New DS210j Data Sheet

[Zarch]

http://download.synology.com/download/ds/DS210j/DataSheet/Synology_DS110j_Data_Sheet_enu.pdf

Looking at google, this appears to be 180EUR, but no sign of a release date as yet.

Quoted performance stats of 75+ MB/Sec Read and 33+ MB/Sec Writes.

It looks like its had a CPU and Memory upgrade from the 209j.
From 266mhz and 64MB upto 800mhz and 128MB.

Also, power is reduced from 36/15 (access/hibernation) to 25/10w.

 

[claykin]

Looks good for a lower end product. Even has iSCSI. Synology releases new product so frequently its gets confusing.

 

[Zarch]

Looks good for a lower end product. Even has iSCSI. Synology releases new product so frequently its gets confusing.

I agree, i was thinking of getting a DS209, but this release makes me wonder if theres a new DS210 in the pipeline?

Think i'll hold off for a short while.

 

[Zarch]

Looks to be in UK shops now at £160. (£60 cheaper than the 209 at £220 and nearly half the price of a 209+II at £313)

Wonder if we'll see a SNB review anytime soon?

 

[iwod]

Which is an Qnap equivalent of TS110,

 

[flamaest]

If you are going to spend $230 on this DS210J unit, I would just pony up the extra 60 bucks and get the DS210 because it is really much faster IMHO.

I have the DS210 with 2 1.5 TB drives and love it.

Thanks,
F.

 

[ntm1275]

If you are going to spend $230 on this DS210J unit, I would just pony up the extra 60 bucks and get the DS210 because it is really much faster IMHO.

I have the DS210 with 2 1.5 TB drives and love it.

Thanks,
F.

I'm assuming you meant to type DS209 not DS210, as Synology hasn't anounced a DS210 yet

The new modeles for 2010 are the DS110j, DS210j and the DS410j

 

[ntm1275]

Which is an Qnap equivalent of TS110,

The TS110 is a 1 bay NAS whereas the DS210j is a 2 bay NAS

Synology's equivalent to the TS110 would be the DS110j

 

[Kevinlane]

The 210j shows a better download speed. 209 better up.
What would be the bigger bottleneck, responsivness for FTP , hosting and iTunes, or the writing of the backups?

 

[scoob]

None of the above

The 210j shows a better download speed. 209 better up.
What would be the bigger bottleneck, responsivness for FTP , hosting and iTunes, or the writing of the backups?

Really, all the tasks you are listing will be well served by the cheaper 210j.
The difference is a bit of a faster CPU on the 209 (for $70 more).

The CPU intensive tasks would show up more if you served php driven web pages, hosted windows share for a large number of users etc...

itunes (I speculate) uses very little ressources and therefore would work just as well with one or the other server.

FTP is a once in a while thing (i.e. you typically won't have 10+ parallel FTP sessions going).

Writing of backups is something that takes place in the background (at night?). Unlike regular file serving, the backup uses rsync (to only copy the files that need to be updated). rsync will use some CPU ressources to compare files (possibly do a checksum) and possibly encrypt the data stream (depending on how you configured your rsync backup).
It will also be affected by the direction of your backup (backing up PCs or another NAS box to your ds210j or backing up your ds210j to another box?).
Bottom line, I expect that the only difference you would see is a lighter wallet with the DS209

Cheers!
- Christian

 

[Kevinlane]

Thanks Christian, I already ordered the 210j by the time I read your post/
And yes for me BUs that I was wondering about if they're noticably slower would be from my PC > NAS

I guess if I have a problem with too many on a website hosted on this thing, then that will be a good problem . . .