Synology NAS DS716+II (Getting my first)

[razorbum]

Hello all, I'm a freelance graphic designer. I also have a lot of media files to store, so I'm looking into getting my first NAS.

I've been looking at the Synology DS716+II with 2x8TB for Raid 1. It's mainly to save and archive my design work because I cannot afford to lose any of those. I also want to move all of my media files to one central location so I can access with all my devices (my custom pc, my macbook and other devices). I'll also connect my current 5TB external desktop hard drive for a secondary backup on my important files.

Other than that, I also want to see if I can run a basic web server off that same nas to host my personal portfolio website. It doesn't have to be up and running 24/7 (slight downtimes are acceptable) because I don't expect high traffic on my website at all.

 

I wanna understand more about NAS and what happens when my NAS unit itself breaks down. Would I still have all my data on those 8TB in Raid 1 or would I lose everything? Raid controllers and data seem to work well until they don't, then people start to lose data.

 

To use the Link Aggregation for the DS716+II, I'll need a managed switch right? Any recommendation that's budget but reliable? 

[Morgan MLGman]

I suggest you take a look at QNAP's NAS offerings, we're using two of their biggest NAS TDS-series devices at one of our customers and hosting a webserver with 180 thousand pictures is nothing for it, they usually also have better hardware and features for the price than Synology. And fewer security vulnerabilities.

[razorbum]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I suggest you take a look at QNAP's NAS offerings, we're using two of their biggest NAS TDS-series devices at one of our customers and hosting a webserver with 180 thousand pictures is nothing for it, they usually also have better hardware and features for the price than Synology. And fewer security vulnerabilities.

My own local community is much bigger on Synology than QNAP, and apparently software and OS wise Synology is stronger. I was pretty torn between the 2 brands myself. I was looking at QNAP TS251+ and the Synology DS716+II

[dalekphalm]

11 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I suggest you take a look at QNAP's NAS offerings, we're using two of their biggest NAS TDS-series devices at one of our customers and hosting a webserver with 180 thousand pictures is nothing for it, they usually also have better hardware and features for the price than Synology. And fewer security vulnerabilities.

I've used both QNAP and Synology NAS units at work (we have 2 of each) and they're pretty comparable software wise.

11 hours ago, razorbum said:

My own local community is much bigger on Synology than QNAP, and apparently software and OS wise Synology is stronger. I was pretty torn between the 2 brands myself. I was looking at QNAP TS251+ and the Synology DS716+II

I actually have 2x of the DS716+II units at work. They are very solid units, with pretty high end features.

 

It definitely can run a basic web server - I know for sure it can run PHP and SQL as well, since I've seen (but not used) the plugins for them in the package center.

 

In terms of what happens if the NAS itself dies:

 

1. If you throw the disks into another Synology, it should be able to import your array fairly painlessly (Eg: It dies, you RMA it under warranty, and import the disks when the new one arrives).

2. If using RAID1 mirror (NOT the Synology Hybrid RAID), you should be able to connect the disks to a regular computer - though you may or may not need to run a partition recovery program to actually mount them to a drive letter - haven't needed to do this, so I haven't tested it.

 

And finally about Link Aggregation: Yes you'll need a managed switch that supports this. For budget managed switches, Dell, DLink, TPLink, and HP all make good ones. Cisco are great if you find one used, but at new price they're generally pretty pricey.

 

Getting a TPLink SOHO managed switch is likely fine if all you need is link aggregation - pretty much any of the big network guys make decent SOHO managed switches.

[Morgan MLGman]

11 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I've used both QNAP and Synology NAS units at work (we have 2 of each) and they're pretty comparable software wise.

Well, the company I work in is selling both QNAP and Synology devices and looking at prices that we get directly from both manufacturers, QNAP gives a bit better hardware for the same price, thus it'd be my NAS of choice between those two, other than that both are very similar as they're direct competitors.

[dalekphalm]

7 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Well, the company I work in is selling both QNAP and Synology devices and looking at prices that we get directly from both manufacturers, QNAP gives a bit better hardware for the same price, thus it'd be my NAS of choice between those two, other than that both are very similar as they're direct competitors.

Synology (Unless you're looking at the 16+ enterprise NAS rackable units from QNAP) offers the better warranty out of the box though.

