G.Skill KM360 Keyboard Review
Promo: VIP-SCDKey Games and Windows 10 / Office
Alphacool EISBAER Ex BLACK LCS review
Netgear Nighthawk AX12 Wi-Fi 6 router review
Corsair HS60 PRO Surround Headset Review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 Gaming X review
Team Group Cardea II NVMe 1 TB SSD Review
ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming ITX/TB3 review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Patriot P200 1TB SATA3 SSD Review
Synology DS620slim Gigabit NAS Review
Posted by: on: 09/19/2019 11:57 AM [
12 comment(s) ]
Synology is going on a diet as they now offer a NAS series that holds 2.5" storage units only, and you know what that means. Yes, the SSD revolution is slowly progressing towards the NAS segment as well. Powered with an Intel Celeron J3355 dual-core 2.0 GHz (2.5 GHz boost) this NAS is to set to deliver on the 4K media front as the new is looking to be offering to be an excellent Plex transcoder.
Read article
Advertisement
Yakk
Senior Member
Posts: 141
Senior Member
Posts: 141
Posted on: 09/19/2019 05:16 PM
Interesting device. Synology has really been blurring the line between just a NAS drive & also having a small server running Docker files & small VMs.
While Synology service & support is top tier (I personally worked with them on an issue and they provided me a beta patch in 1 week), applying optional Patches for all the Intel vulnerabilities does sap performance on these small CPUs, and now with the hardware level problems identified possibly limiting CPUs life span, I'd be very careful before investing in these with Intel CPUs.
Interesting device. Synology has really been blurring the line between just a NAS drive & also having a small server running Docker files & small VMs.
While Synology service & support is top tier (I personally worked with them on an issue and they provided me a beta patch in 1 week), applying optional Patches for all the Intel vulnerabilities does sap performance on these small CPUs, and now with the hardware level problems identified possibly limiting CPUs life span, I'd be very careful before investing in these with Intel CPUs.
SweenJM
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Posted on: 09/19/2019 10:31 PM
Qnap and several others have been doing the same. Pretty neat stuff.
Interesting device. Synology has really been blurring the line between just a NAS drive & also having a small server running Docker files & small VMs
Qnap and several others have been doing the same. Pretty neat stuff.
TieSKey
Senior Member
Posts: 113
Senior Member
Posts: 113
Posted on: 09/19/2019 11:56 PM
Actually, the low-mid tier NAS are super expensive for their hardware.... With some patience u can get 90% of the functionality of one of these with a Raspberry and some adapters. Heck the last pi has a lot more ram that this 500 box....
And I'm saying this being owner of a qnap 4bay... bought it 2 months before the new PI was announced...
(Previous Pi model had only USB 2.0 support so it wasn't an option)
Actually, the low-mid tier NAS are super expensive for their hardware.... With some patience u can get 90% of the functionality of one of these with a Raspberry and some adapters. Heck the last pi has a lot more ram that this 500 box....
And I'm saying this being owner of a qnap 4bay... bought it 2 months before the new PI was announced...
(Previous Pi model had only USB 2.0 support so it wasn't an option)
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36084
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 36084
Posted on: 09/20/2019 09:45 AM
On a hardware level I agree, but the money for a huge part on the software and applications offered. The days that a NAS was simply a file-server and FTP box are long gone, these have become advanced servers with incredibly impressive software packages.
Actually, the low-mid tier NAS are super expensive for their hardware.... With some patience u can get 90% of the functionality of one of these with a Raspberry and some adapters. Heck the last pi has a lot more ram that this 500 box
On a hardware level I agree, but the money for a huge part on the software and applications offered. The days that a NAS was simply a file-server and FTP box are long gone, these have become advanced servers with incredibly impressive software packages.
386SX
Senior Member
Posts: 459
Senior Member
Posts: 459
Posted on: 09/20/2019 01:39 PM
While I agree with Hilbert on the software thing I wonder if I am the only one who can't understand NAS manufacturers building 2.5 inch slot versions?
2.5 inch HDD drives are more expensive, are available in smaller sizes (4 TB max. atm. ?) and tend to be slower at some point.
SSDs on the other hand can't put their whole speed through the GBit interface.
And from what I saw 2.5 inch models are a bit more expensive than their 3.5 inch counterparts.
So why invest in a 2.5 inch version when you can get a 3.5 inch version? Cheap HDDs with big cache and high rpm. And you can still get an 2.5 inch drive and mount it by using some 2.5/3.5 inch adapter. SATA doesnt mind.
EDIT:
Regarding size of 2.5 inch HDDs and prices:
https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=hde7s&xf=13810-4000~3772-2.5&sort=t&hloc=at&hloc=de&v=e
While I agree with Hilbert on the software thing I wonder if I am the only one who can't understand NAS manufacturers building 2.5 inch slot versions?
