Its a real red drive. Price on that has gone up to $250, looks like the new deal this week is on the 4TB EasyStores down from $199 to $99, however at this size range you aren't guaranteed a specific drive type, like you are with the 8.
NAS Drive
- Thread starter LunarMist
- Start date
Its a real red drive. Price on that has gone up to $250, looks like the new deal this week is on the 4TB EasyStores down from $199 to $99, however at this size range you aren't guaranteed a specific drive type, like you are with the 8.
RAID arrays can be bigger, but once an array is greater than 16TB, online expansion is no longer possible. I refer you to the fine print here:
https://www.qnap.com/en-us/product/model.php?II=237
https://www.qnap.com/en-us/product/model.php?II=237
https://forum.synology.com/enu/viewtopic.php?t=64944
Looks like you should be good for >16TB expansion with the more recent Synology units.
Apparently there is a max volume expansion limit of 108TB to be aware of in the DS1817+ as an example. Could come into play as drive density continues to increase. But certainly more flexibility than 16TB.
"Owing to technical limitations, the size of a single volume is limited to 16, 108, or 200 terabytes (TB) on certain Synology NAS models1.
...
Note:
For more information on the limitation of each Synology NAS model, please refer to the items of Maximum Single Volume Size and Maximum Internal Volume Number in its specifications. Some models with expandable RAM can be upgraded to 32GB or higher to support a single volume size of 200TB on RAID 5 or RAID 6 groups. Please refer to your model’s datasheet for more information."
https://www.synology.com/en-us/know...logy_NAS_have_a_single_volume_size_limitation
Looks like you would want to double check the specific model you are looking at.
...
Note:
For more information on the limitation of each Synology NAS model, please refer to the items of Maximum Single Volume Size and Maximum Internal Volume Number in its specifications. Some models with expandable RAM can be upgraded to 32GB or higher to support a single volume size of 200TB on RAID 5 or RAID 6 groups. Please refer to your model’s datasheet for more information."
https://www.synology.com/en-us/know...logy_NAS_have_a_single_volume_size_limitation
Looks like you would want to double check the specific model you are looking at.
sechs
0
Maybe they should have used ZFS....
The maximum volume size is not so much of an issue as the ability to add additional disks. The Synology KB does not list any specific limitation when expanding, but I would not count on that.
Obviously I should have fully populated the TS-831TX from the start rather than spending days making a temporary backup from 10TB drives to a bunch of old 4-6TB drives. :doh:
The DS3617xs now has 7x 10TB Seagate in the RAID 6. I should not need to expand it for a while, but those 5 open bays will be used somehow. 
It will probably take a couple days to restore and verify data on both the 831x and the DS3617xs.
I really prefer Synology overall for the OS and flexibility, but I don't think it is worth replacing the 831x as the backup.
It will probably take a couple days to restore and verify data on both the 831x and the DS3617xs.
I really prefer Synology overall for the OS and flexibility, but I don't think it is worth replacing the 831x as the backup.
Put SSDs in a pair of those bays as a RAID1 read/write cache. Really helpful.
That won't slow down the write speeds for large files? Which SSDs are you using and how are they kept clean or does the NAS trim itself?
Stereodude
Not really a
Define "large".
Nope. I put 500GB SSDs in mine, their STR should be at least as good as the HDDs. And that is before two operations start happening at the same time.
sechs
0
LOL
It's Linux!
It is Linux, but in practice it is as far as possible from a DIY Linux solution. You don't need to know anything about Linux, do any research into hardware or software, or bother with assembling the thing yourself.
Well, I don't mean the code. I should say I like the DSM better than the QTS.
Well, I don't mean the code. I should say I like the DSM better than the QTS.
I tried but the continual read speeds are shit after less than an hour as the buffer randomly fills.
sechs
0
They're both Linux. They just have different front-ends.
And, in theory, both should be free to use....
Presumably the NADS manufacturers tend to use the free Linux OS to run their systems and then they can support many programs for that OS.
I don't use such programs but I see many are preinstalled and other available for additional costs.
The problem is that I only need write caching not read/write. When reading only, somehow the SSDs are slowly filling up. After 800GB read, they are over 90% full and then get closer to 98% eventually.
I assumed that once they were nearly full the read speeds would return to normal, but they seem to be the slowest yet, maybe 20-25% of the normal read speeds after 2TB read when I gave up.
I don't believe the slow reads are related to the SSDs, which were tested at 520-540 MB/sec., but perhaps there is something other negative effect. Unfortunately the DSM does not allow any option other than R or R/W and enable/disable large file caching. Perhaps there are some Linux codes to control the data storage will more granularity, but that is beyond my level.
sechs
0
For those of you in love with BTRFS:
Btrfs RAID 5/6 Support Is "Mostly OK" With Linux 4.12
Btrfs RAID 5/6 Support Is "Mostly OK" With Linux 4.12
Not that I need any more Red drives, but the 8TB is now $200. Maybe someone can benefit.
Thanks Lunar, my 240 GB Sandisk SSD Plus Win 7 boot drive just took a massive shit. Did get some disk errors in the past week so created a recovery optical disc and a system image to another drive. However doesnt look like I can recover the image seamlessly without reinstalling Win 7 again first.
Ordered a Samsung 960 Pro 512GB m2 drive to replace it.
What hardware is that using? Does it support the full performance?
It'll be going into an MSI x99a Gaming 7 mobo with an i7 5930k.
Sorry, to clarify, no standalone NAS involved.
That's what I have. I'm not a fan of the MSI BIOS, but it I was tired of the Gigabyte boards crapping out.
I started with an XP241 and then replaced it with the SM951 when that was introduced. There was little improvement, since the XP241 is quite fast. I decided to resist further upgrades.
There is a 200m case fan that blows the M.2 SSD to keep it cool enough. If yours does not have a heat sink, I suggest checking the temperature after running some long benchmarks.
I started with an XP241 and then replaced it with the SM951 when that was introduced. There was little improvement, since the XP241 is quite fast. I decided to resist further upgrades.
There is a 200m case fan that blows the M.2 SSD to keep it cool enough. If yours does not have a heat sink, I suggest checking the temperature after running some long benchmarks.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
Unless you're trying to cool off a volcano, that is some serious overkill.
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
And another train goes by without stopping at the station...
I don't think a 660 foot fan would fit in an Olds Cutlass, even one from 60's or 70's. Maybe a 98... 8)
Oh, I meant 200mm. The case is actually a Corsair. I was not wearing near vision glasses and there is a boat logo on the emblem.
Our family had an Olds Cutlass type of wagon around 1980 or so that I drove occasionally. What a useless POS engine it had, with all the constant EEPROM or whatever programming IC updates.
It's post like these that make me happy.
For perspective, a conventional wind turbine blade is 35m in length...so a 200m fan is enormous. I'd love to know the physics if it would even be possible to sustain a spin on that without self-destruction due to material failure.
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas_V164
Rotor diameter 164m, total height 220m. Still not big enough.
Rotor diameter 164m, total height 220m. Still not big enough.