 

For SOHO and consumer grade stuff, QNAP gives 2 years, and Synology gives 3 years.

 

And of course, vendor pricing will vary depending on your vendor and where you live. For us, we got a couple of DS716+II's for only a slight premium over a couple of TS-253A's - and the added year for warranty more than makes up the difference in cost.

[Pixel5]

how much data do you have to store already at this moment?

will the storage you are aiming for last you for a very long time or do you expect to upgrade within the next few years?

 

i have a Synology 214+ which is a great device and performance wise would already be enough for what you are asking for but i find myself having full storage right now and if i want to upgrade i have to buy 2 new disks at once.

If you intend to upgrade within the next years you should really go for a 4-5 bay nas to give your room to simply slide in another drive and you are ready to go.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Pixel5 said:

how much data do you have to store already at this moment?

will the storage you are aiming for last you for a very long time or do you expect to upgrade within the next few years?

 

i have a Synology 214+ which is a great device and performance wise would already be enough for what you are asking for but i find myself having full storage right now and if i want to upgrade i have to buy 2 new disks at once.

If you intend to upgrade within the next years you should really go for a 4-5 bay nas to give your room to simply slide in another drive and you are ready to go.

I can't speak for the Synology 214+, but the Synology DS716+II supports expansion pods - which are basically just dumb HDD bay's that plug into the main NAS - thus allowing you to expand at a much lower cost of simply replacing the entire NAS.

 

Also, you can swap one HDD out at a time to do a "Live Expansion" of the RAID:

https://www.synology.com/en-global/knowledgebase/DSM/help/DSM/StorageManager/volume_diskgroup_expand_replace_disk

 

This process works with SHR (Synology Hybrid RAID), RAID1, RAID5, and RAID6.

 

It's not exactly a quick process, but it's doable.

[Pixel5]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I can't speak for the Synology 214+, but the Synology DS716+II supports expansion pods - which are basically just dumb HDD bay's that plug into the main NAS - thus allowing you to expand at a much lower cost of simply replacing the entire NAS.

 

Also, you can swap one HDD out at a time to do a "Live Expansion" of the RAID:

https://www.synology.com/en-global/knowledgebase/DSM/help/DSM/StorageManager/volume_diskgroup_expand_replace_disk

 

This process works with SHR (Synology Hybrid RAID), RAID1, RAID5, and RAID6.

 

It's not exactly a quick process, but it's doable.

yea thats something the 214+ cant do, i can only attach an esata drive and use it as a 2nd volume.

but at the price of the expansion unit you are usually better of getting a bigger nas from the get go and expanding with more drives as you go.

 

i agree tho that swapping the nas for upgrading would be a bad idea as it usually runs fine even after many years.

[dalekphalm]

18 minutes ago, Pixel5 said:

yea thats something the 214+ cant do, i can only attach an esata drive and use it as a 2nd volume.

but at the price of the expansion unit you are usually better of getting a bigger nas from the get go and expanding with more drives as you go.

 

i agree tho that swapping the nas for upgrading would be a bad idea as it usually runs fine even after many years.

Well I suppose that's one disadvantage of buying a more entry-level NAS.

[razorbum]

23 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I've used both QNAP and Synology NAS units at work (we have 2 of each) and they're pretty comparable software wise.

I actually have 2x of the DS716+II units at work. They are very solid units, with pretty high end features.

 

It definitely can run a basic web server - I know for sure it can run PHP and SQL as well, since I've seen (but not used) the plugins for them in the package center.

 

In terms of what happens if the NAS itself dies:

 

1. If you throw the disks into another Synology, it should be able to import your array fairly painlessly (Eg: It dies, you RMA it under warranty, and import the disks when the new one arrives).

2. If using RAID1 mirror (NOT the Synology Hybrid RAID), you should be able to connect the disks to a regular computer - though you may or may not need to run a partition recovery program to actually mount them to a drive letter - haven't needed to do this, so I haven't tested it.

 

And finally about Link Aggregation: Yes you'll need a managed switch that supports this. For budget managed switches, Dell, DLink, TPLink, and HP all make good ones. Cisco are great if you find one used, but at new price they're generally pretty pricey.

