format, which has a number of advantages.

*I believe you can upgrade the DS416play's RAM, but Synology discourages it.

If I were going to go with QNAPS, I think I would look at the TS451A. It is priced pretty similarly to the DS416play. Compared to the DS416play, you give up BTRFS for a little more RAM, HDMI, and direct USB access (i.e. you can access it over USB3 like a large desktop USB drive.).

From a hardware/feature perspective, I would only go for the TS451A, if I wanted to also use it as a slow standalone computer or a media center PC.

The thing is I don't know a lot about the software side with QNAPS. My IT friend recommended them, but I don't think he is very familiar with Synology.

Thanks for the perspective. I briefly looked at the 451A vs 451+; main difference seems to be dual (A) vs quad core (+), and 4K (A) vs 1080p (+) for HDMI output. I don't really plan to use the HDMI output at the moment so that's not a huge deal. Still about a $100 price difference compared to the 451+ price from cyber week.

I did pull the trigger on the TS-451+ from B&H, though it's still backordered. At the price it seems hard to beat right now; not sure the $75+ difference to DS416play (or $100+ to TS-451A) is worth it.

Now to figure out which 6TB drives to get...

 

[aviphysics]

Thanks for the perspective. I briefly looked at the 451A vs 451+; main difference seems to be dual (A) vs quad core (+), and 4K (A) vs 1080p (+) for HDMI output. I don't really plan to use the HDMI output at the moment so that's not a huge deal. Still about a $100 price difference compared to the 451+ price from cyber week.

I did pull the trigger on the TS-451+ from B&H, though it's still backordered. At the price it seems hard to beat right now; not sure the $75+ difference to DS416play (or $100+ to TS-451A) is worth it.

Now to figure out which 6TB drives to get...

TS-451+ doesn't have AES-NI. TS-451A and DS416Play do.

That only has an impact if you use encryption, which depending on the circumstances, seems like it can be significant.

From what I can tell, it is mostly important if you need to send/receive encrypted or if you need to encrypt the data stored on the NAS.

The 451A and DS416Play also use less power than the 451+.

I don't know if it is worth $75 to you, or if it is even worth the trade off in raw CPU power to you.

 

[seadan]

TS-451+ doesn't have AES-NI. TS-451A and DS416Play do.

That only has an impact if you use encryption, which depending on the circumstances, seems like it can be significant.

From what I can tell, it is mostly important if you need to send/receive encrypted or if you need to encrypt the data stored on the NAS.

The 451A and DS416Play also use less power than the 451+.

I don't know if it is worth $75 to you, or if it is even worth the trade off in raw CPU power to you.

Is the CPU in the 451A/DS416play more powerful than the 451+? I guess the 451A might be, but the DS416play is dual core instead of quad. I'm not sure whether I'll use encryption for the disk itself, but I am interested in using the device as a VPN server, so perhaps the encryption piece is valuable to me.

I'm also considering running CrashPlan on the NAS itself, which makes me lean towards something with more RAM and CPU power (though RAM can be upgraded, I guess). Decisions, decisions...

 

[aviphysics]

Is the CPU in the 451A/DS416play more powerful than the 451+? I guess the 451A might be, but the DS416play is dual core instead of quad. I'm not sure whether I'll use encryption for the disk itself, but I am interested in using the device as a VPN server, so perhaps the encryption piece is valuable to me.

I'm also considering running CrashPlan on the NAS itself, which makes me lean towards something with more RAM and CPU power (though RAM can be upgraded, I guess). Decisions, decisions...

Dual-Core 4-bay with AES-NI
TS-451A Powered by dual core Intel N3060. (~$450)
DS416Play Powered by dual core Intel N3060. (~$420)
https://www.qnap.com/en/product/model.php?II=240&event=2
https://www.synology.com/en-us/products/DS416play#spec

Quad-Core 4-bay without AES-NI
TS-451+ Powered by quad core Intel J1900 (~$445 right now. It was under $400 a week ago.)

