Most active commenters
  • _zoltan_(5)

←back to thread

The Synology End Game

(lowendbox.com)
452 points amacbride | 11 comments | 29 Aug 25 06:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.475s | source | bottom
Show context
M95D ◴[29 Aug 25 08:47 UTC] No.45061719[source]▶
But self-building a NAS is still a problem, and I'm also talking about this [1] article from the same blog:

There are NO low power NAS boards. I'm talking about something with an ARM CPU, no video, no audio, lots of memory (or SODIMM slot) and 10+ SATA ports.

Sure, anyone can buy a self-powered USB3 hub and add 7 external HDDs to a raspbery, but that level of performance is really really low, not to mention the USB random disconnects. And no, port replicators aren't much better.

[1] https://lowendbox.com/blog/are-you-recyling-old-hardware-for...

replies(14): >>45061750 #>>45061794 #>>45061859 #>>45061869 #>>45061894 #>>45062063 #>>45062494 #>>45062628 #>>45064215 #>>45064499 #>>45067093 #>>45067377 #>>45068745 #>>45071007 #
1. _zoltan_ ◴[29 Aug 25 09:42 UTC] No.45062063[source]▶
SATA? In 2025? NVMe all the way.
replies(4): >>45062157 #>>45062303 #>>45062870 #>>45063514 #
2. mkl ◴[29 Aug 25 09:57 UTC] No.45062157[source]▶
Not for a NAS. Speed is NVMe's benefit, but your network isn't fast enough to take advantage of it, which means you're paying through the nose for very low capacity. 24TB SATA drives are a way better deal for a NAS.
replies(1): >>45064133 #
3. Sebb767 ◴[29 Aug 25 10:22 UTC] No.45062303[source]▶
If you need a lot of (not so fast) storage, 3,5" drives are still by far the best TB per €. For a lot of NAS solutions (backups, video/movie/music storage etc.) their performance is completely fine.

Plus, we're most likely talking about Gigabit networking here, so unless your workload consists of very parallel random access, this is going to be the limiting factor anyway.

replies(1): >>45064158 #
4. sigio ◴[29 Aug 25 11:57 UTC] No.45062870[source]▶
I'm not paying for 64TB of NVME... 4x16TB HDD's and 2 2TB NVME's for caching are more then enough ;)
replies(1): >>45064148 #
5. whatevaa ◴[29 Aug 25 12:57 UTC] No.45063514[source]▶
NAS are usually for capacity, not speed.
6. _zoltan_ ◴[29 Aug 25 13:50 UTC] No.45064133[source]▶
I run 25Gbps home from my ISP and to my desktop from my NAS I run also 25Gbps.
replies(1): >>45067272 #
7. _zoltan_ ◴[29 Aug 25 13:51 UTC] No.45064148[source]▶
I wish there was a filesystem which could put all hot data on the NVMe and all cold data on the backend pool easily.

can ZFS do this today?

8. _zoltan_ ◴[29 Aug 25 13:52 UTC] No.45064158[source]▶
25 and 100 Gbps is commodity at this point. yes it's a bit of a pain to run fiber in the walls but worth it.
9. bigstrat2003 ◴[29 Aug 25 17:51 UTC] No.45067272{3}[source]▶
You need to understand that you are a very unusual case. Most people can't get 25 Gbps for a connection, it's 1 Gpbs at best. Most people, even most technical people, are not running a 25 Gbps home network. You have specific needs for speed and that's fine, but they are not commonplace and most people will be served just fine with SATA drives.
replies(1): >>45067485 #
10. hiq ◴[29 Aug 25 18:08 UTC] No.45067485{4}[source]▶
I agree with you, but we're talking about a device that I'd consider keeping for 10+ years. Actually I have some Synology NAS lost somewhere that I occasionally use, and while I don't trust exposing it to the internet (never have), it still serves files fine. With this expectation it's not absurd to get a NAS that still handles a bit more than the current speeds.

Just to add a datapoint: I could also get a 25Gpbs connection in Switzerland. Actually checking that, I'm realizing that I could upgrade without paying more (maybe just a setup fee, less than 50USD).

replies(1): >>45068871 #
11. _zoltan_ ◴[29 Aug 25 20:13 UTC] No.45068871{5}[source]▶
I'm also with Init7 :)