I'll continue to be happy using my Promise R8 Thunderbolt RAID tower. Yes, it's not a NAS but I only use it for my one workstation and the Thunderbolt connection provides speeds that puts the 10gb/s ethernet speed to shame.
Great video, and I am in the same page, and I love Synologies closer to Linux installation, but I am concerned that a NAS is not something that I will change each year, and all point that in the future the proprietary drives are the way to go. Its true that certifying a bunch of drives (100s) is a pain, and also there is the whole shingled hard drive issues. So I get that they have. *economical reasons* to perform the change. Even so right now I am looking at Qnap as an alternative, for both eh 10gbit ethernet and the HD selection, and for the Laptop users high speed ethernet over thunderbolt. They are traditionally a little more expensive, and the software is (or was when I reviewed it more than 5 years ago) more involved.
Proprietary and lock in, long term is rarely good. As far as economic of certifying drives go, I understand that but I would argue that it is not necessary a good path to go down for any company, especially one that was once open to gained market share. Qnap price are about the same but if you get the add on cards they can cost more. Software wise they are ok but the issue comes down to ransomeware attacks and how poorly they have responded to the issue.
You’ve opened up a can of worms here, Art, and in a good way too…and you have earned my trust with your consistent and well detailed reviews. I currently work on a five bay DAS and have so frequently been on the cusp of adding a NAS system for expanded access and backup. Every time I get close to pulling the trigger on a NAS system (I’m here again) Synology is the likely candidate but I seem to hesitate. My Mac Studio is still two months away from delivery but at this stage, I can’t imagine a NAS system without utilizing that 10 gbs ethernet connection but the prospect of them going to proprietary drives is disconcerting. Though the 1621+ would be more than enough for my current needs, I’m wondering if the 1821+ wouldn’t be a better choice.
If you ask my, I would tell you to go for the 1821+ right away especially if you have a lot of need for your storage space like mine. Expanding and/or transferring NAS can be a bit of a pain and lots of down time for both planned and unplanned things that will come up. I ran into plenty of smooth and hitches in my time. At this point if you get anything 8 bays or below you are good!
Art, great information. I am new to NAS and have a question for you. I just started doing wildlife TH-cam videos and I am accumulating a lot of data(to me, getting about 1tb of data a week). I have been storing my current footage on 7, 2tb Samsung T7 and finished data on 7 G technogy 5tb drives. I just got the Mac Studio with 8tb ssd, and I am to resorting to storing some data on there, which I dont want to do. I do go back and delete from the drives. But now, the data is coming faster than I have to time to delete, which is a good thing. I am looking to get a 60-80tb NAS. . I am using final cut to edit, but I have been putting the footage and creating the library and project right on the mac, and that seems to be the fastest. I was looking at the 1621+ and now the 1522+ has come, what do you suggest for my needs? Thank you for any suggestion. I am new the NAS and anything would help. I have been an Oracle programmer for 30 years, so I have some computer knowledge, but not with networks. I would ask the network guy when I had issues. THANK YOU
Awesome! So based on what you told me I would recommend going with most bays and the largest drives that you can get that will work with the NAS. So in this situation I would look at the DS1821+ it is an 8 bays but it will give you more room for data and space to grow in the future. The other thing about getting an 8 bays is that you don't have to buy the largest HDD which can be costly compared to one that may hold slightly less data but is more at equilibrium $/TB The breaking point right now is about 14-16 TB, anything above that can be costly as of now and you are paying more $/TB. I also recommend Seagate EXOS drives, they are great enterprise has drive and have a much better price point than Consumer or Consumer Pro NAS Drive. Do that and get 10 Gigabit card install, you can run the NAS direct to the Mac studio using manual IP and it will work just fine. Hope this helps. Feel free to follow up with more questions.
@@ArtIsRight Art, thank you so much for the info, last question: Do you think Nas direct to Mac studio is better than going to a router? Is the speed much better?
Speed will be about the same with the proper setup for large package in ethernet setting. The benefit of a switch is to link multiple computers to the 10 GbE network. But if you don't need that then direct connect will do just fine
Thanks so much for this video! I'm not too tech savvy and this was beyond my understanding:) I'm a photographer using Synology 213J 2 bay for 5 years now, and it's finally reaching its capacity. What shall I do next? I use the files on those drives daily ... Could I just add another 2 bay system like DS 220j (8TB)., and use them both simultaneously? Would it be a pretty straightforward set up (probably not for me:)))? Thanks for giving me an advice!
Yes you can do that. Just run 2, or if you like you can get a 4 or 5 bays and transfer the drives that you have to new units. Lots of options really depends on the workflow.
Interesting video - thanks! If it were me, I'd slowly upgrade to higher capacity hard drives. Surprised you didn't mention this as an option and why you wouldn't do it.
Thought did cross my mind but the breakeven price point between capacity and price has not move much in the pass 2 years. So right now 14 TB still represents the best value. New set of higher capacity drives would cost more than any of the options outlined here. Even going to an 8 bay and adding 2 - 14 TB would still be cheaper than getting the max capacity drives which can cost a premium.
using SHR-2. Does this let me build pool size up 1 drive at a time? I had 6 x 8 tera. I changed one to 16 tera. If I add another 16 tera will it give me more capacity or is the fact that I am using shr-2 will not do that? By the way I am using a 1621+
You can do a rough calculation here www.synology.com/en-us/support/RAID_calculator But if I understand you correctly, you are replacing one of the drives with a 16TB drive; if so, then your space would stay the same. You would need to replaced at least 4 drives with 16TB drives for you to see the more storage in SHR 2
The you for this video! I’m in a similar situation with a severe need for large amounts of no drama storage, but have observed the anti consumer features creeping into Synology’s products. I hope you’re able to find time for an update on your solution.
I think that at this point, I am between upgrade the NAS to an 8 bay or just move out the large set of data to long term backup and archives on external SSD. It is a tough one.
@@ArtIsRight The proprietary direction is a genuine hold-up for me vs. cost. I work as a high-speed cinematographer, and in my line of work, nearly everything is an order of magnitude more expensive. We predominantly work with athletes in the sports science field, and if I lose footage, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to recreate (for many reasons). A drive failure would suck, but it happens. Loss due to company policy seems untenable.
@@ArtIsRight Appreciate your input. Believe it or not, most of the hardware scenarios you present are challenges I run into as well. Topics not covered by a lot of other channels. I’ll watch the video again with these details in mind. Incredibly grateful you cover these non mainstream topics.
