Qnap TS-253a vs Synology DS-216+

[Chojo]

Hi everyone,
I'm gonna pull the trigger on one of the two models: TS-253a from QNAP or the DS-216+ from Synology.

I'm a debutant in the NAS world, so I wonder which one is more easy to understand and configure.

Also, the TS-253A is about 250$ more, is it worth it or the DS-216+ will do the job very well? I plan to stock media files on my server and use it as a backup service for some members of my family.

 

[sfx2000]

Hi everyone,
I'm gonna pull the trigger on one of the two models: TS-453a from QNAP or the DS-216+ from Synology.

I'm a debutant in the NAS world, so I wonder which one is more easy to understand and configure.

Also, the TS-253A is about 250$ more, is it worth it or the DS-216+ will do the job very well? I plan to stock media files on my server and use it as a backup service for some members of my family.

Those are two very different boxes - 4bay Intel vs. 2bay Intel, and these are different product categories...

Might consider looking at the TS-251 from QNAP as well on your list, and it's going to be closer to your lower end price on the DS-216+

 

[L&LD]

The QNAP is a 4 LAN port, 4 Bay model with 4GB of ram on a 'real' cpu vs. an entry level NAS that is barely above an external USB enclosure, imo (I do not consider 2 bay NAS' as a true NAS solution).

For the small price difference and the fact that a NAS will still be usable 5 to 10 years from now (in one role or another) the QNAP is the one to go with (it seems your budget can handle it).

 

[Chojo]

Oops, my title is misleading, I mean TS-253a vs the DS-216+. In my last paragraph, I was talk about the good model, my title is a fail on my side, excuse me. The title is now changed.

Why you don't consider 2 bay NAS as a true NAS solution? With harddrive that can go up to 8tb per drive, I only use 2tb at the moment.

So, the TS-253a is 250$ more than the DS-216+, is it worth it since the two are 2bay? For the QNAP TS-251, its 50$ more than the DS-216+

 

[L&LD]

Except for the number of drive bays, the points above still stand (and even though I would not consider or recommend anything less than a 4 bay NAS (see below), I would still prefer the QNAP model for the much better processor, ram and dual nic's vs. the Synology model indicated).

A two bay NAS is little more than a toy because it cannot be depended upon in many common possible situations (catastrophic).

I always recommend to configure the first two drives in RAID1 as that is where (at least part of the NAS) the os and configuration is stored on. If one drive dies (and eventually, it will), the NAS' data and availability is not held prisoner while one scrambles to configure and setup another drive from scratch.

The remaining drives are where the actual data is kept. Either in a RAID1 or RAID5 or higher redundant array (unless my customers opt for two NAS unit's that back each other up daily/nightly).

In any case; an external (and preferably offsite) drive should also be used to backup the most important data too.

 

[Chojo]

Except for the number of drive bays, the points above still stand (and even though I would not consider or recommend anything less than a 4 bay NAS (see below), I would still prefer the QNAP model for the much better processor, ram and dual nic's vs. the Synology model indicated).

A two bay NAS is little more than a toy because it cannot be depended upon in many common possible situations (catastrophic).

I always recommend to configure the first two drives in RAID1 as that is where (at least part of the NAS) the os and configuration is stored on. If one drive dies (and eventually, it will), the NAS' data and availability is not held prisoner while one scrambles to configure and setup another drive from scratch.

The remaining drives are where the actual data is kept. Either in a RAID1 or RAID5 or higher redundant array (unless my customers opt for two NAS unit's that back each other up daily/nightly).

In any case; an external (and preferably offsite) drive should also be used to backup the most important data too.

If I understand it correctly... you configure 2x RAID1.
1x Raid1 for the OS (2 hard drive)
1x Raid1 for the actual data (2 hard drive)
for a total of 4 hard drives.

Bu why just the OS for 2 drive? I must not understand something...? The os should not take much space, so its kinda waste of space no?

 

[L&LD]

You do not need to use the same capacity drives for all roles (even if I do).

 

[Chojo]

You do not need to use the same capacity drives for all roles (even if I do).

Yeah... the problem is that a 4 bay nas is near 1k vs 400$ for a 2 bay... I can't justify spending that much for a NAS when all I want to do is sharing medias files from a unified place.

