The agony of choice...

[Steven]

The last time I looked into this, I scavenged an old pc and made a server out of it. This time around, I realise that I don't want that thing powered on all the time, so I guess it is time for a real NAS... To be used:

- as a print server, file server and back-up location (mixed small and large files)
- to safely back up family pictures (which are also in another location and in full size on a paid Flickr account, by way of off-site back-up)
- to stream music (I'm planning to buy a squeezebox touch, depending on wife approval) - in lossless format (FLAC) if at all possible
- to stream vob files to the tv (which is a Philips net-enabled model)
- to view pictures on the tv

Most of the network is wired (100 Mbps).

All in all I figure I will need to put priority on:

- quiet & cool
- able to use DLNA (or have a media server installed)
- certainly able to run squeezeserver "out of the box"
- wake on LAN and preferably WAN
- relatively future proof (it should last for five years at least)
- perhaps even with upgradable RAM

I'm probably going for a four-disk system (starting with two disks), and I'm in doubt between Synology and Qnas systems. The Synology DS410 comes at a price of € 508, and the Qnap TS-419P+ costs € 573. It seems these two are rather comparable, with the main (price) difference being a faster processor in the Qnap. Could anyone tell me if this would matter (a lot), and if this could somehow be offset by upgrading the RAM in the Synology?

The DS 411+ is € 640 here, and therefore a bit too expensive for my taste. Unless of course there are really compelling reasons to consider this model.

I also think the Qnap looks nicer, but that is less relevant .

Other questions I have:

1) I don't imagine I will do RAID but just mirroring, as I would like it to be possible to take out the disks in case of hardware failure, and to read them from a normal computer. I understand that is possible with Synology, but I don't know if it is with Qnap. Any thoughts on that?

2) With Synology, the OS is on the disks (instead of a flash drive, as it seems to be the case with Qnap). Does this pose risks / problems in case a disk fails, or is it on the contrary more robust than a flash solution?

3) I have the impression that Synology is quieter but uses a bit more power than Qnap, and that Synology is better in terms of software installed and future deployment (= that what is supported evolves with the software). Is that right (generally speaking, of course)?

4) The Synology 410 specs state that the maximum disk space is 8TB (4x2TB). Yet the HDD list does show the new 3TB disks to be accepted. Is the maximum capacity a software thing, or a hardware limitation?

Looking forward to your answers!

 

[thiggins]

With a 100 Mbps LAN, you won't be able to take advantage of the throughput of the products you are considering. So I would go with the less expensive version.

Your Squeezebox requirement will limit your choice to NETGEAR, Synology and QNAP NASes. Everything else except for Wake on LAN can be done by most any NAS.

1) I don't imagine I will do RAID but just mirroring, as I would like it to be possible to take out the disks in case of hardware failure, and to read them from a normal computer. I understand that is possible with Synology, but I don't know if it is with Qnap. Any thoughts on that?

Mirroring is RAID 1 and is not a substitute for backup. NASes use Linux filesystems, so aren't readable on Windows or MacOS machines. This goes for either QNAP, Synology or any other vendor. Exception is systems that use HFS+, which I believe MacOS can read.

2) With Synology, the OS is on the disks (instead of a flash drive, as it seems to be the case with Qnap). Does this pose risks / problems in case a disk fails, or is it on the contrary more robust than a flash solution?

Part of the OS is always on the drives. BYOD (driveless) NASes can start with raw disks and install what is needed to get you running.
Recovering from a single drive failure is straightforward with any system. Recovering from a major failure (power supply, mainboard failure) requires a good backup.

3) I have the impression that Synology is quieter but uses a bit more power than Qnap, and that Synology is better in terms of software installed and future deployment (= that what is supported evolves with the software). Is that right (generally speaking, of course)?

I view Synology and QNAP as generally equal. Others may (and will) disagree.

4) The Synology 410 specs state that the maximum disk space is 8TB (4x2TB). Yet the HDD list does show the new 3TB disks to be accepted. Is the maximum capacity a software thing, or a hardware limitation?

Capacity is generally limited by NAS firmware and drive compatibility.

 

[Steven]

Thanks for the advice!

I'm stuck with using a Thomson TG784 (provided by the Internet provider). From there, there is a cable to my office where an old WRT acts as a hub, and where the NAS would reside.

The WRT I can upgrade, but I don't know if it makes sense with the Thomson in the picture. I have no idea what that thing is capable of...

Edit: the tech specs state " Ethernet WAN 10/100 BaseT LAN" (http://www.ovislink.ca/voip/tg784.pdf). I still don't know what that means .

 

[thiggins]

For LAN traffic, it doesn't matter what the router is. LAN speed is determined by the switch ports and device Ethernet interfaces. The only time the router is involved is for Internet traffic.

If you link a Gigabit switch to the router, you're good to go.