Based on what I have been observing since launch, that probably won't be the case for the DS2422+ There are plenty of drives that they can certify now but they have not yet. I think this specific system will continue to get lock in.
Completely understand! I'm in the exact same position. I have the DS1618+ too. The Lock-ins from Synology are getting so extreme, that migrating to QNAP seems inevitable.
@@rudik1916 Although the DS1618+ is a NAS, my use is mostly in a closed home network. I use it more as a DAS. I'm not so concerned with security and I've never been one to install patches as soon as they're out. TrueNAS is interesting though.
@@ArtIsRight Their move to remove the EXOS drives from the list is very stupid IMO. QNAP has always been far superior on the hardware side. I went with Synology for their software. Looks like the balance might have just shifted.
Very important caveats, especially regarding the expansion units' connectivity/unreliability and the surprising HDD support list for the 12-bay units. Thanks for sharing! 👍 We're embarking on the Synology journey for the first time now, with a DS1821+, with 18Tb Exos drives and SHR1 to begin with. Hope that will work well enough for some reasonable period of time!
You have a great setup! The next thing that you might want to consider is more RAM, 10 Gbe network and SSD catch (Don't go large, you can't use it all).
@ArtIsRight, thanks for the reply! 👍 We've ordered a 10Gb PCI card for the Synology and a bunch of Thunderbot related accessories to be able to connect the system to an older Thunderbolt 2 Mac, and a Synology-compatible UPS (at the moment, a lot of this stuff seems to be out of stock globally, though). For smooth non-linear video editing right off the Synology, which one would you prioritize: maximizing the RAM or having an SSD cache? And about the cache, do you recommend having both a read and a write cache? Some people point out that a device failure in an SSD write cache would result in a data coruption disaster. Can the write cache be set up in RAID1 configuration to make it safer in this regard?
About the UPS I simply use a UPS from Costco, anyone with a USB cord will do really. No need to get fancy and pay more than you need to. Most of the UPS sold right now is lead acid battery so I would get it and have it running for about 2 years, and when it comes time to change the battery swap them with LiFePo4 it is a lithium base battery and the duration and power duty are much better than that of the lead acid. If you do video editing I would probably go with SSD cache, but there are lots of caveat here. I would not give the system more than 1 TB SSD cache total, it does not use that much meaning that 2 x 512 GB in RAID 0 will do just fine and is way more than plenty. The other part is that to get SSD cache you will also need the ram amount to support this, you can look up the minimum requirement on Synology website and article but this may be one of those update that have to go hand in hand and one might not work or work well with other other. As far as cache setup I set mine up as read only, I don't really see a need for write cache, the system can catch up with writing just fine. The nice thing about read cache is that if you scrub the timeline for instance then it does not have to constantly load the same clips from the drives every time. DSM 7 is much better with write cache, lots of issues with DMS 6 but again my reasons above is why I have not made any changes to it. Data corruption part when the SSD fail for some reason, having a RAID 1 setup will help but if there's a power loss, well that is it, a power loss. There are more premium SSD that has a power loss cache and this will guarantee that the data can be written to the drives before the system shuts down. But you are paying way more for this. Based on what you told me just do read and you'll be fine.
@@ArtIsRight, many thanks for the elaborated reply! 🙏 It all makes sense, and I had a hunch that the read cache (of those two) would be sufficient for us. Thanks for confirming the case. 👍
Hey Art. what a problem... I do have a question for you... I have been running NAS DS1621+ for a year and the transfer speed is good to more a big folder. I have a full read cache and a full 10GB network going. BUT! when I access folders in capture one or photo mechanic the system really slows down and it is very hard to use if 2000-4000 files are in the project. Are you experiencing the same? to me it is unusable. I was trying to move away from my 6 Drobo 5D's, but direct storage is still better.. Happy to hear a solution.
I think you have ran into an issues with a group of smaller files, they don't digest well through 10 Gbe. Also C1 and PM is not good with network access protocol that runs on top of the system net work. Yes direct attached storage would be best, if you use those 2 programs. For me I have local direct Thunderbolt storage 8 TB and the NAS for back up and long term use.
I am on the same boat. Currently running 1821+ on 10GbE. Which I load all the videos into the nas directly and edit directly via nas. Running 2 x 8TB wd red and 2 x 8TB wd gold. I am thinking to upgrade to 16TB hdd one by one. AWhich hdd do you think is the best. WD gold or Seagate exo or ironwolf pro? I need fast hdds because I edit video directly on nas.
So based on what you said, right now you have 4 bays occupied and 4 bays empty, does this sound about right? Also I am assuming that you are using some form of SHR either 1 or 2. If this is the case then why upgrade 1 by 1 (I read this as replacing the drives 1 at a time). Since you have free bays, I would just put the extra drives in the free bay and just incorporate that into the array this way you have more storage space. Drive wise, at some point down the road it might be a good idea to unify them meaning they should all be the same brand, model and firmware for best optimization and all. Drive recommendations all are good, but you are going to get a really great deal with EXOS compared to anything else and they are fast drives. The thing is that these drives are decent on their own but not SSD by any means, when you combined them the performance does improved as an aggregate and if you want the best performance I would put in 2 NVMe in the slots but I would not go overboard on this, DSM does not really use anything larger 800GB/ stick.
@@ArtIsRight thanks for your reply. I actually have all 8 bays occupied at the moment. 8x8 TB some are WD red and some are WD gold. What I am planing to do is slowly replacing each 8TB with a 16TB 1 by 1 as the 18Tb are too expansive atm. I am running SHR 1. I will go with exo hdd as you suggested. Just need to wait until they are on sale. I will move the 8TB to my old 1815+ once I bought the 16TB ones. Reason why I love synolgoy is that they last for so long. I am running both 1821+ and 1815+ 24x7 they just last. Also the 8tb WD reds never missed a beat that’s why I first considering the WD HDDs. But seems like the Seagate exo are better nowadays. Another question is do I really need to install nvme cache on the 1821+? Does it really help a lot? At the moment editing 4k 100fps 4:2:2 10bit footage directly from the nas already feels no lag on the MacBook Pro M1 Max. But if nvme cache will help then I will look into upgrading it too.
Got cha and if your NAS works well now editing then NVMe won't help that much more, Read cache can only do so much so I just stick with what you already have.
