Hey Guys,
I have been working a lot with both the QNAP and Synology devices, and thought I would chime in with some thoughts, differences, and also the link aggregation aspect of these boxes.
Here are the units I've been working with:
QNAP TS-459 Pro Turbo NAS
Synology DS1511+
Synology DS1812+
Firstly, let's talk about hardware - I'm not an engineer by any stretch of the imagination, so I can't really say if the layout / internal design is superior in either one of the brands. What I *can* say is that in terms of materials used, QNAP wins hands down.
The QNAP unit I work with uses much more, sturdier metal in its construction. This can be seen right down to the HDD sleds, in which QNAP continues to use metal, where as Synology opted for flimsier, flexible plastic HDD sleds. This is not a huge deal, if you're not going to be constantly swapping hard drives all the time, which is worth considering. Besides the practical aspect, I must admit I really like the look of the Synology devices. I know it shouldn't have too much impact on your final decision.
When it comes to software, the scale slides favourably toward the Synology camp. From a general "get the job done" philosophy, both have a lot in common. In fact, if someone told me that one company was a spin-off of the other company, I would probably believe them. Certain application are called the same thing, backups are done using similar technologies. Both get the job done. However, if they were sisters, QNAP would be the plain, practical sister who always did the right thing. Synology is smokin' hot one. The interface is awesome. Everything is a few clicks away, and just looks great. Everything gets done in a few clicks, menus animate, and all at a good clip too. With all that said, just like the hardware, neither can be faulted or described negatively.
The other topic that came up here was link aggregation. I am a power user, and I know for general purposes, a single 1000baseT connection is fine. However, in my situation, I do find use for a link aggregated connection. I live in a house with 5 users who ingest media at a significant rate. I host a PLEX media server connected to my NAS at home. My friends also stream media from me from their homes. The NAS contains 720p, 1080p, and Bluray videos. It's quite often that there may be 4, 5 or even more users streaming media. This on top of all the graphic and video work I do myself. What link aggregation lets me do is keep an expected level of response and performance for my share media across the board.
The one thing to note, for those thinking about trying link aggregation: If you have 1 workstation with a team of 2 x 1Gb NICs connected to a NAS with link aggregation, it WILL NOT increase your top speed. You will not be able to transfer at 2Gbps. What it will do is allow more transfers from different devices at a higher level of performance. Think 4-lane highway vs. 2 lane highway. More lanes, same top speed.
Cheers,
F.
I have been working a lot with both the QNAP and Synology devices, and thought I would chime in with some thoughts, differences, and also the link aggregation aspect of these boxes.
Here are the units I've been working with:
QNAP TS-459 Pro Turbo NAS
Synology DS1511+
Synology DS1812+
Firstly, let's talk about hardware - I'm not an engineer by any stretch of the imagination, so I can't really say if the layout / internal design is superior in either one of the brands. What I *can* say is that in terms of materials used, QNAP wins hands down.
The QNAP unit I work with uses much more, sturdier metal in its construction. This can be seen right down to the HDD sleds, in which QNAP continues to use metal, where as Synology opted for flimsier, flexible plastic HDD sleds. This is not a huge deal, if you're not going to be constantly swapping hard drives all the time, which is worth considering. Besides the practical aspect, I must admit I really like the look of the Synology devices. I know it shouldn't have too much impact on your final decision.
When it comes to software, the scale slides favourably toward the Synology camp. From a general "get the job done" philosophy, both have a lot in common. In fact, if someone told me that one company was a spin-off of the other company, I would probably believe them. Certain application are called the same thing, backups are done using similar technologies. Both get the job done. However, if they were sisters, QNAP would be the plain, practical sister who always did the right thing. Synology is smokin' hot one. The interface is awesome. Everything is a few clicks away, and just looks great. Everything gets done in a few clicks, menus animate, and all at a good clip too. With all that said, just like the hardware, neither can be faulted or described negatively.
The other topic that came up here was link aggregation. I am a power user, and I know for general purposes, a single 1000baseT connection is fine. However, in my situation, I do find use for a link aggregated connection. I live in a house with 5 users who ingest media at a significant rate. I host a PLEX media server connected to my NAS at home. My friends also stream media from me from their homes. The NAS contains 720p, 1080p, and Bluray videos. It's quite often that there may be 4, 5 or even more users streaming media. This on top of all the graphic and video work I do myself. What link aggregation lets me do is keep an expected level of response and performance for my share media across the board.
The one thing to note, for those thinking about trying link aggregation: If you have 1 workstation with a team of 2 x 1Gb NICs connected to a NAS with link aggregation, it WILL NOT increase your top speed. You will not be able to transfer at 2Gbps. What it will do is allow more transfers from different devices at a higher level of performance. Think 4-lane highway vs. 2 lane highway. More lanes, same top speed.
Cheers,
F.