 

Getting a TPLink SOHO managed switch is likely fine if all you need is link aggregation - pretty much any of the big network guys make decent SOHO managed switches.

 

Thanks for the great insight. I couldn't really find much answers on the web server nor in case of drive failures anywere online. As for link aggregation, I think it's worth it to get a managed switch. An 5-port unmanaged switch is already going to set me back about 25 bucks in my local store. I wouldn't mind coughing up an additional 30 for faster transfer speed.

 

2 hours ago, Pixel5 said:

how much data do you have to store already at this moment?

will the storage you are aiming for last you for a very long time or do you expect to upgrade within the next few years?

 

i have a Synology 214+ which is a great device and performance wise would already be enough for what you are asking for but i find myself having full storage right now and if i want to upgrade i have to buy 2 new disks at once.

If you intend to upgrade within the next years you should really go for a 4-5 bay nas to give your room to simply slide in another drive and you are ready to go.

 

As of now I'm only starting to fill up at about 3TB plus, so 8TB storage should last me for a long time. 2x8TB on a 2-bay NAS is all that I can afford right now. I'm torn between the DS216+II or the DS716+II. Price difference is almost $200 here.

I have absolutely no need for a 4 or 5-bay NAS as of now.

 

To be honestly I don't need to keep ALL my media files either - just being abit of a hoard but I really need to I can delete them. I'm more worried about my NAS/HDD breaking down than me running out of storage to be honest.

 

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I can't speak for the Synology 214+, but the Synology DS716+II supports expansion pods - which are basically just dumb HDD bay's that plug into the main NAS - thus allowing you to expand at a much lower cost of simply replacing the entire NAS.

 

Also, you can swap one HDD out at a time to do a "Live Expansion" of the RAID:

https://www.synology.com/en-global/knowledgebase/DSM/help/DSM/StorageManager/volume_diskgroup_expand_replace_disk

 

This process works with SHR (Synology Hybrid RAID), RAID1, RAID5, and RAID6.

 

It's not exactly a quick process, but it's doable.

 

If the DS716+II can last for me a long long time, then getting a 5-bay extension is a good idea down the road. Another question though. Should the DS716+II break down with the expansion attached, would I still be able to access my files or would all my data be unaccessible until I replace that unit?

[razorbum]

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Synology (Unless you're looking at the 16+ enterprise NAS rackable units from QNAP) offers the better warranty out of the box though.

 

For SOHO and consumer grade stuff, QNAP gives 2 years, and Synology gives 3 years.

 

And of course, vendor pricing will vary depending on your vendor and where you live. For us, we got a couple of DS716+II's for only a slight premium over a couple of TS-253A's - and the added year for warranty more than makes up the difference in cost.

For the same specs (comparing the Synology DS716+II and the QNAP TS251+), considering my local community preference and support, the 1 year additional warranty and what not, the $100 premium for the Synology seems reasonable to me.

[razorbum]

For all the helpful people in this thread, I live in Singapore where electronics tend to be a little overpriced compared to a direct exchange rate to the US.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, razorbum said:

 

Thanks for the great insight. I couldn't really find much answers on the web server nor in case of drive failures anywere online. As for link aggregation, I think it's worth it to get a managed switch. An 5-port unmanaged switch is already going to set me back about 25 bucks in my local store. I wouldn't mind coughing up an additional 30 for faster transfer speed.

 

 

As of now I'm only starting to fill up at about 3TB plus, so 8TB storage should last me for a long time. 2x8TB on a 2-bay NAS is all that I can afford right now. I'm torn between the DS216+II or the DS716+II. Price difference is almost $200 here.

I have absolutely no need for a 4 or 5-bay NAS as of now.

 

To be honestly I don't need to keep ALL my media files either - just being abit of a hoard but I really need to I can delete them. I'm more worried about my NAS/HDD breaking down than me running out of storage to be honest.

 

 

If the DS716+II can last for me a long long time, then getting a 5-bay extension is a good idea down the road. Another question though. Should the DS716+II break down with the expansion attached, would I still be able to access my files or would all my data be unaccessible until I replace that unit?

One thing to keep in mind about Link Aggregation:

 

Link Aggregation (in most cases anyway) will NOT give you double the "transfer speed" per client. What it will do, however, is allow two clients to fully utilize the maximum transfer speed.