@@ArtIsRight Thanks. I just did the Blackmagic disk test on the Nas: I am getting around over 700MB/sec write and 1000MB/sec read so it's using the full 10GbE connection already. however I noticed on the encrypted folder I am getting 260MB/s write and 900MB/s read, will NVme cache help with the write speed for encrypted folder? I have 64GB ram on the NAS is that maybe why the nvme SSD won't help much? do you know if it's ok to use X18 16TB exos instead of the X16 16TB exos? the x18 is not in the Synology supported list but x16 and x18 exos price are very similar so maybe get the newer model?
On your NAS either drive will work. it is always good to use Synology sanction drives. But living on the edge is fine too. About writing to an encrypted folder, speed is about what you expect. Synology don't use the most powerful chip to any cryptographic work is slow.
Something tells me that the limited compatibility has more to do with that Ryzen chip being relatively new to Synology. So far, no Intel based NAS have any issue with any brand of drives. As for the expansion unit, wouldn't the ssd cache compensate for the transfer rates? Especially if reconfigured as a read/write setup? I too would like to add an expansion unit in the future but considering that connection is only eSATA port, it would mostly be used as an active backup/archive share and not an actual expansion in the traditional sense. At the same time getting a larger external usb drive would be a better option for this and have it connected to the Nas as if it's another volume but on the same share. Also, why only max out to 14tb each on that nas when larger drives are compatible? You can reuse the 14TBs to the expansion unit or in a second nas and since you have it already setup in SHR, storage space will auto adjust accordingly in the raid.
Thanks for chiming in, some great points. About the Ryzen vs intel, it could be seen that way until one look at the other units with less bays that have Ryzen and many of the 3rd party drives are supported. Also it has been a while now since Synology has the Ryzen deployed in the 12 bays unit but yet no list of drives being added. I'm sure there are technical reason behind this, however, I don't think that the new chip is one of them. This said, whatever reason this may be, it is not a good look to simplify the solution by looking the users. Any company can do this, yes, but it is not a good look. Yes read and write catch can probably compensate for that but mostly, you'll get that on the write until the cache fill up and not so much on the read side since the drives would still need to spin up anyways. Also DSM 7 has improved the read and write cache but it is still risky compared to write cache. The solutions to link another HDD to the NAS instead of the expansion unit is a good idea until you have deployed one. DSM has never been good with direct connect drive, it has too much over head and you don't end up with the speed that is anywhere close to what the drive can really do. I have tested this extensively in the past. Also you are limited to a single volume, which is fine if that works for one's workflow. "Also, why only max out to 14tb each on that nas when larger drives are compatible?" - 14 TB drives was chosen back when I build the NAS and it also represents the breaking point between price and capacity. Getting the top one that is compatible is great, But that percent gained relative to price increase starts to not make sense rather quickly. "You can reuse the 14TBs to the expansion unit or in a second nas and since you have it already setup in SHR, storage space will auto adjust accordingly in the raid." - Argument from the question prior to this withstanding, I would have to break the storage pool to use the 14 TB drives in the expansion. SHR yes, but you can't reduced the number of drives, only add and even if you can, setting it up as a new Pool would be much faster than modifying the pool. Storage space will adjust accordingly yes, but for expansion. Second NAS possible, provided that the bays are equal or more, which is what I as going to do with the 12 bays. But if I have to setup a second NAS it would be much quicker again to set it up as a new storage pool and leave what I already have.
@@ArtIsRight I wasn't suggesting to break the pool, I was suggesting to expand the pool with larger drives and reuse the replaced 14tb drives into another Nas/expansion from scratch. I understand the price to performance issue with bigger drives but your original goal was about running out of space. Since the 14tb has been already broken in for some time already, wiping it clean and dedicating it as a backup while running newer larger capacity can at least extend your current setup and help off load the data you aren't using that often. Setting up a newer second Nas can alleviate your transfer rate concerns but there's also a power consumption concern since you will be running 2 systems and the larger the system, the more power it needs. Some have debated that expansion units cuts down on overhead costs with a hit to performance so lots have regulated expansion units as a means for archiving or read only volumes while the main unit handles all the heavy lifting. Then it becomes more of a workflow change.
Also, once you've uploaded to TH-cam, why keep the source files on "disposable media"? You can keep a hard copy of the final along with the version that lives online. But all the source material can just be referenced off the final if you need to refer to it in another video.
I hear you but if you have seen my other videos, some of clips are not full screen, or they are overlay. Also FCPX export for TH-cam is great, but it is also highly compressed, so we then go through double compression, etc.
Thanks for the advice, but each and every one workflow, approach and archival practices are different. One size does not fits all, some philosophy and approach are good for some but not others.
You might like to think about building your own NAS based on an ITX system and TrueNAS Core. Synology is very slow to release 2.5GbE and 10GbE consumer NAS units.
Yeah I looked into that and have done research. It may be the way to go at some point down the road but not immediately. Yes Synology is slow on the consumer model with 2.5 and 10 GbE, but there are ways around it on models that will take PCI-E card, it is the overall lock in that is starting to become cumbersome.
I’m confused. I run drives that aren’t on their list and everything works fine. I get all the telemetry and health stats etc. so I’m not sure about your understanding on things. The list they provide is just drives they have certified. Also I have used a DX517 expansion unit for over a year and it works great.
Do you have the 2422+? The implementation in this model is different than other models in the past. If you have other NAS then yes drive not on the support list will work just fine and you can get data. However, on the 2422+ it will function but you don't get drive data from un supported drive. Expansion units are fine until they are not and speed consider is still an issues.
Proprietary connections, fussy about drives, does it remind us something? Yes, Apple I'd say :-) True, Synology DSM is more closed system than QNAP, but it has upsides also. For instance QNAP users experienced so far two times ransomware... Also I'd say that still DSM is better optimised, more user friendly and more fluent in actual usage than QTS. Anyway - don't you think short disk compaibility list is also due to DS2422+ being so shortly on the market? Maybe it will get longer soon?
They are becoming more closed. They used to be open. And yes QNAP ransomware was bad. I use both and I like DSM better. As far as 2422+ I think it is just a lock in based on the firmware and synchronicity reasons that I mentioned in the video. I don't think that the list is going to expand much, I think we are looking at a lock in situation in the name of overall user experience.