2.5 inch HDD drives are more expensive, are available in smaller sizes (4 TB max. atm. ?) and tend to be slower at some point.
SSDs on the other hand can't put their whole speed through the GBit interface.
And from what I saw 2.5 inch models are a bit more expensive than their 3.5 inch counterparts.
So why invest in a 2.5 inch version when you can get a 3.5 inch version? Cheap HDDs with big cache and high rpm. And you can still get an 2.5 inch drive and mount it by using some 2.5/3.5 inch adapter. SATA doesnt mind.
EDIT:
Regarding size of 2.5 inch HDDs and prices:
https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=hde7s&xf=13810-4000~3772-2.5&sort=t&hloc=at&hloc=de&v=e
Evildead666
Senior Member
Posts: 1230
Senior Member
Posts: 1230
Posted on: 09/20/2019 01:56 PM
While I agree with Hilbert on the software thing I wonder if I am the only one who can't understand NAS manufacturers building 2.5 inch slot versions?
2.5 inch HDD drives are more expensive, are available in smaller sizes (4 TB max. atm. ?) and tend to be slower at some point.
SSDs on the other hand can't put their whole speed through the GBit interface.
And from what I saw 2.5 inch models are a bit more expensive than their 3.5 inch counterparts.
So why invest in a 2.5 inch version when you can get a 3.5 inch version? Cheap HDDs with big cache and high rpm. And you can still get an 2.5 inch drive and mount it by using some 2.5/3.5 inch adapter. SATA doesnt mind.
EDIT:
Regarding size of 2.5 inch HDDs and prices:
https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=hde7s&xf=13810-4000~3772-2.5&sort=t&hloc=at&hloc=de&v=e
I am actually surprised there aren't more.
For a really good, quiet, RAID setup on a desk, it would be awesome.
Obviously it would ideally be 2.5/5/10Gbit rather than single Gbit, but i'm sure the market is there for it.
I'd get one for my parents, just so they can't break the thing (hopefully).
Just not with this CPU.
While I agree with Hilbert on the software thing I wonder if I am the only one who can't understand NAS manufacturers building 2.5 inch slot versions?
2.5 inch HDD drives are more expensive, are available in smaller sizes (4 TB max. atm. ?) and tend to be slower at some point.
SSDs on the other hand can't put their whole speed through the GBit interface.
And from what I saw 2.5 inch models are a bit more expensive than their 3.5 inch counterparts.
So why invest in a 2.5 inch version when you can get a 3.5 inch version? Cheap HDDs with big cache and high rpm. And you can still get an 2.5 inch drive and mount it by using some 2.5/3.5 inch adapter. SATA doesnt mind.
EDIT:
Regarding size of 2.5 inch HDDs and prices:
https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=hde7s&xf=13810-4000~3772-2.5&sort=t&hloc=at&hloc=de&v=e
I am actually surprised there aren't more.
For a really good, quiet, RAID setup on a desk, it would be awesome.
Obviously it would ideally be 2.5/5/10Gbit rather than single Gbit, but i'm sure the market is there for it.
I'd get one for my parents, just so they can't break the thing (hopefully).
Just not with this CPU.
TieSKey
Senior Member
Posts: 113
Senior Member
Posts: 113
Posted on: 09/20/2019 02:57 PM
For non technicall users who value simplicity over all and/or need some weird file system driver or licence, I agree.
If not, the NAS-like open linux distros offer support for vm, docker and everything a linux box does. Ofc you will need a lot more technical understanding and patience to set things up the first time
On a hardware level I agree, but the money for a huge part on the software and applications offered. The days that a NAS was simply a file-server and FTP box are long gone, these have become advanced servers with incredibly impressive software packages.
For non technicall users who value simplicity over all and/or need some weird file system driver or licence, I agree.
If not, the NAS-like open linux distros offer support for vm, docker and everything a linux box does. Ofc you will need a lot more technical understanding and patience to set things up the first time
Yakk
Senior Member
Posts: 141
Senior Member
Posts: 141
Posted on: 09/20/2019 03:09 PM
Qnap and several others have been doing the same. Pretty neat stuff.
Yeah, I like what they're doing also.
For non technicall users who value simplicity over all and/or need some weird file system driver or licence, I agree.
If not, the NAS-like open linux distros offer support for vm, docker and everything a linux box does. Ofc you will need a lot more technical understanding and patience to set things up the first time :p
For sure... With working on this stuff all day I'd say I'm technically literate so to speak, I just find it nice to have it all done for me at home so I don't feel like I'm still working...
ops:
Qnap and several others have been doing the same. Pretty neat stuff.
Yeah, I like what they're doing also.