 

Eg:

NAS -> LACP (Link aggregation) -> One single client (say with 2 NIC's and also LACP) = Still 1Gbps transfer speed, unless he's doing multiple independent transfers and has it setup correctly to do that

 

Eg 2:

NAS -> LACP -> Client 1 = 1Gbps; Client 2 = 1Gbps; NAS = 2Gbps

 

I don't know what the differences are between the DS216+II vs the 716. You should compare all the hardware and feature differences, and see if the 216+II is missing anything critical.

 

In terms of if the 716+II breaks down, all storage becomes inaccessible, including the expansion unit. As mentioned, the expansion unit itself is basically just a big hard drive cage, and has no internals for the OS, network sharing, etc.

[razorbum]

23 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

One thing to keep in mind about Link Aggregation:

 

Link Aggregation (in most cases anyway) will NOT give you double the "transfer speed" per client. What it will do, however, is allow two clients to fully utilize the maximum transfer speed.

 

Eg:

NAS -> LACP (Link aggregation) -> One single client (say with 2 NIC's and also LACP) = Still 1Gbps transfer speed, unless he's doing multiple independent transfers and has it setup correctly to do that

 

Eg 2:

NAS -> LACP -> Client 1 = 1Gbps; Client 2 = 1Gbps; NAS = 2Gbps

 

I don't know what the differences are between the DS216+II vs the 716. You should compare all the hardware and feature differences, and see if the 216+II is missing anything critical.

 

In terms of if the 716+II breaks down, all storage becomes inaccessible, including the expansion unit. As mentioned, the expansion unit itself is basically just a big hard drive cage, and has no internals for the OS, network sharing, etc.

 

Thanks for the info on LA. I've been misled (by my own readings) that I would get x2 the transfer speed on a single client.

 

Regarding the difference on the 2 Synology, I'll have a couple of months to figure out which one I need so I'm not too worried about that at the moment.

 

I have a question about bottlenecking of transfer speed.

 

Here's how my network setup would run:

 

(Living Room - Wired) Fibre Box -> (Living Room - Wired) Router -> (My Room - Wired) Managed Switch -> (My Room - Wired) My PC/NAS/Router.

 

I would connect to the NAS through my PC via a wired connection so I would be getting full speed no issue there. However, the router that I set up as a wireless access point for better wireless coverage in my room is pretty old. It's a Wireless N300 model.

 

If I access the NAS through my MacBook using a wireless connection there, would my transfer speed get bottlenecked as well?

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, razorbum said:

 

Thanks for the info on LA. I've been misled (by my own readings) that I would get x2 the transfer speed on a single client.

 

Regarding the difference on the 2 Synology, I'll have a couple of months to figure out which one I need so I'm not too worried about that at the moment.

 

I have a question about bottlenecking of transfer speed.

 

Here's how my network setup would run:

 

(Living Room - Wired) Fibre Box -> (Living Room - Wired) Router -> (My Room - Wired) Managed Switch -> (My Room - Wired) My PC/NAS/Router.

 

I would connect to the NAS through my PC via a wired connection so I would be getting full speed no issue there. However, the router that I set up as a wireless access point for better wireless coverage in my room is pretty old. It's a Wireless N300 model.

 

If I access the NAS through my MacBook using a wireless connection there, would my transfer speed get bottlenecked as well?

If you access the NAS over WIFI, the computer over WIFI may well get bottlenecked, yes. In fact, with an N300 router, it's pretty much guaranteed (N300 tops out at 300 Mbps).

 

This is, of course, assuming that both your Router, and the Switch, have Gigabit Ethernet Ports.

 

With that in mind, while the Macbook may get bottlenecked, other devices (eg your desktop) over Ethernet will still be able to achieve their full connections (Assuming the HDD's in your NAS don't provoke a bottleneck due to not being able to keep up).

 

Just make sure all the devices in your room are plugged directly into the switch - you want to minimize daisy chaining when possible.

[Pixel5]

it sounds like you could easily go with a smaller model like the 200 series from synology, if 8TB is all you need for a while this thing will last you for many years and performance is more then enough for your needs.