I think they might be going proprietário because SHR is not só reliable depending on the application of the NAS. Here in Brazil synology sellers advise you not to use it.. not even to use same site HDs from different models..
It all depends on the application. For me file storage and light Plex, SHR has worked great. I have also used SHR on mixed HDD and it works fine. Never had it crashed or anything.
Synology is trying to lock in in their customers into their own ecosystem with overprized RAM, SSDs and now even HDs. I think they're making a big mistake here. HDDs are HDDs and RAM chips are RAM chips, they will work in Diskstations regardless of Synologys compatibility list. I've used Synology products for fifteen years and really like their products , but I'll now considiring other alternatives.
I ran into similar limitations while researching Synology NAS. In the end - even if it is a bit weaker security wise - I chose a QNAP. As long as it is not exposed to the internet it should be fine though.
The writing is on the wall with Synology. They’re moving everything to their own drives. Hard pass for me. I have a ds1515+ and a newer QNAP system. I really like the QNAP system and would highly recommend you take a look at them. People say they aren’t as easy as Synology to run, but that’s not my experience. It’s just too bad that the QNAP TVS-872xt series is getting kinda old. I hope they update it soon. If I were you I would keep the 1618+ with the exos drives and add another server. Btw, you accidentally said exos ssd at the beginning of your video.
I hear you both. Yes one of the issues that I have with QNAP is also security their blunder in the past year with crypto hostage was not a good look on them. Plus they were really slow to response and once they did, it was not done in a good manner. Now I am not saying that Synology does not have security issues. They did run into that as well. Just have to be vigilant now a days and with everything connected with more protocol and complexity it can be difficult.
QNAP still use RAID but with Z File system instant of EXT 4 or BTRFS. Everything still uses RAID or some type of proprietary in a multi drive storage pool setup. It is just the file system that organizes the data group are different and there are variety of them. So I hear you that Z file system is the future going forward. I heard many great things about them.
I hear you, with BTRFS from Synology, array are build in minutes as well. The part that takes time is the drive scanning, that is the part that takes hours / days, but if you skip that then it is mere minutes as well. Now, I have not used ZFS but if that system skip the scanning and mapping then that would be why it is faster.
@@ArtIsRight ZFS removes one layer on the Volume that's why is faster and saves more space too, needs more RAN thought but on QNAP the memory is much cheaper, anyway, the Synology OS is much better but I don't go with brands that are moving to propriety hardware like we didn't have enough E-waste.
Please answers these questions completely and we’ll go from here. * What computer (Laptop - Mac specify the model, year and size, Desktop, iMac, all in 1 PC, custom build, etc ) * What is your Operating System (OS) version are you using? (For Mac please specify the dot release, for Windows please specify version / build number) * What calibrator are using? * What version of PME are you using? * What BenQ model do you have? * Is this the only display linked up to the system? * What cable are you using to connect your BenQ to your computer for the display signal, HDMI, Display Port, etc. * If you are using USB-C skip this question, if not, are you using a USB link cable between your laptop and display? * If you are using Mac was this a clean install or was the OS upgraded from a previous version at any point (I.e. From Mojave 10.13.x to Catalina 10.14.x)? Or was this Mac restore from a back up, time machine or other wise? * For PC, what GPU are you using? If Nvidia are you using their new Studio Driver? * Were you able able to successfully pass the validation at some point * For SW2700PT owner, look at the back of your display on the regular tag and give me the MFG date. * Have you installed DisplayCal at some point? * Do you know of any color calibration software that starts with the OS and is running in the background?
lots of issues with the that kind of thinking there and plus all these unlimited cloud storage is not necessary the solution and there are lots of downside as well, file availability for rapid use is not one of them. Not to mention that if you don't have a back up and something happened to the cloud storage it is on you. So as much as I appreciate the solution, the cons does not add up for creative pros.
@@ArtIsRight good take, personally dont need the rapid use availability, not sure with synology but hard drives are kinda fragile. Have you experienced having an unlimited storage before and had problems? Would more prominent schools be a better choice?
If this was 2 decades ago I would agree with the sentiment, Now a days, not so much. HDD, at least, good quality ones, are really robust. And like anything they do fail and this would include cloud storage as well. Fortunate the number of failures are much smaller, however, there has been instances of data being wiped entirely from cloud storage and the the various company would do nothing to help. As always with unlimited storage, it is in name only, if you read the term there is usually a cap and if you are in the top percentile of users who use too much space then they can terminate your account. As far as schools goes as long as they are in the program you are good but that is not really a long term solution, you are going to pay more for schools than storage but hey, each to their own.
@@ArtIsRight well, i think if youre in a good university could be an advantage. I have a friend who has been using unlimited for probably almost 10 years already. Which drives would you say is sturdy and which are not?
I taught at a few uni for about a decade, we never have that deal with google, so this is uni specific. as far as drives, just go to backblaze and look up the drive data. if anything, store the same data on 2 drives, incase one fail, or just use cloud if that works for you. not all workflow are the same, there's no one size fits all.
![MV วิถีชีวิตใต้ - ผา อัยย๊ะ [Official MV HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nODlkOUu9B0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for the useful information and your valuable insights.
My pleasure!
I'll continue to be happy using my Promise R8 Thunderbolt RAID tower. Yes, it's not a NAS but I only use it for my one workstation and the Thunderbolt connection provides speeds that puts the 10gb/s ethernet speed to shame.
There are always + and - for each system.
So I need a SHR-1 to do one at a time. I'll have to consider my options. Thank you for answering quickly.
You can replace the drive one at a time regardless, SHR-1 just gives you more space with less high-capacity drive replaced compared to SHR-2.
@@ArtIsRight You mean I would still have to replace 4 drives or can I gain space as I replace drive at a time
You will gain space when you replaced one drive a time with SHR1
Great video, and I am in the same page, and I love Synologies closer to Linux installation, but I am concerned that a NAS is not something that I will change each year, and all point that in the future the proprietary drives are the way to go. Its true that certifying a bunch of drives (100s) is a pain, and also there is the whole shingled hard drive issues. So I get that they have. *economical reasons* to perform the change. Even so right now I am looking at Qnap as an alternative, for both eh 10gbit ethernet and the HD selection, and for the Laptop users high speed ethernet over thunderbolt. They are traditionally a little more expensive, and the software is (or was when I reviewed it more than 5 years ago) more involved.
