Synology

Off Topic
1

I researched NAS drives some time ago and mentioned Synology on this
list as they are highly regarded. I never bought one but now that
Synology has released some new 2013 models I’ve decided to pull the
trigger on one of these:

http://tinyurl.com/8vfqw8y
http://tinyurl.com/9trqs3v

Now I need to select the drives to put in them. Their compatibility
chart lists both Desktop and Enterprise (and NAS and Surveillance) class
drives. I’ve read elsewhere (not on the Synology site) that it’s
suggested by many drive manufacturers that Enterprise class be used even
for modest home use because they are higher performing and more
dependable due to their robust build and intended usage. I’m not
disputing this claim but I’m wondering if it still might be overkill.
Input welcome.

Todd
http://xiiro.com

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

2

Do you have USB 3.0?

David

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

3

Not currently with my 2011 MBP but a new laptop is on the short-list.

Todd

DeltaDave mailto:email@hidden
August 29, 2012 1:38 PM
Do you have USB 3.0?

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

4

First thing I would do is buy more drives than you need. If this is a true hardware RAID, you will be able to swap out failed drives. When you do that, it’s a very good idea to replace with drives that are as nearly identical as possible, ideally from the same run of serial numbers. You can get this by buying in bulk (and spinning disks are approaching cereal-box prices these days, even the very good ones).

The number you need to buy will be related to whether you get the home-quality or enterprise-quality devices. So if you’re buying the home version, figure on an additional 50% number of disks, and if you’re buying enterprise, you may get away with an additional 25 or 20%.

I’m going through this right now with my Xserve RAID array. One of the drives died, and when I finally found a replacement device, it would not spin up in the slot where I had it. It would happily spin up in one of the remaining empty slots, but it would not add itself to the existing (degraded) array from a different slot. This necessitated re-formatting the entire array, starting from scratch. Luckily it was only used for backups of the other side of the box.

Walter

On Aug 29, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Todd wrote:

Now I need to select the drives to put in them. Their compatibility chart lists both Desktop and Enterprise (and NAS and Surveillance) class drives.

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

5

Walter Lee Davis wrote:

The number you need to buy will be related to whether you get the home-quality or enterprise-quality devices.
That’s a good idea, buying several drives at once. But is it preferable
to go with Enterprise class even for home use because they tend to be
more robust or is the difference negligible, generally speaking?

Todd

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

6

If you’re buying 7,200 or 10,000-RPM drives, Enterprise and Home should be equally fast. The primary difference will be in quality control. Enterprise disks are “burned in” longer, and have other more stringent QC checks to ensure that they are more nearly alike.

Look carefully at the manufacturer’s list of suggested drives. Often what works fastest on a single-device setting will actually be slower in an array. That large cache that works wonders when you’re reading a large file to or from disk will fight with the RAID controller and cause the whole operation to be slower than on a disk with a smaller cache. You will find in the Enterprise side of the store drives made for arrays. If this enclosure is designed for RAID, and if they are serious about performance, they will likely recommend specific disks that meet their needs. That’s where I would start.

Walter

On Aug 29, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Todd wrote:

Walter Lee Davis wrote:

The number you need to buy will be related to whether you get the home-quality or enterprise-quality devices.
That’s a good idea, buying several drives at once. But is it preferable to go with Enterprise class even for home use because they tend to be more robust or is the difference negligible, generally speaking?

Todd
http://xiiro.com

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

7

Not currently with my 2011 MBP but a new laptop is on the short-list

Just curious as to why you have chosen USB 3.0 and not Thunderbolt - as I have neither I was interested in the relative merits.

And as for HDs - spend a bit extra - I am regretting buying a pair of WD Caviar Green drives. The price was right but I wish I had bought Black.

D

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

8

Walter Lee Davis wrote:

they will likely recommend specific disks that meet their needs.
They do, specific to each NAS, for example http://tinyurl.com/999vetk.
I think will focus on Enterprise.

Todd

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

9

These NAS boxes serve files over your LAN, so more than one computer can attach to the device at a time. It’s kind of like buying a server and a RAID to attach to it.

Walter

On Aug 29, 2012, at 2:38 PM, DeltaDave wrote:

Do you have USB 3.0?

David

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

10

It used to be enterprise had better warranty and replacement options -
check the fine print.

–
Ernie Simpson

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Todd email@hidden wrote:

Walter Lee Davis wrote:

they will likely recommend specific disks that meet their needs.

They do, specific to each NAS, for example http://tinyurl.com/999vetk.
I think will focus on Enterprise.

