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.

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.

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)

TieSKey:

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.

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

386SX:

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. 😉

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

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 :P

SweenJM:

Qnap and several others have been doing the same. Pretty neat stuff.

Yeah, I like what they're doing also.

TieSKey:

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 😛

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... 😳

386SX:

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.

rl66:

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.