Proprietary and lock in, long term is rarely good. As far as economic of certifying drives go, I understand that but I would argue that it is not necessary a good path to go down for any company, especially one that was once open to gained market share. Qnap price are about the same but if you get the add on cards they can cost more. Software wise they are ok but the issue comes down to ransomeware attacks and how poorly they have responded to the issue.
You’ve opened up a can of worms here, Art, and in a good way too…and you have earned my trust with your consistent and well detailed reviews. I currently work on a five bay DAS and have so frequently been on the cusp of adding a NAS system for expanded access and backup. Every time I get close to pulling the trigger on a NAS system (I’m here again) Synology is the likely candidate but I seem to hesitate. My Mac Studio is still two months away from delivery but at this stage, I can’t imagine a NAS system without utilizing that 10 gbs ethernet connection but the prospect of them going to proprietary drives is disconcerting. Though the 1621+ would be more than enough for my current needs, I’m wondering if the 1821+ wouldn’t be a better choice.
If you ask my, I would tell you to go for the 1821+ right away especially if you have a lot of need for your storage space like mine. Expanding and/or transferring NAS can be a bit of a pain and lots of down time for both planned and unplanned things that will come up. I ran into plenty of smooth and hitches in my time. At this point if you get anything 8 bays or below you are good!
Art, great information. I am new to NAS and have a question for you. I just started doing wildlife TH-cam videos and I am accumulating a lot of data(to me, getting about 1tb of data a week). I have been storing my current footage on 7, 2tb Samsung T7 and finished data on 7 G technogy 5tb drives. I just got the Mac Studio with 8tb ssd, and I am to resorting to storing some data on there, which I dont want to do. I do go back and delete from the drives. But now, the data is coming faster than I have to time to delete, which is a good thing. I am looking to get a 60-80tb NAS. . I am using final cut to edit, but I have been putting the footage and creating the library and project right on the mac, and that seems to be the fastest. I was looking at the 1621+ and now the 1522+ has come, what do you suggest for my needs? Thank you for any suggestion. I am new the NAS and anything would help. I have been an Oracle programmer for 30 years, so I have some computer knowledge, but not with networks. I would ask the network guy when I had issues. THANK YOU
Awesome! So based on what you told me I would recommend going with most bays and the largest drives that you can get that will work with the NAS. So in this situation I would look at the DS1821+ it is an 8 bays but it will give you more room for data and space to grow in the future. The other thing about getting an 8 bays is that you don't have to buy the largest HDD which can be costly compared to one that may hold slightly less data but is more at equilibrium $/TB The breaking point right now is about 14-16 TB, anything above that can be costly as of now and you are paying more $/TB. I also recommend Seagate EXOS drives, they are great enterprise has drive and have a much better price point than Consumer or Consumer Pro NAS Drive. Do that and get 10 Gigabit card install, you can run the NAS direct to the Mac studio using manual IP and it will work just fine. Hope this helps. Feel free to follow up with more questions.
@@ArtIsRight Art, thank you so much for the info, last question: Do you think Nas direct to Mac studio is better than going to a router? Is the speed much better?
Speed will be about the same with the proper setup for large package in ethernet setting. The benefit of a switch is to link multiple computers to the 10 GbE network. But if you don't need that then direct connect will do just fine
@@ArtIsRight thank you Art, I appreciate it. And you are so good at explaining things on your channel, awesome job you are doing.
Thanks so much for this video! I'm not too tech savvy and this was beyond my understanding:) I'm a photographer using Synology 213J 2 bay for 5 years now, and it's finally reaching its capacity. What shall I do next? I use the files on those drives daily ... Could I just add another 2 bay system like DS 220j (8TB)., and use them both simultaneously? Would it be a pretty straightforward set up (probably not for me:)))? Thanks for giving me an advice!
Yes you can do that. Just run 2, or if you like you can get a 4 or 5 bays and transfer the drives that you have to new units. Lots of options really depends on the workflow.
Interesting video - thanks! If it were me, I'd slowly upgrade to higher capacity hard drives. Surprised you didn't mention this as an option and why you wouldn't do it.
Thought did cross my mind but the breakeven price point between capacity and price has not move much in the pass 2 years. So right now 14 TB still represents the best value. New set of higher capacity drives would cost more than any of the options outlined here. Even going to an 8 bay and adding 2 - 14 TB would still be cheaper than getting the max capacity drives which can cost a premium.
using SHR-2. Does this let me build pool size up 1 drive at a time? I had 6 x 8 tera. I changed one to 16 tera. If I add another 16 tera will it give me more capacity or is the fact that I am using shr-2 will not do that? By the way I am using a 1621+
You can do a rough calculation here www.synology.com/en-us/support/RAID_calculator But if I understand you correctly, you are replacing one of the drives with a 16TB drive; if so, then your space would stay the same. You would need to replaced at least 4 drives with 16TB drives for you to see the more storage in SHR 2
The you for this video! I’m in a similar situation with a severe need for
large amounts of no drama storage, but have observed the anti consumer features creeping into Synology’s products. I hope you’re able to find time for an update on your solution.
I think that at this point, I am between upgrade the NAS to an 8 bay or just move out the large set of data to long term backup and archives on external SSD. It is a tough one.
@@ArtIsRight The proprietary direction is a genuine hold-up for me vs. cost. I work as a high-speed cinematographer, and in my line of work, nearly everything is an order of magnitude more expensive. We predominantly work with athletes in the sports science field, and if I lose footage, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to recreate (for many reasons). A drive failure would suck, but it happens. Loss due to company policy seems untenable.
I hear you. So far the 8 bays are not proprietary or the previous gen 12 bay which they still do sell.
@@ArtIsRight Appreciate your input. Believe it or not, most of the hardware scenarios you present are challenges I run into as well. Topics not covered by a lot of other channels. I’ll watch the video again with these details in mind. Incredibly grateful you cover these non mainstream topics.
Thank you! For me right now I am looking to possibly upgrade to an 8 bay array, but I have not made any commitments just yet.
Is it possible that Synology might extend the list of supported drives in the future, since this is a relatively new system?
Based on what I have been observing since launch, that probably won't be the case for the DS2422+ There are plenty of drives that they can certify now but they have not yet. I think this specific system will continue to get lock in.
Completely understand! I'm in the exact same position. I have the DS1618+ too. The Lock-ins from Synology are getting so extreme, that migrating to QNAP seems inevitable.
I have been looking at their products. We'll see if I make any moves.
