Why are NAS devices so expensive

[margolbe]

I scratch my head when I look at pricing.

A cheap Dell computer with a 4th Generation Intel Core i3-4150 processor, windows 8.1 (64 bit), 4GB Single Channel DDR3 1600MHz RAM, a 1TB 7200 rpm SATA 6Gb/s Hard Drive, a DVD drive, wireless keyboard and mouse costs $399.

Yet to get a core i3 QNAP NAS is well over $1200. An Synology NAS, like the 414, with an atom processor costs $500.

The margins must be huge for the vendors.

It would seem there would be an opportunity for a vendor to come in with aggressive pricing, or with more powerful CPUs at lower prices.

Any thoughts?

 

[stevech]

I scratch my head when I look at pricing.

A cheap Dell computer with a 4th Generation Intel Core i3-4150 processor, windows 8.1 (64 bit), 4GB Single Channel DDR3 1600MHz RAM, a 1TB 7200 rpm SATA 6Gb/s Hard Drive, a DVD drive, wireless keyboard and mouse costs $399.

Yet to get a core i3 QNAP NAS is well over $1200. An Synology NAS, like the 414, with an atom processor costs $500.

The margins must be huge for the vendors.

It would seem there would be an opportunity for a vendor to come in with aggressive pricing, or with more powerful CPUs at lower prices.

Any thoughts?

For my home needs, and more for my work at home job, a 2 bay NAS is just fine. With agressive backup to external USB3 and other backup methods.

That DS212 was around $200 less drives. I had one 2TB drive and bought another; one's green one's not. Two volumes, not RAID. Not a super fast CPU but that's not needed in an I/O intensive NAS.

I think home users often over-buy NASes. But that's just me.

The NAS vendors QNAP, Synology, Thecus put a lot of R&D $ in the NAS operating software and utilties. And support their software for about 5 years. That's probably a lot of the cost.

But IMO, you get a lot for the $ with these small NASes. Be sure to shop Newegg and with great caution, selected Amazon vendors.

 

[margolbe]

The parts costs don't justify the cost

When you look at the Dell PC, the parts costs are much higher.

Dell also provides support and does R & D.

I agree that the pricing seems fairer for two bay NAS devices. However, the price should not almost double (or more) when you get to 4 bays.

Also, the support from Synology leaves a lot to be desired. With Dell, I can get on the phone relatively quickly and have my problem solved.

The costs do not seem justified.

 

[stevech]

When you look at the Dell PC, the parts costs are much higher.

Dell also provides support and does R & D.

I agree that the pricing seems fairer for two bay NAS devices. However, the price should not almost double (or more) when you get to 4 bays.

Also, the support from Synology leaves a lot to be desired. With Dell, I can get on the phone relatively quickly and have my problem solved.

The costs do not seem justified.

I've had good results with the small amount of support I've needed with Synology. Phone call or ticket posting, they're prompt and don't push you for warranty status and all that rot.

Dell is not a NAS vendor in the same market as Synology and QNAPl. You'll see that if you go to their web sites and try the UI and features. It's much more that being a file server.

 

[margolbe]

You are missing the point

I know that Dell is not a NAS vendor.

I'm trying to understand why people are not more upset about the pricing of 4 bay plus NAS devices given the minimal amount of money that seems to be spent on the hardware costs.

I realize this is a more specialized market, but the pricing still seems way out of whack, given the specs of the hardware.

 

[htgamer+]

When you factor in the software development costs of all the apps and firmware that companies like Synology, Thecus and QNAP put in their products it is easy to see where the bulk of the costs are in these units. The companies maintain an infrastructure to maintain the software and improve upon it. Given that there audience is looking for reliable ease of use one does the companies' an injustice in believing pricing should approximate the sum of the parts costs. The value of intellectual property is extremely difficult for consumers to value and is often taken for granted. For those with technical know how that wish to save money and want to build their own server that exceeds the performance capabilities of those provided by the top tier NAS providers there are plenty of options out there.

 

[margolbe]

I can see some of your points

I can see some of your points.

However, the same R&D for software goes into 2 bay vs. 4 + bay units, yet the pricing of 4 bay units seems disproportionately high given the relatively small increases in hardware costs. And when you go from 4 bay Intel Atom units to more powerful i3 chips, the pricing seems hard to justify.

It seems that you should be able to buy more hardware firepower for less money that these vendors are charging, given that the software costs are likely similar across all of these units.

 

[L&LD]

Before I bought a 'proper' NAS, I too questioned the prices and the sanity of those that bought those seemingly inappropriately expensive units.

After finally getting sick of rebuilding (many, many times over) a Windows desktop that was used as a file server, I bought a QNAP TS-469L. This was almost two years ago.