Todd
http://xiiro.com
_____________**
offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/**optionshttp://freewaytalk.net/person/options

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

11

DeltaDave wrote:

Just curious as to why you have chosen USB3.0 and not Thunderbolt - as I have neither I was interested in the relative merits.
I thought about that and I did look at some NAS that use Thunderbolt,
specifically the Premise Pegasus (nice) and Lacie. The Premise was
simply out of my price range when I last looked at it, though admittedly
the Synology isn’t exactly dirt-cheap either. The Premise seems very
nice indeed and if I had my druthers that may very well be my first
choice. Lacie had a couple good TB offerings but in the end Synology has
an impressive track record and good prices. The lack of TB is not a
deal-breaker for me.

Todd

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

12

Are you planning to use it as a network device (the N in NAS)? Or are you going to use it as a local drive over USB(N)?

Walter

On Aug 29, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Todd wrote:

DeltaDave wrote:

Just curious as to why you have chosen USB3.0 and not Thunderbolt - as I have neither I was interested in the relative merits.
I thought about that and I did look at some NAS that use Thunderbolt, specifically the Premise Pegasus (nice) and Lacie.

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

13

Walter Lee Davis wrote:

Are you planning to use it as a network device (the N in NAS)? Or are you going to use it as a local drive over USB(N)?
Network.

And if I remember correctly the Promise Pegasus is DAS only; no
Ethernet. But I may be wrong, it’s been awhile since I looked at it.

Todd

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

14

Correct. I just looked at that, and the really big one is now $1,500, so with a mini Server, that would be $2,500 to more than replace my eBay-special Xserve G5 and Xserve RAID. I may just do that sooner than later, since the first ping of failure has hit my rock-solid RAID (5 -6 years running) and I don’t want to have to pick up the pieces at a time not of my choosing. As to why I wouldn’t consider an NAS, I also need the server to run Apache and Ruby and whatnot, and to do Workgroup Manager stuff with my kids’ desktops. I think my ideal would be the mini with a flash drive and the big Pegasus next to it on a short Thunderbolt leash. The 2.5" disk in the mini server is too slow/small to carry the server name, IMO.

Walter

On Aug 29, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Todd wrote:

Walter Lee Davis wrote:

Are you planning to use it as a network device (the N in NAS)? Or are you going to use it as a local drive over USB(N)?
Network.

And if I remember correctly the Promise Pegasus is DAS only; no Ethernet. But I may be wrong, it’s been awhile since I looked at it.

Todd

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

15

Boy, this stuff is so confusing … NAS, DAS, RAID, I find it difficult
to understand what technology does what and which is preferable for a
given use. That being said let me further illustrate my ignorance by
asking why a NAS can’t be used to run Apache etc.?

Todd

Walter Lee Davis mailto:email@hidden
August 29, 2012 3:13 PM
Correct. I just looked at that, and the really big one is now $1,500,
so with a mini Server, that would be $2,500 to more than replace my
eBay-special Xserve G5 and Xserve RAID. I may just do that sooner than
later, since the first ping of failure has hit my rock-solid RAID (5
-6 years running) and I don’t want to have to pick up the pieces at a
time not of my choosing. As to why I wouldn’t consider an NAS, I also
need the server to run Apache and Ruby and whatnot, and to do
Workgroup Manager stuff with my kids’ desktops. I think my ideal would
be the mini with a flash drive and the big Pegasus next to it on a
short Thunderbolt leash. The 2.5" disk in the mini server is too
slow/small to carry the server name, IMO.

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

16

An NAS is a single-purpose appliance, running a limited subset of Linux (usually) to provide SMB, AppleShare, and maybe NFS file sharing for Windows, Macintosh, and *nix, respectively. It doesn’t feature a complete (or configurable) AMP stack, even though it usually runs Linux under the hood. It probably does run Apache, so as to support the Web configuration pages, but in truth it’s about as much computer as a home network-sharing router would be, and about as configurable. It’s unlikely that there is MySQL running on it, the configuration files are changed so infrequently that they probably use text files for that, and the logs are either maintained in memory or tailed onto another text file.

Walter

(More acronyms for you, I know. SMB = Server Message Block, a Windows file sharing system. NFS = Network File System, a venerable Unix stalwart for sharing files between servers and workstations on the same local network.)

On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Todd wrote:

Boy, this stuff is so confusing … NAS, DAS, RAID, I find it difficult to understand what technology does what and which is preferable for a given use. That being said let me further illustrate my ignorance by asking why a NAS can’t be used to run Apache etc.?