Quad-Core 4-bay with AES-NI
TS-453A is QNAP's lowest end 4-bay quad-core w/ AES-NI. It is powered by an Intel N3160. (~$580)
DS916+ is Synology's closest competitor to the TS-453A. It is their lowest end 4-bay quad-core w/ AES-NI*. It is powered by an Pentium N3710. (~$550)
https://www.qnap.com/en-us/product/model.php?II=212&event=2
https://www.synology.com/en-us/products/DS916+#spec

*All current Synology Intel powered NAS have AES-NI, which is why their CPU's look under-spec'd dollar for dollar compared to the older QNAP NAS that use the cheaper/older Intel CPUs that have a little more raw horsepower without AES-NI.

Intel CPU pricing
If you look on Intel's site, the "recommended customer price" of the Intel J1900 Quad Core in the TS-451+ is $82, while the dual core N3060 is $107.00. This at least says that intel thinks the N3060 is a significantly more valuable part and both Synology and QNAP are likely paying a premium to use it over the older J1900.

Comparing raw CPU power
Ignoring the GPU and AES-NI advantage of the N3060, this is what the raw CPU specs look like

• J1900 is a 2.00 GHz base clock, 2.40 GHz boost clock, Bay Trail-D Quad-Core
• N3060 is a 1.60 GHz base clock and 2.48 GHz boost clock, Braswell Dual-Core
• Braswell is just about 5% faster clock for clock and core for core (though that probably varies by task). (easiest to look for general comparisons of the J1900's Bay Trail-D architecture to the N3060's Braswell architecture.

Boost clocks suggest that the N3060 is definitly faster at single threaded tasks and might be faster at dual threaded tasks.
With tasks using 3 or more threads, the J1900 certainly has and advantage.

Other stuff
There are a few other factors besides raw CPU performance

• When handling encryption, AES-NI, from what I can tell, gives the N3060 a pretty big advantage.
• The GPU in the N3060 is much better at transcoding videos, if that is something you need to do.
• The BTRFS file format Synology uses requires less work for the CPU to do integrity checks and stuff like that

My choice
I am still trying to make my pick. I don't feel confident enough to strongly recommend any of them. They all have advantages and disadvantages vs. the other options.

• For me, I think the DS416Play is probably the overall best option. Mostly because I will be using encryption and won't be doing any of the media or virtual machine stuff.
• DS916+ Is tempting to just fork out the money for the . I don't think they are likely to really be of that much use for me in the short term, but I would also hate to need them at not have them.
• I would like to try a QNAP, but don't want to be stuck with one if I can't get it to do what I want. I have an older Synology, so I kind of know them better. Also Synology is a little cheaper, for a given CPU (they also have less RAM, but that can be upgraded, even if Synology doesn't support those upgrades.)
• Thinking about maybe waiting to see what comes in 2017. Maybe QNAP will pick up BTRFS or something else will happen.

I am still not sure.

 

[seadan]

Super helpful and detailed post -- thanks! I think you have a typo in the header for the 451+ -- it should be without AES-NI, right?

You seem to be leaning towards the Synology, and it sounds like that might be the best option for you. I'm open to either; I've heard good things about both. We have a couple of QNAPs at work that have been pretty reliable, but I don't have too much other experience with them. I thought that QNAPs were supposed to be a bit cheaper than Synology for comparable hardware, but that seems to not really be the case here.

In reality, as this is my first NAS and I'm probably not pushing the limits of what any of these can do, I'm sure any of them will probably be fine. Worst case, it should be easy to upgrade within the same manufacturer to a more powerful model without losing any of the data (based on what I've read from QNAP and Synology) if I decide I need more power/features. I guess the only challenge is if I later decide to swap manufacturers, it could be a little more complicated.

I don't know much about BTRFS but I did come across a few articles talking about some issues with that (perhaps just with raid 5/6?). I'll need to dig in to see if that's a concern for my usage, and whether it's really beneficial or not.

Since I did jump on the 451+ at the $354 sale price, that seems like the best "deal" of the bunch. I just need to decide if AES-NI is worth $75-100 more (and whether quad > dual core). Since I'd like to use it for VPN, this may push me over.