Don’t do it, terrible security and slow patches from QNAP … ixsystems truenas is the way to go these days
@@rudik1916 Although the DS1618+ is a NAS, my use is mostly in a closed home network. I use it more as a DAS. I'm not so concerned with security and I've never been one to install patches as soon as they're out. TrueNAS is interesting though.
@@ArtIsRight Their move to remove the EXOS drives from the list is very stupid IMO. QNAP has always been far superior on the hardware side. I went with Synology for their software. Looks like the balance might have just shifted.
I know, it is always a give and take. And security on QNAP and the response was not good, which is why I am never committed to them.
Very important caveats, especially regarding the expansion units' connectivity/unreliability and the surprising HDD support list for the 12-bay units. Thanks for sharing! 👍 We're embarking on the Synology journey for the first time now, with a DS1821+, with 18Tb Exos drives and SHR1 to begin with. Hope that will work well enough for some reasonable period of time!
You have a great setup! The next thing that you might want to consider is more RAM, 10 Gbe network and SSD catch (Don't go large, you can't use it all).
@ArtIsRight, thanks for the reply! 👍 We've ordered a 10Gb PCI card for the Synology and a bunch of Thunderbot related accessories to be able to connect the system to an older Thunderbolt 2 Mac, and a Synology-compatible UPS (at the moment, a lot of this stuff seems to be out of stock globally, though).
For smooth non-linear video editing right off the Synology, which one would you prioritize: maximizing the RAM or having an SSD cache? And about the cache, do you recommend having both a read and a write cache?
Some people point out that a device failure in an SSD write cache would result in a data coruption disaster. Can the write cache be set up in RAID1 configuration to make it safer in this regard?
About the UPS I simply use a UPS from Costco, anyone with a USB cord will do really. No need to get fancy and pay more than you need to. Most of the UPS sold right now is lead acid battery so I would get it and have it running for about 2 years, and when it comes time to change the battery swap them with LiFePo4 it is a lithium base battery and the duration and power duty are much better than that of the lead acid.
If you do video editing I would probably go with SSD cache, but there are lots of caveat here. I would not give the system more than 1 TB SSD cache total, it does not use that much meaning that 2 x 512 GB in RAID 0 will do just fine and is way more than plenty. The other part is that to get SSD cache you will also need the ram amount to support this, you can look up the minimum requirement on Synology website and article but this may be one of those update that have to go hand in hand and one might not work or work well with other other.
As far as cache setup I set mine up as read only, I don't really see a need for write cache, the system can catch up with writing just fine. The nice thing about read cache is that if you scrub the timeline for instance then it does not have to constantly load the same clips from the drives every time.
DSM 7 is much better with write cache, lots of issues with DMS 6 but again my reasons above is why I have not made any changes to it. Data corruption part when the SSD fail for some reason, having a RAID 1 setup will help but if there's a power loss, well that is it, a power loss. There are more premium SSD that has a power loss cache and this will guarantee that the data can be written to the drives before the system shuts down. But you are paying way more for this. Based on what you told me just do read and you'll be fine.
@@ArtIsRight, many thanks for the elaborated reply! 🙏 It all makes sense, and I had a hunch that the read cache (of those two) would be sufficient for us. Thanks for confirming the case. 👍
anytime.
Hey Art. what a problem... I do have a question for you... I have been running NAS DS1621+ for a year and the transfer speed is good to more a big folder. I have a full read cache and a full 10GB network going. BUT! when I access folders in capture one or photo mechanic the system really slows down and it is very hard to use if 2000-4000 files are in the project.
Are you experiencing the same? to me it is unusable.
I was trying to move away from my 6 Drobo 5D's, but direct storage is still better..
Happy to hear a solution.
I think you have ran into an issues with a group of smaller files, they don't digest well through 10 Gbe. Also C1 and PM is not good with network access protocol that runs on top of the system net work. Yes direct attached storage would be best, if you use those 2 programs. For me I have local direct Thunderbolt storage 8 TB and the NAS for back up and long term use.
@@ArtIsRight ok thanks
I am on the same boat. Currently running 1821+ on 10GbE. Which I load all the videos into the nas directly and edit directly via nas. Running 2 x 8TB wd red and 2 x 8TB wd gold. I am thinking to upgrade to 16TB hdd one by one. AWhich hdd do you think is the best. WD gold or Seagate exo or ironwolf pro? I need fast hdds because I edit video directly on nas.
So based on what you said, right now you have 4 bays occupied and 4 bays empty, does this sound about right? Also I am assuming that you are using some form of SHR either 1 or 2. If this is the case then why upgrade 1 by 1 (I read this as replacing the drives 1 at a time). Since you have free bays, I would just put the extra drives in the free bay and just incorporate that into the array this way you have more storage space. Drive wise, at some point down the road it might be a good idea to unify them meaning they should all be the same brand, model and firmware for best optimization and all. Drive recommendations all are good, but you are going to get a really great deal with EXOS compared to anything else and they are fast drives. The thing is that these drives are decent on their own but not SSD by any means, when you combined them the performance does improved as an aggregate and if you want the best performance I would put in 2 NVMe in the slots but I would not go overboard on this, DSM does not really use anything larger 800GB/ stick.
@@ArtIsRight thanks for your reply. I actually have all 8 bays occupied at the moment. 8x8 TB some are WD red and some are WD gold. What I am planing to do is slowly replacing each 8TB with a 16TB 1 by 1 as the 18Tb are too expansive atm. I am running SHR 1. I will go with exo hdd as you suggested. Just need to wait until they are on sale. I will move the 8TB to my old 1815+ once I bought the 16TB ones. Reason why I love synolgoy is that they last for so long. I am running both 1821+ and 1815+ 24x7 they just last. Also the 8tb WD reds never missed a beat that’s why I first considering the WD HDDs. But seems like the Seagate exo are better nowadays. Another question is do I really need to install nvme cache on the 1821+? Does it really help a lot? At the moment editing 4k 100fps 4:2:2 10bit footage directly from the nas already feels no lag on the MacBook Pro M1 Max. But if nvme cache will help then I will look into upgrading it too.
Got cha and if your NAS works well now editing then NVMe won't help that much more, Read cache can only do so much so I just stick with what you already have.