For non technicall users who value simplicity over all and/or need some weird file system driver or licence, I agree.
If not, the NAS-like open linux distros offer support for vm, docker and everything a linux box does. Ofc you will need a lot more technical understanding and patience to set things up the first time :p
For sure... With working on this stuff all day I'd say I'm technically literate so to speak, I just find it nice to have it all done for me at home so I don't feel like I'm still working...
ops:
SweenJM
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Posted on: 09/20/2019 03:20 PM
The days that a NAS was simply a file-server and FTP box are long gone, these have become advanced servers with incredibly impressive software packages.
And software can be such a burdensome expense, these modern NAS and SAN can really alleviate a lot of that cost.
rl66
Senior Member
Posts: 2128
Senior Member
Posts: 2128
Posted on: 09/21/2019 11:06 AM
While I agree with Hilbert on the software thing I wonder if I am the only one who can't understand NAS manufacturers building 2.5 inch slot versions?
2.5 inch HDD drives are more expensive, are available in smaller sizes (4 TB max. atm. ?) and tend to be slower at some point.
SSDs on the other hand can't put their whole speed through the GBit interface.
And from what I saw 2.5 inch models are a bit more expensive than their 3.5 inch counterparts.
So why invest in a 2.5 inch version when you can get a 3.5 inch version? Cheap HDDs with big cache and high rpm. And you can still get an 2.5 inch drive and mount it by using some 2.5/3.5 inch adapter. SATA doesnt mind.
EDIT:
Regarding size of 2.5 inch HDDs and prices:
https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=hde7s&xf=13810-4000~3772-2.5&sort=t&hloc=at&hloc=de&v=e
For home use i agree with you but on pro side i am not so on your side.
The 2.5 HDD format have risen last year for 3 reason:
- It is more energy friendly (main argument)
- The extra cost compared to 3.5 equivalent on specialised is realy low on specialised NAS's HDD.
- It permit to mix it with SSD (or use only SSD) more easily.
Now even on 3.5 Nas they bundle the 2.5 adaptator for the bay. Anyway future will be 2.5.
While I agree with Hilbert on the software thing I wonder if I am the only one who can't understand NAS manufacturers building 2.5 inch slot versions?
2.5 inch HDD drives are more expensive, are available in smaller sizes (4 TB max. atm. ?) and tend to be slower at some point.
SSDs on the other hand can't put their whole speed through the GBit interface.
And from what I saw 2.5 inch models are a bit more expensive than their 3.5 inch counterparts.
So why invest in a 2.5 inch version when you can get a 3.5 inch version? Cheap HDDs with big cache and high rpm. And you can still get an 2.5 inch drive and mount it by using some 2.5/3.5 inch adapter. SATA doesnt mind.
EDIT:
Regarding size of 2.5 inch HDDs and prices:
https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=hde7s&xf=13810-4000~3772-2.5&sort=t&hloc=at&hloc=de&v=e
For home use i agree with you but on pro side i am not so on your side.
The 2.5 HDD format have risen last year for 3 reason:
- It is more energy friendly (main argument)
- The extra cost compared to 3.5 equivalent on specialised is realy low on specialised NAS's HDD.
- It permit to mix it with SSD (or use only SSD) more easily.
Now even on 3.5 Nas they bundle the 2.5 adaptator for the bay. Anyway future will be 2.5.
TieSKey
Senior Member
Posts: 113
Senior Member
Posts: 113
Posted on: 09/21/2019 02:27 PM
For home use i agree with you but on pro side i am not so on your side.
The 2.5 HDD format have risen last year for 3 reason:
- It is more energy friendly (main argument)
- The extra cost compared to 3.5 equivalent on specialised is realy low on specialised NAS's HDD.
- It permit to mix it with SSD (or use only SSD) more easily.
Now even on 3.5 Nas they bundle the 2.5 adaptator for the bay. Anyway future will be 2.5.
My old and cheap qnap model trays have holes to mount either size. Atm I have it running on a single 8Tb 3.5'' for backups and an old 128Gb SSD as system + work files.
For home use i agree with you but on pro side i am not so on your side.
The 2.5 HDD format have risen last year for 3 reason:
- It is more energy friendly (main argument)
- The extra cost compared to 3.5 equivalent on specialised is realy low on specialised NAS's HDD.
- It permit to mix it with SSD (or use only SSD) more easily.
Now even on 3.5 Nas they bundle the 2.5 adaptator for the bay. Anyway future will be 2.5.
My old and cheap qnap model trays have holes to mount either size. Atm I have it running on a single 8Tb 3.5'' for backups and an old 128Gb SSD as system + work files.
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1230
What with this CPU being a J3355, and not the J3355E, i'm not sure it would be a good long term idea to buy this Nas.