The DS-216+ can have more RAM (warranty void) if needed. Its really about the N3150 vs the N3050 for a 250$ difference

 

[sfx2000]

The DS-216+ can have more RAM (warranty void) if needed. Its really about the N3150 vs the N3050 for a 250$ difference

They're probably not going to void your warranty over a RAM upgrade - you can contact their pre-sales team to make sure..

 

[Chojo]

They're probably not going to void your warranty over a RAM upgrade - you can contact their pre-sales team to make sure..

http://blog.fedorov.com.au/2016/02/how-to-upgrade-memory-in-synology-ds216.html

It say that it will void the warranty

 

[sfx2000]

It say that it will void the warranty

put the factory RAM back in, remove your sticks if things fail, which they likely will not... not much different than a PC there...

 

[sfx2000]

And in California, FWIW, it won't void the warranty... no matter what the vendor says...

 

[L&LD]

Yeah... the problem is that a 4 bay nas is near 1k vs 400$ for a 2 bay... I can't justify spending that much for a NAS when all I want to do is sharing medias files from a unified place.

The DS-216+ can have more RAM (warranty void) if needed. Its really about the N3150 vs the N3050 for a 250$ difference

As stated already, this isn't a purchase for the next year or so (it is much more long term). The processor is not what you indicate.

The Synology is a much lower performance Marvell Armada 385 88F6820 processor instead.

Dual nic's are worth their weight in gold (particularly as the unit gets older).

Ram, oh, sfx2000 has already answered above. And you've confirmed.


Try to not compare specs by themselves. The platform as a whole is what you should keep your eye on.

Btw, it is not $400 vs. $1,000. Shop during a sale.

 

[Chojo]

As stated already, this isn't a purchase for the next year or so (it is much more long term). The processor is not what you indicate.

The Synology is a much lower performance Marvell Armada 385 88F6820 processor instead.

Dual nic's are worth their weight in gold (particularly as the unit gets older).

Ram, oh, sfx2000 has already answered above. And you've confirmed.


Try to not compare specs by themselves. The platform as a whole is what you should keep your eye on.

Btw, it is not $400 vs. $1,000. Shop during a sale.

On Synology website, it say that the processos is a N3050
https://www.synology.com/en-global/products/DS216+#spec

Am I missing something?

 

[sfx2000]

The Synology is a much lower performance Marvell Armada 385 88F6820 processor instead.

DS-216+ is Rangley, not Marvell/ARM, if I recall correctly, so it's comparable to the Braswell in the TS-253A- the Braswell does have better Video out, but Rangley has better network options...

Both are low power intel cores (Silvermont/Airmont, just a die shrink)...

Both are two-bay - which has those considerations...

 

[L&LD]

DS-216+ is Rangley, not Marvell/ARM, if I recall correctly, so it's comparable to the Braswell in the TS-253A- the Braswell does have better Video out, but Rangley has better network options...

Both are low power intel cores (Silvermont/Airmont, just a die shrink)...

Both are two-bay - which has those considerations...

Thanks for the correction.

I searched for DS-216+ but google provided links with out the '+'.

 

[sfx2000]

With Synology, it really is the plus that matters - wish they wouldn't do that

 

[stevech]

Synology model XXX+, the plus option is not a good value, IMO. The xxxj are to be avoided if you can afford to.

Earlier a post said choosing a NAS with intent to keep it up to 10 years. I wouldn't do so. Technology changes and lack of OS upgrade support much beyond 6 years is the issue. I think that applies to most brands.

 

[L&LD]

Synology model XXX+, the plus option is not a good value, IMO. The xxxj are to be avoided if you can afford to.

Earlier a post said choosing a NAS with intent to keep it up to 10 years. I wouldn't do so. Technology changes and lack of OS upgrade support much beyond 6 years is the issue. I think that applies to most brands.

You are (badly) paraphrasing what I stated.

I gave a range of 5 to 10 years, yes (at some level of usage). But I did not say to purchase with that intent.

Two very different things as I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[Chojo]

Synology model XXX+, the plus option is not a good value, IMO. The xxxj are to be avoided if you can afford to.

Earlier a post said choosing a NAS with intent to keep it up to 10 years. I wouldn't do so. Technology changes and lack of OS upgrade support much beyond 6 years is the issue. I think that applies to most brands.

So if the plus model is not a good value you basicly say go with the qnap?