@@ArtIsRight Thanks. I just did the Blackmagic disk test on the Nas: I am getting around over 700MB/sec write and 1000MB/sec read so it's using the full 10GbE connection already. however I noticed on the encrypted folder I am getting 260MB/s write and 900MB/s read, will NVme cache help with the write speed for encrypted folder? I have 64GB ram on the NAS is that maybe why the nvme SSD won't help much? do you know if it's ok to use X18 16TB exos instead of the X16 16TB exos? the x18 is not in the Synology supported list but x16 and x18 exos price are very similar so maybe get the newer model?
On your NAS either drive will work. it is always good to use Synology sanction drives. But living on the edge is fine too. About writing to an encrypted folder, speed is about what you expect. Synology don't use the most powerful chip to any cryptographic work is slow.
Maybe it's time for a rack server.
This one looks like it has compatibility with seagate drives: RS3618xs
That is the more enterprise solution with Xeon, it cost way more. Sadly it cost too much for my needs and CPU is overkill.
Something tells me that the limited compatibility has more to do with that Ryzen chip being relatively new to Synology. So far, no Intel based NAS have any issue with any brand of drives. As for the expansion unit, wouldn't the ssd cache compensate for the transfer rates? Especially if reconfigured as a read/write setup? I too would like to add an expansion unit in the future but considering that connection is only eSATA port, it would mostly be used as an active backup/archive share and not an actual expansion in the traditional sense. At the same time getting a larger external usb drive would be a better option for this and have it connected to the Nas as if it's another volume but on the same share. Also, why only max out to 14tb each on that nas when larger drives are compatible? You can reuse the 14TBs to the expansion unit or in a second nas and since you have it already setup in SHR, storage space will auto adjust accordingly in the raid.
Thanks for chiming in, some great points. About the Ryzen vs intel, it could be seen that way until one look at the other units with less bays that have Ryzen and many of the 3rd party drives are supported. Also it has been a while now since Synology has the Ryzen deployed in the 12 bays unit but yet no list of drives being added. I'm sure there are technical reason behind this, however, I don't think that the new chip is one of them. This said, whatever reason this may be, it is not a good look to simplify the solution by looking the users. Any company can do this, yes, but it is not a good look. Yes read and write catch can probably compensate for that but mostly, you'll get that on the write until the cache fill up and not so much on the read side since the drives would still need to spin up anyways. Also DSM 7 has improved the read and write cache but it is still risky compared to write cache. The solutions to link another HDD to the NAS instead of the expansion unit is a good idea until you have deployed one. DSM has never been good with direct connect drive, it has too much over head and you don't end up with the speed that is anywhere close to what the drive can really do. I have tested this extensively in the past. Also you are limited to a single volume, which is fine if that works for one's workflow.
"Also, why only max out to 14tb each on that nas when larger drives are compatible?"
- 14 TB drives was chosen back when I build the NAS and it also represents the breaking point between price and capacity. Getting the top one that is compatible is great, But that percent gained relative to price increase starts to not make sense rather quickly.
"You can reuse the 14TBs to the expansion unit or in a second nas and since you have it already setup in SHR, storage space will auto adjust accordingly in the raid."
- Argument from the question prior to this withstanding, I would have to break the storage pool to use the 14 TB drives in the expansion. SHR yes, but you can't reduced the number of drives, only add and even if you can, setting it up as a new Pool would be much faster than modifying the pool. Storage space will adjust accordingly yes, but for expansion. Second NAS possible, provided that the bays are equal or more, which is what I as going to do with the 12 bays. But if I have to setup a second NAS it would be much quicker again to set it up as a new storage pool and leave what I already have.
@@ArtIsRight I wasn't suggesting to break the pool, I was suggesting to expand the pool with larger drives and reuse the replaced 14tb drives into another Nas/expansion from scratch. I understand the price to performance issue with bigger drives but your original goal was about running out of space. Since the 14tb has been already broken in for some time already, wiping it clean and dedicating it as a backup while running newer larger capacity can at least extend your current setup and help off load the data you aren't using that often. Setting up a newer second Nas can alleviate your transfer rate concerns but there's also a power consumption concern since you will be running 2 systems and the larger the system, the more power it needs. Some have debated that expansion units cuts down on overhead costs with a hit to performance so lots have regulated expansion units as a means for archiving or read only volumes while the main unit handles all the heavy lifting. Then it becomes more of a workflow change.
Ah got it, expanding in place, done that in the past as well, that takes time but works. Also lots of things to consider.
Also, once you've uploaded to TH-cam, why keep the source files on "disposable media"? You can keep a hard copy of the final along with the version that lives online. But all the source material can just be referenced off the final if you need to refer to it in another video.
I hear you but if you have seen my other videos, some of clips are not full screen, or they are overlay. Also FCPX export for TH-cam is great, but it is also highly compressed, so we then go through double compression, etc.
@@ArtIsRight just don't fall into data hoarding... export a Master then, and toss the source material.
Thanks for the advice, but each and every one workflow, approach and archival practices are different. One size does not fits all, some philosophy and approach are good for some but not others.
You might like to think about building your own NAS based on an ITX system and TrueNAS Core. Synology is very slow to release 2.5GbE and 10GbE consumer NAS units.
Yeah I looked into that and have done research. It may be the way to go at some point down the road but not immediately. Yes Synology is slow on the consumer model with 2.5 and 10 GbE, but there are ways around it on models that will take PCI-E card, it is the overall lock in that is starting to become cumbersome.
I’m confused. I run drives that aren’t on their list and everything works fine. I get all the telemetry and health stats etc. so I’m not sure about your understanding on things. The list they provide is just drives they have certified.
Also I have used a DX517 expansion unit for over a year and it works great.
Do you have the 2422+? The implementation in this model is different than other models in the past. If you have other NAS then yes drive not on the support list will work just fine and you can get data. However, on the 2422+ it will function but you don't get drive data from un supported drive. Expansion units are fine until they are not and speed consider is still an issues.
Hello, I have a BenQ monitor. After calibration, when I turn off the monitor, is there a solution after turning on the monitor?
see other comment
Why not consider QNAP's lineup?
Have deployed, tested and use them in the past. Still at this point in time prefer the flexibility of SHR 1 and 2.
Proprietary connections, fussy about drives, does it remind us something? Yes, Apple I'd say :-) True, Synology DSM is more closed system than QNAP, but it has upsides also. For instance QNAP users experienced so far two times ransomware... Also I'd say that still DSM is better optimised, more user friendly and more fluent in actual usage than QTS. Anyway - don't you think short disk compaibility list is also due to DS2422+ being so shortly on the market? Maybe it will get longer soon?
