Ts-251, ds215j or readynas 202

[doyle100]

Im considering my first home NAS. Which of these are the best?

My intended usage is backup, streaming music, remote access, file sharing and storage of media.

Netgear has the better backup file system, but it appears to only have a web interface.

Thanks

 

[stevech]

Opinion (expressed by others here too)
QNAP, Synology.

2 years ago I scrutinized them all, rated Netgear low on features, cost and horrid support (by experience).

I have been very pleased with Synology. But QNAP is right up there too.
ASUS is a rising star but not in the market long enough yet.

In any NAS, plan on external USB3 or eSATA, big drive(s) for backup. It's a must.
And I use a 2 bay, two volumes, no RAID, because RAID does not protect for file system corruption nor human error in admin a volume. Volume 2 is a backup of volume 1. As is the USB3 which can be out of thieves' sight.

 

[kamina]

I have both a Synology (ds211j) and Qnap (453S).

I think both work very well, personally the Qnap UI is clearer for me (less inconsistencies) but that has to be a matter of preference and the Synology UI looks a lot fancier so if somebody prefers the logic (or considers both equal from logic point of view) then they would most probably prefer Synology.

But based on the options you gave I would imagine the TS-251 to be a lot faster then the Synology as it has an Intel processor vs. the ARM processor in the Synology (this is the lowest end Synology, they have a lot faster models with different ARM processors). It's a different class of device that you are comparing to.

 

[htismaqe]

I love my QNAP but do have one complaint - if you have multiple Mac computers using Time Machine, Synology is a much better choice. QNAPs Time Machine implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[stevech]

multi-core intel processor based NAS $$$$.

I think too much emphasis is put on transfer rates on SOHO class NASes. In reality, most files are KB or a few MB, not GB. So the speed is constrained by overhead in SMB and the file systems on PCs/Macs.

Time Machine. I use Synology's "Time Backup" which does file versioning for as many versions as you specify, and for which folders / shares you choose. I'm not Apple-literate.

 

[kamina]

I just compared transferring a directory of pictures from 5 years ago (30GB) to my new nas. The pics are pretty small by modern standard, between 1-4MB each and directory also includes very small thumbnails etc. On the Qnap the average speed was over 90MB/s which surprised me, so I tested transferring the same directory to the Synology, there speed was around 30MB/s.

Clearly my Synology is the cheapest model from 4 years ago so it's far from a fair comparison, but it really does seem to choke on small files, or maybe the overhead of SMB will limit the processor more. The main point is that in a gigabit network the Intel devices (also Synology, and maybe even more so) can saturate the network with pretty small files and that can make quite a difference. I don't know why the devices in the first post where listed there, but I maintain the TS-251 would be quite a bit faster.

 

[htismaqe]

Time Machine. I use Synology's "Time Backup" which does file versioning for as many versions as you specify, and for which folders / shares you choose. I'm not Apple-literate.

Time Machine is the built-in file backup/imaging program for OS X. My guess is from reading your descriptions of Time Backup, Synology has done a very good job of mimicking Time Machine's functionality, however that's a NAS-based tool, it's not Time Machine.

Using OS X Time Machine with a network share requires a few things. For it to work reliably, it needs to use AFP. Both Synology and QNAP support AFP.

However, QNAP's Time Machine module only supports one user and that user is named "Time Machine". It's quite limited in its implementation. Not only does it cause issues with multiple machines/users, it prevents a single user from using other AFP shares on the same NAS. I'm really displeased with QNAP's Time Machine support (or lack thereof) and if they don't fix it, I'll probably be going Synology the next time around.

 

[L&LD]

Time Machine is the built-in file backup/imaging program for OS X. My guess is from reading your descriptions of Time Backup, Synology has done a very good job of mimicking Time Machine's functionality, however that's a NAS-based tool, it's not Time Machine.

Using OS X Time Machine with a network share requires a few things. For it to work reliably, it needs to use AFP. Both Synology and QNAP support AFP.

However, QNAP's Time Machine module only supports one user and that user is named "Time Machine". It's quite limited in its implementation. Not only does it cause issues with multiple machines/users, it prevents a single user from using other AFP shares on the same NAS. I'm really displeased with QNAP's Time Machine support (or lack thereof) and if they don't fix it, I'll probably be going Synology the next time around.

Over here, the QNAP's are not going anywhere - but the Apple products are becoming more and more scarce (on their own).

I think you're planning to replace the wrong device(s).

 

[kamina]

I never had problems with Time Machine on Synology, also it did not prevent using other shares on the NAS. I don't know how they implemented it (don't have it enabled on the Qnap)...

But personally in the same case I would definitely not be replacing my computer just because a NAS would be implementing a feature badly if I had an option of replacing the actual NAS... I have yet to see a backup solution that would work as easily and well as time machine (I still prefer not to use it through a hack).

 

[htismaqe]

Over here, the QNAP's are not going anywhere - but the Apple products are becoming more and more scarce (on their own).

I think you're planning to replace the wrong device(s).

I think you're wrong. I'm actively replacing Windows machine with machines that actually WORK.

 

[htismaqe]

I never had problems with Time Machine on Synology, also it did not prevent using other shares on the NAS. I don't know how they implemented it (don't have it enabled on the Qnap)...

But personally in the same case I would definitely not be replacing my computer just because a NAS would be implementing a feature badly if I had an option of replacing the actual NAS... I have yet to see a backup solution that would work as easily and well as time machine (I still prefer not to use it through a hack).

Basically OS X pairs a username/password with a device share. I cannot connect to the /X share with one username/password and the /Y share. That's a limitation of OS X.

Synology uses user accounts for Time Machine from what I can tell. Meaning I can connect to /home using my username/password and then turn around and map /TimeMachine with the same username/password.

Unfortunately, QNAP uses a special user account (TimeMachine) for Time Machine functionality. They also have a dedicated mount point, /TMBackup. There's 2 drawbacks to that implementation:

1. If you have multiple users, they all use the same username and password, AND the same folder. You can limit the size of the TMBackup folder but cannot control quotas at the individual user level.
2. If you are already connecting to a share via AFP using a different username and password, you can't connect to TMBackup without all kinds of hacking.

 

[stevech]

Are you using the special Synology support for Apple's Time Machine?
Another option is to have the Apple computers pick up the NAS' share(s) for that user and other share(s) for multi-user access.
Then the Synology Time Backup can do versioning backups of all these shares.

 

[htismaqe]

I'm not using Synology, I'm using QNAP, and thus I'm not using Time Machine on my NAS at all (because it's too limited). I use an external firewire drive that I image weekly and store on the NAS.

 

[mdgm]

Netgear has the better backup file system

We use the BTRFS filesystem in ReadyNAS OS 6. BTRFS is a great filesystem, especially when it comes to data integrity. We've got features such as unlimited snapshots and bitrot protection against media degradation. These are great features and assist with protecting your data, but backups are still important. Don't store important data on just the one device. Note that if the primary copy of the data is on your PC then the copy on a NAS is a backup.

Backups jobs on the NAS itself can be configured to backup data to and/from the NAS. You can also use backup software on your PC.

Unfortunately, QNAP uses a special user account (TimeMachine) for Time Machine functionality

Since ReadyNAS OS 6.2.0 the NETGEAR ReadyNAS has support for private Time Machine with per user capacity limits.

 

[lexi]

TS-251 is the most capable and versatile two-bay NAS box in its price range. But it’s pricey and its mobile media features aren’t fully implemented. DS215j NAS has excellent operating system software. it's good for home users.