I have upgraded the firmware as needed, I upgraded the drives (just recently, to WD 4TB Reds) and I even upgraded the RAM (to 3GB) but I did not need to do any of that.

The unit has proved to be rock stable, reliable and quiet (enough). I don't use many of the advanced features it has, but the fact that it is still working is what makes this setup worth more than gold.

Compared to the converted desktops I was using before, it is limited by the number of drives, but that is about it for 'cons'.

The 'pros'? The 'big' ones I see: rsync, Email notification of potential errors, automatic testing of the drives on a schedule I choose, constant updates of the firmware and apps which introduce new capabilities constantly (even if I don't use them currently), not to mention low power draw, low noise (relatively) and just the fact that it is built to be on 24/7.


Also, going from a two drive NAS to a four drive NAS is a huge upgrade in terms of performance and reliability (RAID5 or higher). R&D does not automatically carry over with these added features - they have to be tested, proven and validated separately, in addition to the new rebuilding subroutines in case of errors.


Don't get me wrong, I want the prices to be lower and buying the latest TS-670 Pro (for a customer) was a little shocking to see the price hit well over $3G in a blink of an eye (with 4TB Reds and an Intel SSD used as a cache drive).

But looking back on what I was able to build just a couple of years ago, the customer is much better off with the super expensive QNAP setup and if it lasts him just two years; it will be cheaper than the desktop I kept rebuilding (had to keep rebuilding) over the same time period with much better performance, many, many more features and a lower power footprint too.

Oh; and did I mention much more stable and reliable?

 

[stevech]

The larger drive count (bays) NASes sell to video editors and surveillance camera users. Support and warranty costs for them are likely high.

A big component of a durable consumer product is the warranty replacement cost. Cars, appliances, etc.

Low-end NASes like the DS212 I own have much lower costs as they don't break often and if my experience is typical, as I think it is, there's very little support labor spent on the two-bay class of user. Mine, like others', just runs. I don't install new software until its been out 6+ months and that helps both me and the vendor.

I tried FeeNAS and the like, and have used Linux and Windows SMB shares, but the features from that are bare bones vs. the NASes.

Until a consumer type user has owned a NAS, they don't "get it" that it is far more than a file server.

 

[thiggins]

Higher prices are also a reflection of sales volume. NASes are still not a mainstream consumer product, especially higher than two-bay models.

The other factor is that the higher-end NASes are aimed at SERVER replacement. And for that, NAS prices are a bargain, even as high as they are.

 

[mervincm]

You are paying for the magic, not the collection of parts. You are paying for years worth of security upgrades and new features available at the click of a button. You are paying for the HOURS of research saved to design build and construct a DIY version. You are paying for assistance if/when something goes wrong, usually getting up and running much faster than a solo effort.

In the last year I have built / played with
2 FreeNAS systems 4 Disks
2 XPENology Systems 2-4 disks
1 windows server 2012r2 w storage spaces
1 QNAS 4 bay
1 synology 4 bay

I have learned a lot, but the clearest message was that QNAP and Synology has put together great products.


if you want a bad analogy, why pay 15$ to go see a movie when you can make your own for free with your mobile? You are paying for the magic!

 

[Nerre]

After finally getting sick of rebuilding (many, many times over) a Windows desktop that was used as a file server, I bought a QNAP TS-469L. This was almost two years ago.

That only tells that Windows is not good

There is for example FreeNAS and OpenNAS that probably will work a lot better.

I've had a linux server running as a file server (sharing it's disk with samba) for almost 10 years (it was an old 166 MHz Pentium!). Scrapped it two years ago.

 

[L&LD]

Nerre,

That can be one conclusion - but I would suggest the wrong one.

I've seen systems running almost into the second decade too, but the stress put on them over those 11/12 years was minimal and more important, the role they served did not change over the years, which is why they could continue in service for so long.

The O/S by itself is not the limitation. The changing needs and demands of a NAS is what the major issues were. QNAP and Synology are in a class of their own not because they don't run Windows, but because they ensure every aspect a modern NAS is subject to is properly addressed.

If a Windows based QNAP NAS were offered tomorrow, I would be the first to buy it.

NTFS is the world I live in and using a Linux file system was (and still is) a hard pill to swallow.

 

[azazel1024]

Significantly longer warranty and support than what you'll find (without an extended warranty) on a regular desktop. Plus you pay for the form factor. The margins are probably higher too, but that is in part because the volumes aren't as high as they are for desktop manufacturers.

I don't have a NAS because of the cost. I didn't need the form factor; I have a perfectly good place to tuck an ATX case out of the way for use as a server. I also didn't need the support (can support the hardware/software myself just fine). I also DID mind the extra cost. Finally I wanted the extra capability of a full fledged Windows machine and a Core series processor (even if a lowly Celeron G1610).

