Im looking to buy a single bay NAS. Will be my first NAS ever. me and my SO will be using it for: backup, media streaming, remote access. will run the NAS with scheduled backups to an external HD until we can afford backup to a second NAS.
Tried an Iomega HMND-CE. DId not like it at all, and some features were, lets say, 'incorrectly' advertised. It went back.
I learnt my lesson, and am willing to shell out the extra dough for a good one, even if its not tuned for 'business-friendly' features. Im comfortable with computing-world complexity.
So it has come down to the Qnap ts-112 and the Synology ds110j.
The interface demo of the Synology is awesome, and I can see more options in every setting screen. seems like it can be configed to do pretty much anything. The qnap demo is not fully functional when it comes to multimedia station etc. so that tells me that the folks over at qnap may not be fully ready with all the features
NOW: considering that the Qnap has a faster processor and double the RAM and blows the synology out of the water in the file copy tests here on snb, i wonder if the interface alone can make all the difference?
ive read that RAM doesnt matter for file sizes greater than RAM size, but what about processor speed?
My brain says qnap (best bang for the buck!), heart says synology (they have their s**t together). and the unresolved battle between brain and heart goes on.
help from the selfless fellow wanderers of cyber-realms much appreciated.
TL;DR: is synology ds110j > qnap ts-112, despite hardware(qnap) > hardware(synology)
Tried an Iomega HMND-CE. DId not like it at all, and some features were, lets say, 'incorrectly' advertised. It went back.
I learnt my lesson, and am willing to shell out the extra dough for a good one, even if its not tuned for 'business-friendly' features. Im comfortable with computing-world complexity.
So it has come down to the Qnap ts-112 and the Synology ds110j.
The interface demo of the Synology is awesome, and I can see more options in every setting screen. seems like it can be configed to do pretty much anything. The qnap demo is not fully functional when it comes to multimedia station etc. so that tells me that the folks over at qnap may not be fully ready with all the features
NOW: considering that the Qnap has a faster processor and double the RAM and blows the synology out of the water in the file copy tests here on snb, i wonder if the interface alone can make all the difference?
ive read that RAM doesnt matter for file sizes greater than RAM size, but what about processor speed?
My brain says qnap (best bang for the buck!), heart says synology (they have their s**t together). and the unresolved battle between brain and heart goes on.
help from the selfless fellow wanderers of cyber-realms much appreciated.
TL;DR: is synology ds110j > qnap ts-112, despite hardware(qnap) > hardware(synology)