(Also, re CPUs: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/52/Intel_Celeron_J1900_vs_Intel_Mobile_Celeron_N3060.html)

 

[sfx2000]

Comparing raw CPU power
Ignoring the GPU and AES-NI advantage of the N3060, this is what the raw CPU specs look like

• J1900 is a 2.00 GHz base clock, 2.40 GHz boost clock, Bay Trail-D Quad-Core
• N3060 is a 1.60 GHz base clock and 2.48 GHz boost clock, Braswell Dual-Core
• Braswell is just about 5% faster clock for clock and core for core (though that probably varies by task). (easiest to look for general comparisons of the J1900's Bay Trail-D architecture to the N3060's Braswell architecture.

Boost clocks suggest that the N3060 is definitly faster at single threaded tasks and might be faster at dual threaded tasks.
With tasks using 3 or more threads, the J1900 certainly has and advantage.

They're all really close - the quads do a bit better in a multi-threaded environment - The Baytrail-D J-series do have a higher TDP than the N-series (Baytrail or Braswell) - so under load, the J's will go longer before possible throttling depending on the thermal solution in place.

Also note that the N's will drop down to 500MHz, whereas the J's speed step only down to 1300MHz.

The GPU's are clocked a bit higher (and boost a bit higher) in the N's - Braswell's GPU is better in most cases..

 

[sfx2000]

Should also add that Braswell makes full use of DDR3-1600, whereas Baytrails top out at DDR3-1366 (but they support DDR3-1600).

Baytrail also includes a 3rd party h.264 decoder from Imagination Tech that intel removed from Braswell (probably because it wasn't needed perhaps), but that decoder block was accessable by some SW and it's a very high quality decoder, better than anything intel native.

I've got both Braswell and Baytrail chips here... both are decent enough low power intel chips - but it's much like Haswell vs. Broadwell (die-shrink from 22 to 14nm, and a better GPU) - hard to tell the difference in real life...

 

[aviphysics]

Should also add that Braswell makes full use of DDR3-1600, whereas Baytrails top out at DDR3-1366 (but they support DDR3-1600).

Baytrail also includes a 3rd party h.264 decoder from Imagination Tech that intel removed from Braswell (probably because it wasn't needed perhaps), but that decoder block was accessable by some SW and it's a very high quality decoder, better than anything intel native.

I've got both Braswell and Baytrail chips here... both are decent enough low power intel chips - but it's much like Haswell vs. Broadwell (die-shrink from 22 to 14nm, and a better GPU) - hard to tell the difference in real life...

For a NAS, I think the most important differences are

1. AES-NI seems to make a difference in performance when using encryption.
2. The NAS with N-series chips are better at transcoding video. Important for people that are using Smart TV's and stuff like that. Not important for pretty much anyone else.

I am guessing most of the other performance difference aren't very important. On a QNAP device, you might appreciate the extra cores or better GPU more if you are using the NAS as a mini-PC. The other scenario I imagine is someone using the NAS as a mini web server.

Personally, I feel like the point of having a NAS is for it to do the best job as it can of keeping all your data safe and accessible. That said, I haven't been sure about the CPU load that the various backup and cloud software takes up. Maybe it isn't enough to worry about.

 

[sfx2000]

For a NAS, I think the most important differences are

1. AES-NI seems to make a difference in performance when using encryption.
2. The NAS with N-series chips are better at transcoding video. Important for people that are using Smart TV's and stuff like that. Not important for pretty much anyone else.

I am guessing most of the other performance difference aren't very important. On a QNAP device, you might appreciate the extra cores or better GPU more if you are using the NAS as a mini-PC. The other scenario I imagine is someone using the NAS as a mini web server.

Personally, I feel like the point of having a NAS is for it to do the best job as it can of keeping all your data safe and accessible. That said, I haven't been sure about the CPU load that the various backup and cloud software takes up. Maybe it isn't enough to worry about.

The Braswell N's should be pretty decent at Transcoding - but there's always a penalty there - as QSV is fast, but the data output is also high bit rates (and large files) - The J1900 in the QNAP TS-453Pro seems to do an ok job there.