 

if at some point you really need more storage you could still take the money you saved now by getting a 200 series and some extra to get a model with more drive bays.

 

Your wifi will be the bottleneck for sure but should be ok.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Pixel5 said:

it sounds like you could easily go with a smaller model like the 200 series from synology, if 8TB is all you need for a while this thing will last you for many years and performance is more then enough for your needs.

 

if at some point you really need more storage you could still take the money you saved now by getting a 200 series and some extra to get a model with more drive bays.

 

Your wifi will be the bottleneck for sure but should be ok.

Performance and capacity are far from the only considerations with a NAS - unlike a traditional server, adding in features after the fact is often difficult or impossible.

 

Honestly, feature-set should be his most important consideration - make sure to get a NAS that has the features he needs.

[Pixel5]

57 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Performance and capacity are far from the only considerations with a NAS - unlike a traditional server, adding in features after the fact is often difficult or impossible.

 

Honestly, feature-set should be his most important consideration - make sure to get a NAS that has the features he needs.

thats the thing, he wants storage and host a small website.

a NAS that cant do this as a consumer device would be wrong on this planet.

[dalekphalm]

37 minutes ago, Pixel5 said:

thats the thing, he wants storage and host a small website.

a NAS that cant do this as a consumer device would be wrong on this planet.

And assuming that the 200 series (or a cheaper version) can do this, plus whatever other features he may need? Then it'll work.

 

But it's ultimately up to the OP to review his feature needs and make sure he's not missing anything.

[razorbum]

18 hours ago, Pixel5 said:

it sounds like you could easily go with a smaller model like the 200 series from synology, if 8TB is all you need for a while this thing will last you for many years and performance is more then enough for your needs.

 

if at some point you really need more storage you could still take the money you saved now by getting a 200 series and some extra to get a model with more drive bays.

 

Your wifi will be the bottleneck for sure but should be ok.

Thanks for your reply

 

I am indeed considering between the 216+II and 716+II. I've been advised to get the 716+II for more ram and a more powerful processor, in case I want to use it as a media server as well.

 

Storage and hosting are my 2 primary concern, but I'm still doing research to see what other features the 716+II holds over the 216+II that would make it a more worthwhile option. Build quality wise and looks, 716+II is definitely the winner here (I hate glossy surfaces) 

[razorbum]

14 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

And assuming that the 200 series (or a cheaper version) can do this, plus whatever other features he may need? Then it'll work.

 

But it's ultimately up to the OP to review his feature needs and make sure he's not missing anything.

Thank you. Took the words out of my mouth. And also, just noticed that you're still rocking the 4770k. Me too. I haven't found a compelling reason to switch out from a 4770k with intel's 5th, 6th and 7th gen CPU.

[Pixel5]

6 hours ago, razorbum said:

I am indeed considering between the 216+II and 716+II. I've been advised to get the 716+II for more ram and a more powerful processor, in case I want to use it as a media server as well.

im using my 214+ as a media server here both via DLNA and directly connecting to the SMB share, the important part here is the device you want to use to decode and playback the files from the media server, the synology itself doesnt do much beside serving the files to the network.

 

one thing you should do with either option is that you dont just copy over your pictures to the synology but instead use their uploader program.

It will generate thumbnails for all pictures which can take a few days if you have a few thousand pictures, doing it why the uploader the thumbnails are processed by your normal computer so it goes much faster.

 

The 216 and 716 dont really have big differences beside the raw performance which you dont need for the stuff you want to do with it.

[razorbum]

Hello all. Just an update of my situation. Here in Singapore, the retail price of 716+II is $659 and 216+II is $489.

 

But I happened to chance upon a local online store that was having it on sale, for $579 and $409. However, the local store here only honors 2 year warranty for both products, so I ended up getting the 216+II.

 

Looking forward to starting on my NAS journey!

[leadeater]

On 4/3/2017 at 9:04 PM, Morgan MLGman said:

Well, the company I work in is selling both QNAP and Synology devices and looking at prices that we get directly from both manufacturers, QNAP gives a bit better hardware for the same price, thus it'd be my NAS of choice between those two, other than that both are very similar as they're direct competitors.

That's always been my experience too, QNAP gives better hardware specs for the same money so I always go with them over Synology.