Todd

Walter Lee Davis mailto:email@hidden
August 29, 2012 3:13 PM
Correct. I just looked at that, and the really big one is now $1,500, so with a mini Server, that would be $2,500 to more than replace my eBay-special Xserve G5 and Xserve RAID. I may just do that sooner than later, since the first ping of failure has hit my rock-solid RAID (5 -6 years running) and I don’t want to have to pick up the pieces at a time not of my choosing. As to why I wouldn’t consider an NAS, I also need the server to run Apache and Ruby and whatnot, and to do Workgroup Manager stuff with my kids’ desktops. I think my ideal would be the mini with a flash drive and the big Pegasus next to it on a short Thunderbolt leash. The 2.5" disk in the mini server is too slow/small to carry the server name, IMO.

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

17

Am I correct in thinking that the single-purpose of NAS is for backup
and/or file storage (on a network)? And if the end use was for setting
up, say, a development server, that would require a more traditional
server environment, like a RAID, such as the Promise, for example? And
the latter could also be used for backup/storage but not vice-versa.

Todd

Walter Lee Davis mailto:email@hidden
August 29, 2012 4:13 PM
An NAS is a single-purpose appliance, running a limited subset of
Linux (usually) to provide SMB, AppleShare, and maybe NFS file sharing
for Windows, Macintosh, and *nix, respectively. It doesn’t feature a
complete (or configurable) AMP stack, even though it usually runs
Linux under the hood. It probably does run Apache, so as to support
the Web configuration pages, but in truth it’s about as much computer
as a home network-sharing router would be, and about as configurable.
It’s unlikely that there is MySQL running on it, the configuration
files are changed so infrequently that they probably use text files
for that, and the logs are either maintained in memory or tailed onto
another text file.

Walter

(More acronyms for you, I know. SMB = Server Message Block, a Windows
file sharing system. NFS = Network File System, a venerable Unix
stalwart for sharing files between servers and workstations on the
same local network.)

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

18

You could have a server that didn’t have RAID attached externally, too, or a server with a RAID card and multiple disks installed inside its enclosure. (Just to be complete, and more confusing.)

But the point of a server is to run a server-class operating system, and to provide services to the network. These can include Web, source control, file service, SFTP and SSH, chat, anything your heart desires. Where the server’s data is stored is when you start getting into RAID or even using the long-pants version of NAS, known as SAN (Storage Area Network).

Put simply, a server is a computer attached to the network that is always running, and responds on a number of different ports to requests made of it on that network. Sometimes the network is local, sometimes it is the whole Internet, and sometimes it’s both.

So an NAS is a special subset of the general beast known as Server. It’s deliberately limited in scope, and does a fraction of what a general-purpose server will do. What you can do on a general-purpose server is pretty much anything you want, because you can shell into it and install new tools, start new services that run as daemons (always on), etc.

Walter

On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Todd wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that the single-purpose of NAS is for backup and/or file storage (on a network)? And if the end use was for setting up, say, a development server, that would require a more traditional server environment, like a RAID, such as the Promise, for example? And the latter could also be used for backup/storage but not vice-versa.

Todd

Walter Lee Davis mailto:email@hidden
August 29, 2012 4:13 PM
An NAS is a single-purpose appliance, running a limited subset of Linux (usually) to provide SMB, AppleShare, and maybe NFS file sharing for Windows, Macintosh, and *nix, respectively. It doesn’t feature a complete (or configurable) AMP stack, even though it usually runs Linux under the hood. It probably does run Apache, so as to support the Web configuration pages, but in truth it’s about as much computer as a home network-sharing router would be, and about as configurable. It’s unlikely that there is MySQL running on it, the configuration files are changed so infrequently that they probably use text files for that, and the logs are either maintained in memory or tailed onto another text file.

Walter

(More acronyms for you, I know. SMB = Server Message Block, a Windows file sharing system. NFS = Network File System, a venerable Unix stalwart for sharing files between servers and workstations on the same local network.)

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

19

Walter Lee Davis wrote:

So an NAS is a special subset of the general beast known as Server. It’s deliberately limited in scope, and does a fraction of what a general-purpose server will do.
Ah, I see now. For what I need (network backup/storage) NAS is ideal. I
have often entertained the idea of setting up my own dedicated
development server but the idea of geeking-it-up as my own server admin
holds little appeal.

Thanks for the explanation.

Todd

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

20

For what I need (network backup/storage) NAS is ideal.

This assumes that you will be backing up from more than 1 computer as a NAS is not required if it is only attached to a single unit. But you knew that.

I don’t know how much the Synology unit costs but depending on what your BackUp /Storage requirements are it may not be the most cost effective method.

D

offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options