With 4K, the GPU in the Braswell is capable, not at 60Hz perhaps, but it can do it - just doublecheck to see the HDMI specs, I can't recall if QNAP is HDMI 2.0 or not, which some sets might need if directly connected (and this is perhaps a driver for some to consider the Braswell). My Braswell NUC N3700 unfortunately does not support HDMI 2.0, even though on a computer monitor it can do a nice job with h.265 playback at high data rates (better job there than my desktop i7 actually)

Encryption - mostly for the filesystem itself, if one wants to encrypt it - there the Braswell's will do a better job - and that's about it...

The J1900 is a nice enough chip - while it doesn't have AES-NI, it's fast enough as I don't encrypt - the QSV is fast enough for playback at 1080P, and the Quad is good if running VM's along with everything else... but that would apply to the 453A as well

It is a toss up between the J1900 and the N3160 - my vote would be for the higher turbo, and higher TDP ceiling, as AES-NI isn't important enough for me - and I don't transcode for the most part (I pre-code my media, I've got an i7-4790 desktop that chews through handbrake on pretty much any profile)

 

[seadan]

Thanks, guys. I think you've given me enough food for thought to take another serious look at the 451A and DS416play.

Any recommendations on HDDs to fill it? I've been leaning towards 4TB or 6TB WD Reds (depends if I go RAID5 or RAID6/10); they seem to be highly recommended and low power, but I'd love it if the price on those drives dropped a little more. HGST looks to be very reliable but not sure I want a 7200rpm drive for power/noise.

 

[sfx2000]

Thanks, guys. I think you've given me enough food for thought to take another serious look at the 451A and DS416play.

Any recommendations on HDDs to fill it? I've been leaning towards 4TB or 6TB WD Reds (depends if I go RAID5 or RAID6/10); they seem to be highly recommended and low power, but I'd love it if the price on those drives dropped a little more. HGST looks to be very reliable but not sure I want a 7200rpm drive for power/noise.

WD Reds are kind of the benchmark that others are compared to - and they perform well - one does pay a bit of a premium for them.

RAID5/6/10 - my preference is RAID10, but that does come at a cost of available storage - but it does have the best read/write performance compared to RAID5/6...

Do not forget to include in the NAS purchase some kind of backup strategy - lot of folks forget about the NAS, and there have been extreme tales of woe on the forums here when arrays blow up...

(chances of an array having problems are higher than it would be for a single disk, as one compounds the mean time between failures - and that goes for any RAID array)

 

[aviphysics]

Super helpful and detailed post -- thanks! I think you have a typo in the header for the 451+ -- it should be without AES-NI, right?

Thanks for catching the typo. It's fixed now.

You seem to be leaning towards the Synology, and it sounds like that might be the best option for you. I'm open to either; I've heard good things about both. We have a couple of QNAPs at work that have been pretty reliable, but I don't have too much other experience with them. I thought that QNAPs were supposed to be a bit cheaper than Synology for comparable hardware, but that seems to not really be the case here.

I probably lean towards Synology because I already have a little experience with them. My friend in IT recommended QNAP, but he doesn't have any experience with Synology.

In reality, as this is my first NAS and I'm probably not pushing the limits of what any of these can do, I'm sure any of them will probably be fine. Worst case, it should be easy to upgrade within the same manufacturer to a more powerful model without losing any of the data (based on what I've read from QNAP and Synology) if I decide I need more power/features. I guess the only challenge is if I later decide to swap manufacturers, it could be a little more complicated.

The hardest part in switching is that you are walking from the known to the unknown. Either way I think you would wan't to backup all your important data before swapping devices. This is hard if you are using RAID 5, because you might not be able to find a single drive large enough for all your data.

I don't know much about BTRFS but I did come across a few articles talking about some issues with that (perhaps just with raid 5/6?). I'll need to dig in to see if that's a concern for my usage, and whether it's really beneficial or not.

I don't plan to use RAID 5/6 for a couple reasons

1. If you NAS MB fails, it is way more difficult to get your data off a RAID 5, RAID 6, or RAID 10 array than a simple RAID 1 array. Hopefully all your drives are good and can rescue the DATA with another NAS. If the failure happened in the middle of a write, your data might be completely scrambled.
   
