Back to Article

  • JeffFlanagan - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    >The small size of the system as well as the massive RAID-able storage capacity
    >(4 x 1.5TB supported currently

    When was 6TB massive? Certainly not at the time this article was written.

    It would be cooler if the article contained links to similar, but better products. Something like this that holds at least 4x4TB drives would be much more useful to anyone with modern storage needs. 6x4TB would be even better.
  • Spoelie - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    in 2.5" format? Reply
  • JeffFlanagan - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    I'd prefer 3.5" Much less expensive per TB. The different in space taken up by a 2.5" unit and a 3.5" unit wouldn't cause any issues for me. If someone was in a really tiny space, or has very limited power, the 2.5" solution would be the better fit. Reply
  • bernstein - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    so don't go ranting in a news post about 2.5" NAS. there are people who prefer them.

    6TB **is** massive. in the **context** of a 2.5" consumer NAS.

    i for one don't think anything below 100TB massive. but then i have a 48x4TB server in a closet and it's basically just our household NAS.
  • S.D.Leary - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    The question though should be why does it not support the 2GB Toshiba drives. 6GB is certainly better than 4.5GB (assuming RAID5 or the like).

    As an aside.... why has the 2.5 GB HDD market stagnated with regards to density? We have 6GB desktop drives... I would assume that 3GB 2.5" drives are possible.

  • SunLord - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    I'd assume it only supports 9.5mm 2.5" drives and i believe the 2tb toshiba one is 15mm though the Samsung m9t 2tb should work Reply
  • rpg1966 - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    How do you back that up? Reply
  • ddriver - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    "i have a 48x4TB server in a closet and it's basically just our household NAS."

    Are you hosting a full mirror of the pirate bay? :D
  • fri2219 - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    Correction: the first model in the series was the 410, not the 411. I purchased a DS410 in 2008, and have been a very happy customer of Synology ever since. My business uses a one of their rackmount models, which you can adapt to 2.5 drives with a Supermicro drive tray adaptor. It's explicitly supported, however. Reply
  • fri2219 - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    argh, not officially supported... Reply
  • SirMaster - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    This or its predecessor never quite made sense to me. So packing 4 1.5TB drives in this would give you 4.5TB in RAID 5. Wouldn't it just be better to go with a 2-bay Synology and put in 2 4TB disks in RAID 1? Or even a pair of new 5TB or 6TB disks? Reply
  • ganeshts - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    Four bays allows for RAID-6 or RAID-10 : It is all a matter of how many disk failures you want to be able to handle. Also, many consumers feel wary about putting in all their data on a big capacity disk as they don't want to lose it all in one go. Smaller sized disks are preferable to those users and this type of unit allows them to be 'densely' packaged. Reply
  • Flunk - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    In a stand-alone small office/home office case? If it was rack-mountable it would make a lot more sense to me.

    I'm with SirMaster on this one. This product doesn't seem to make much sense.
  • bernstein - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    if you want rack mountable you obviously have racktower in a room where noise & ventilation isn't a problem... obviously your not the target audience and should buy a supermicro server... has up to 36 2.5" hdds. Reply
  • BillyONeal - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    4 2.5" spindles in RAID5 can offer more throughput than 2 3.5" spindles in RAID1. Reply
  • imaheadcase - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    None of that matters on a network. Speed is the least of concern with a setup like this. Reply
  • azazel1024 - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    It depends on the drives and controllers.

    I've seen a lot of numbers with RAID5 arrays where individually you can get, say, 120MB/sec read and write performance out of each disk, but a 4 disk RAID 5 array ends up netting you something like 350MB/sec reads...but 120-150MB/sec writes with HUGE varience on write speed based on queue depth (sometimes actually dropping with higher queue depth).

    So actually, with a couple of resonable fast 7200rpm 3.5" disks, its at least possible SOME of the disk performance will be faster with a 2 disk 3.5" RAID1 array then with a 4 disk 2.5" RAID5 array. Kind of depends on what you are interested in.

    I can see the use case on this NAS, it just seems like a very, very niche market though. As for storage...well, personally 4TB seems like a decent chunk of storage and 6TB pretty nice. I am rolling only 2.7GB total in my desktop and 4.1TB total in my, yeah, 6TB would be nice. Fingers crossed I can nab some 3TB drives this fall as my desktop is pretty much completely out of space (I think I have around 20% spare area right now and shrinking).
  • isa - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    OK, fine: another new NAS that doesn't use Silvermont. I won't wake up for a NAS review until a consumer/SOHO Silvermont NAS is covered. Any coming soon? Reply
  • name99 - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    Well how should we interpret this?
    Does it mean that the whole world of these manufacturers are all in some weird conspiracy to keep people from buying what they want? Or does it mean that something about Silvermont (performance not as great as claimed for this task? inability to easily create the exact SOC required with the LAN, USB, SATA, CPU and RAID engine all on one chip?)