They are becoming more closed. They used to be open. And yes QNAP ransomware was bad. I use both and I like DSM better. As far as 2422+ I think it is just a lock in based on the firmware and synchronicity reasons that I mentioned in the video. I don't think that the list is going to expand much, I think we are looking at a lock in situation in the name of overall user experience.
I think they might be going proprietário because SHR is not só reliable depending on the application of the NAS.
Here in Brazil synology sellers advise you not to use it.. not even to use same site HDs from different models..
It all depends on the application. For me file storage and light Plex, SHR has worked great. I have also used SHR on mixed HDD and it works fine. Never had it crashed or anything.
Synology is trying to lock in in their customers into their own ecosystem with overprized RAM, SSDs and now even HDs.
I think they're making a big mistake here. HDDs are HDDs and RAM chips are RAM chips, they will work in Diskstations regardless of Synologys compatibility list.
I've used Synology products for fifteen years and really like their products , but I'll now considiring other alternatives.
I am aware of this and there are reasons why they do this but the benefit on the daily user is marginal at best. So I feel you
I ran into similar limitations while researching Synology NAS. In the end - even if it is a bit weaker security wise - I chose a QNAP. As long as it is not exposed to the internet it should be fine though.
I hear you
The writing is on the wall with Synology. They’re moving everything to their own drives. Hard pass for me. I have a ds1515+ and a newer QNAP system. I really like the QNAP system and would highly recommend you take a look at them. People say they aren’t as easy as Synology to run, but that’s not my experience. It’s just too bad that the QNAP TVS-872xt series is getting kinda old. I hope they update it soon.
If I were you I would keep the 1618+ with the exos drives and add another server. Btw, you accidentally said exos ssd at the beginning of your video.
Too bad QNAP does not take security seriously, you can really connect it to the internet anymore.
I hear you both. Yes one of the issues that I have with QNAP is also security their blunder in the past year with crypto hostage was not a good look on them. Plus they were really slow to response and once they did, it was not done in a good manner. Now I am not saying that Synology does not have security issues. They did run into that as well. Just have to be vigilant now a days and with everything connected with more protocol and complexity it can be difficult.
After turning it on, its settings are reset
see other comment
Just forget it, go with Qnap and ZFS, RAID is absolete. As a bonus no more days and days of rebuilt time.
QNAP still use RAID but with Z File system instant of EXT 4 or BTRFS. Everything still uses RAID or some type of proprietary in a multi drive storage pool setup. It is just the file system that organizes the data group are different and there are variety of them. So I hear you that Z file system is the future going forward. I heard many great things about them.
@@ArtIsRight Yes that is true, but as I said with Raid ZFS you build an array in minutes instead of hours or days, I m not coming back.
I hear you, with BTRFS from Synology, array are build in minutes as well. The part that takes time is the drive scanning, that is the part that takes hours / days, but if you skip that then it is mere minutes as well. Now, I have not used ZFS but if that system skip the scanning and mapping then that would be why it is faster.
Scanning is just that scanning, and there's now tech right now that can do it for large drives in minutes.
@@ArtIsRight ZFS removes one layer on the Volume that's why is faster and saves more space too, needs more RAN thought but on QNAP the memory is much cheaper, anyway, the Synology OS is much better but I don't go with brands that are moving to propriety hardware like we didn't have enough E-waste.
Is there a solution?
Please answers these questions completely and we’ll go from here.
* What computer (Laptop - Mac specify the model, year and size, Desktop, iMac, all in 1 PC, custom build, etc )
* What is your Operating System (OS) version are you using? (For Mac please specify the dot release, for Windows please specify version / build number)
* What calibrator are using?
* What version of PME are you using?
* What BenQ model do you have?
* Is this the only display linked up to the system?
* What cable are you using to connect your BenQ to your computer for the display signal, HDMI, Display Port, etc.
* If you are using USB-C skip this question, if not, are you using a USB link cable between your laptop and display?
* If you are using Mac was this a clean install or was the OS upgraded from a previous version at any point (I.e. From Mojave 10.13.x to Catalina 10.14.x)? Or was this Mac restore from a back up, time machine or other wise?
* For PC, what GPU are you using? If Nvidia are you using their new Studio Driver?
* Were you able able to successfully pass the validation at some point
* For SW2700PT owner, look at the back of your display on the regular tag and give me the MFG date.
* Have you installed DisplayCal at some point?
* Do you know of any color calibration software that starts with the OS and is running in the background?
@@ArtIsRight windows 10
Pc
@@ArtIsRight monitor model sw270c
@@ArtIsRight He had written somewhere By turning off ddc / ci it's gonna be OK is it correct?
That is just the information for display data and computer OS. Don't think that it would matter much.
considering to enroll to a school that has unlimited google drive 🤣
lots of issues with the that kind of thinking there and plus all these unlimited cloud storage is not necessary the solution and there are lots of downside as well, file availability for rapid use is not one of them. Not to mention that if you don't have a back up and something happened to the cloud storage it is on you. So as much as I appreciate the solution, the cons does not add up for creative pros.
@@ArtIsRight good take, personally dont need the rapid use availability, not sure with synology but hard drives are kinda fragile.
Have you experienced having an unlimited storage before and had problems? Would more prominent schools be a better choice?
If this was 2 decades ago I would agree with the sentiment, Now a days, not so much. HDD, at least, good quality ones, are really robust. And like anything they do fail and this would include cloud storage as well. Fortunate the number of failures are much smaller, however, there has been instances of data being wiped entirely from cloud storage and the the various company would do nothing to help. As always with unlimited storage, it is in name only, if you read the term there is usually a cap and if you are in the top percentile of users who use too much space then they can terminate your account. As far as schools goes as long as they are in the program you are good but that is not really a long term solution, you are going to pay more for schools than storage but hey, each to their own.
@@ArtIsRight well, i think if youre in a good university could be an advantage. I have a friend who has been using unlimited for probably almost 10 years already.
Which drives would you say is sturdy and which are not?
I taught at a few uni for about a decade, we never have that deal with google, so this is uni specific. as far as drives, just go to backblaze and look up the drive data. if anything, store the same data on 2 drives, incase one fail, or just use cloud if that works for you. not all workflow are the same, there's no one size fits all.