2. With 4 drives in RAID 5, you easily get into a situation where you can't backup your partition onto a single separate drive, which can be inconvenient at times.
3. RAID 6 with only 4 drives is silly, because you lose just as much space as Raid 1 or RAID 10 (Though I would still stick with RAID 1 over RAID 10)
4. I don't believe the NASs we are looking at can actually take advantage of the performance boost from RAID 6, RAID 5, or RAID 10 (maybe they can, but I haven't seen benchmarks that suggest it.

My point isn't that RAID 5/6 is terrible and no one should use it, but that it is not the best solution if you are just trying to keep your important data a little safer. People of course may rightly say that any RAID isn't a backup, but IME RAID 5/6 actively make keeping your data safe more difficult.

What I plan to do is something like this (though my plan is still in flux)

• Put two drives in a RAID 1 array. This will house my regular backup of documents with file version history and other not easily replaceable stuff. Also probably a lot of unimportant stuff.
• A third drive that makes regular (daily or weekly) backups of important folders in the RAID 1 array (in case the array is corrupted or someone messes up their files.)
• A forth drive that makes regular disk images of the main computers in the house (so I hopefully don't have to spend a day getting a computer setup from scratch after a HD failure.)
• Will also use a cloud service to have an offsite backup of important documents.

Since I did jump on the 451+ at the $354 sale price, that seems like the best "deal" of the bunch. I just need to decide if AES-NI is worth $75-100 more (and whether quad > dual core). Since I'd like to use it for VPN, this may push me over.

If another device is hosting the VPN connection (some routers can do a good job at this), that device will handle the VPN encryption. Some ARM chips have hardware that provides functionality similar to AES-NI (DS216 is equipped with an example one of these.) A router equipped as such shouldn't have a problem hosting the encrypted connection.

I am mainly concerned about whether or not AES-NI will help with CloudStation.

(Also, re CPUs: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/52/Intel_Celeron_J1900_vs_Intel_Mobile_Celeron_N3060.html)

I have a little bit of a dislike for those auto comparison websites. Mainly because clock speeds and number of cores can be misleading.

 

[sfx2000]

What I plan to do is something like this (though my plan is still in flux)

• Put two drives in a RAID 1 array. This will house my regular backup of documents with file version history and other not easily replaceable stuff. Also probably a lot of unimportant stuff.
• A third drive that makes regular (daily or weekly) backups of important folders in the RAID 1 array (in case the array is corrupted or someone messes up their files.)
• A forth drive that makes regular disk images of the main computers in the house (so I hopefully don't have to spend a day getting a computer setup from scratch after a HD failure.)
• Will also use a cloud service to have an offsite backup of important documents.

I would suggest one Logical volume and multiple shares instead - makes it easier for all the kings horses and all the kings men to put things back together again..

With LVM and MDADM, there's enough data security there - and one can still set quotas on shares... and you'll have some flexibility if you decide to change the splits based on needs and requirements.

Simple works... remember - with a NAS, one is working with layers at the disk level, raid level, volume and share level - it's like in Shrek - Orges have layers, and NAS's have layers - kinda like a parfait...

 

[sfx2000]

I would suggest one Logical volume and multiple shares instead

This advice is for a 4 bay NAS - for larger, then it _might_ help with 6 bay or larger...

A five bay NAS makes no sense, but there, I would treat it like a 4 bay... and use the 5th disk as a caching drive (which QNAP supports).

 

[seadan]

This advice is for a 4 bay NAS - for larger, then it _might_ help with 6 bay or larger...

A five bay NAS makes no sense, but there, I would treat it like a 4 bay... and use the 5th disk as a caching drive (which QNAP supports).

Thanks for the suggestions. I liked RAID6 just due to the theoretical 2 drive failure point vs RAID10 (1+, depending on which two fail...), and I liked RAID5 for the capacity. If I do 4TB drives, I'd prefer RAID5. If I do 6TB drives I can probably get away with RAID10. Just depends how much I want to spend, I guess