    I'd say the answer is likely the latter --- which is exactly what people have been saying since Atom came out --- that competing in embedded is not just a matter of a kickass CPU, it's also about being willing and able to play ball with everyone else who is part of the ecosystem.
  • isa - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    Well, I guess a conspiracy by the Saucer People or their minions is a possibility, but I asked the question because I actually don't know and genuinely want to know. Reply
  • mpbrede - Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - link

    Seems like a fluff article - not much research at all. 4 x 1.5 TB in RAID isn't all that much - at most 4.5TB RAID 5 or the Synology-proprietary SHR. The space savings over a unit taking 4x4TB is surely not equivalent to the 166% increase in space of the 4TB NAS drives one would typically install. Reply
  • usernametaken76 - Saturday, May 31, 2014 - link

    This is not an article, it is a pipeline story. Read the screen. Reply
  • Ettepet - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Why does everybody here assume this is just meant for hard disks? This is an awesome beast for SSD, and with this in mind the article is pretty spot on: massive storage and power in a compact form-factor. Reply
  • Joel Kleppinger - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Considering that one SSD already saturates 1Gbe and USB3 links, the only advantage of the enclosure would be for reliability for RAID SSDs. Thunderbolt 20 would be much more interesting for this as it can move around 2 GB/s. Reply
  • Ettepet - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    I was looking more at the USB 3.0 copying data while accessing the device through ethernet.

    But you are right about the slow ethernet. At home I use 2x 10GbE and several 1TB SSD's inside (UASP) USB 3.0 enclosures. Hopefully Thunderbolt will be getting (much) more acceptance soon, since 10GbE sure isn't.
  • imaheadcase - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Terrible design decision! Why only 2.5? 2TB drives are $150 each. This makes no sense. You can get the exact same setup with 3.5 bay option for more space, and it would be CHEAPER if you filled it up. $450 just to fill this with hardrives is beyond terrible design in this day and age.

    Before you spew about power savings, it would not be noticeable, nevermind the fact the person using this can afford it.
  • Ettepet - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Well, it will be far more transportable and easier to stack away somewhere in a small office environment. Reply
  • haukionkannel - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Exactly! Smaller can sometimes cost more. This is not the economy version, this is for small size and many disks. Reply
  • imaheadcase - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link

    Not really, check the dimensions. Reply
  • fteoath64 - Thursday, May 29, 2014 - link

    Yeah, such a smaller form-factor allows it to be carried to and from the office once a week far more easily than a 3.5inch 4 bay unit. Some people do a complete backup of the office machine on Fridays to work on stuff over the weekend then he/she can do a complete off-line backup on a 3.5inch USB drive in a cyclic basis. Such a practise is much better than a lot of enterprise backup that is troublesome to get data back when there is a failure in a disk/surface. Reply
  • Morawka - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link

    Seagate makes a $100 2.5 2 TB drive, people on amazon are raving about it.

    I'd hook four of them up into this baby.
  • S.D.Leary - Saturday, May 31, 2014 - link

    You would have some work to do. Those are external drives.

  • kgi111 - Monday, June 09, 2014 - link

    Is this something like who has the biggest?
    Judge this for what it is.
    Is a small very silent device that doesn't use much power.
    DSM has a host of utilities that easy to use.
    4.5TB not a lot I agree. But convert it to number of photos og music, or word documents.
    This one can store quite a lot.
    I have a DS409Slim. And it has never filed is just siting there and does what it is supposed to do.
    I have been waiting for the synology to come with an upgrade (didn't want to buy the 411 in 2014).
    For me it started by all this small 2.5 external USB drives that was no longer in use. Then I bought this and suddenly the old drives are relevant again. Because it is a 4 bay NAS I am not worried about using old drives. As the have failed and 2 of them have I have just replaced with new or new old ones. Today it is running Cloud station and audio streaming and it works Cloud station is not 100% reliable But I use Crashplan as Cloud backup, so it is not a big problem but it irritates me a bit.
    Nice little NAS use it for what it is. I do have a 4x3,5 NAS as well but is usez more power a makez more noise.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now