I am vaguely considering a cheap single disk NAS with a 4 bay external USB enclosure as a back-up for my server (currently my backup is my desktop). I need new drives for my desktop, so I am thinking of plunking them in an external enclosure and once the drives in my server start running low, pulling them and dropping them in the enclosure too. I don't mind JBOD as my secondary/tertiary backup and I need little performance there.

 

[stevech]

Significantly longer warranty and support than what you'll find (without an extended warranty) on a regular desktop. Plus you pay for the form factor. The margins are probably higher too, but that is in part because the volumes aren't as high as they are for desktop manufacturers.

I don't have a NAS because of the cost. I didn't need the form factor; I have a perfectly good place to tuck an ATX case out of the way for use as a server. I also didn't need the support (can support the hardware/software myself just fine). I also DID mind the extra cost. Finally I wanted the extra capability of a full fledged Windows machine and a Core series processor (even if a lowly Celeron G1610).

I am vaguely considering a cheap single disk NAS with a 4 bay external USB enclosure as a back-up for my server (currently my backup is my desktop). I need new drives for my desktop, so I am thinking of plunking them in an external enclosure and once the drives in my server start running low, pulling them and dropping them in the enclosure too. I don't mind JBOD as my secondary/tertiary backup and I need little performance there.

Imprudent approach.

 

[Nerre]

I don't have a NAS because of the cost.

Well, I changed my old P166-based linux file server to a WNR3500L with an external USB disk because I figured out what the electricty cost was...

Reducing the electricity cost from €60 a year to €5 a year was well worth the €70 cost of the router. And the WNR3500L has more computing power than the old P166

Now, that is of course not a "real" NAS, but it does the same job for me. The point is that electricity cost needs to be considered when looking into solutions. A PC based "NAS" generally draws more electricity than a NAS box.

 

[shortcut3d]

Well, I changed my old P166-based linux file server to a WNR3500L with an external USB disk because I figured out what the electricty cost was...

Reducing the electricity cost from €60 a year to €5 a year was well worth the €70 cost of the router. And the WNR3500L has more computing power than the old P166

Now, that is of course not a "real" NAS, but it does the same job for me. The point is that electricity cost needs to be considered when looking into solutions. A PC based "NAS" generally draws more electricity than a NAS box.

Excellent point. My Synology DS1813+ 8-bay NAS only draws a mere 72 watts in usage. One would be hard pressed to get an 8-bay PC based NAS that low. Separating compute from storage also allowed me to shift to energy efficient NUCs.

 

[stevech]

Well, I changed my old P166-based linux file server to a WNR3500L with an external USB disk because I figured out what the electricty cost was...

Reducing the electricity cost from €60 a year to €5 a year was well worth the €70 cost of the router. And the WNR3500L has more computing power than the old P166

Now, that is of course not a "real" NAS, but it does the same job for me. The point is that electricity cost needs to be considered when looking into solutions. A PC based "NAS" generally draws more electricity than a NAS box.

Same job for you.. would that be just file serving?

While these NASes like Synology and QNAP do the Network Attached Storage function, that's just one of many functions of modern home/SMB NASes.

 

[Nerre]

Same job for you.. would that be just file serving?

No, it's also my ssh login server (port 22 forwarded from the router), I often use ssh tunneling to access a few of my other machines remotely. It also runs Nagios and a lighttpd with php support for serving a few web pages (like my personal bookmarks page).

The old Pentium it replaced also was my local DNS and DHCP server, but those functions were moved to the router (RT-AC66U) in the change.

 

[azazel1024]

Well, I changed my old P166-based linux file server to a WNR3500L with an external USB disk because I figured out what the electricty cost was...

Reducing the electricity cost from €60 a year to €5 a year was well worth the €70 cost of the router. And the WNR3500L has more computing power than the old P166

Now, that is of course not a "real" NAS, but it does the same job for me. The point is that electricity cost needs to be considered when looking into solutions. A PC based "NAS" generally draws more electricity than a NAS box.

My PC based NAS draws 21w at idle and 32w streaming with a couple of drives in RAID0. Massively more capable, not significantly more power than a typical 2-bay NAS draws at idle or streaming. Somewhat more, but not a heck of a lot more.

Most of the power suck PC based NAS are those based on older PCs or those based on WAY over powered PCs. Mine is based on a G1610 Ivy Bridge celeron, dual NICs, a pair of 2TB drives in RAID0, 60GB SSD boot drive

My WNR3500L had abysmal NAS performance. I'd be lucky to stream more than one 720p file off of it at a time before I'd get stuttering. I think my max network performance was in the 5-6MB/sec read/write range.

I see that the DS214 clocks 12w idle and 25w under load with the DS411 is 15w idle and 36w load.

Its a bit irrelevant to me as I need what my server does and can't do it on a NAS either performance or services.

However, I get why NAS are typically such a premium.