bit-tech.net

Synology DiskStation DS211j Review

Comments 1 to 18 of 18

Reply
Technobod 23rd January 2011, 12:09 Quote
Suprisingly quick compared to the much more expensive Qnap boxes. I just wonder how an old home pc with FreeNAS on it would compete...
Matticus 23rd January 2011, 12:16 Quote
In power consumption and volume alone, the DS211j would be the winner for me.

Why are there no power consumption graphs? I assume the specified power consumption is quite accurate with such a closed system, but it would be nice to see at a glance.
Glider 23rd January 2011, 12:20 Quote
I have a DS410, best NAS ever! ;)
wuyanxu 23rd January 2011, 13:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
I have a DS410, best NAS ever! ;)
and i have the Ds410j, cheaper model, still best NAS ever!

the best part about Synology NAS is that no matter which model you buy, you will always get the fantastic DSM firmware. it's so easy to use, with so many options. it does everything you'll ever need from a NAS.
The Bodger 23rd January 2011, 15:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matticus

Why are there no power consumption graphs? I assume the specified power consumption is quite accurate with such a closed system, but it would be nice to see at a glance.

I had a look on the Synology website and found the following data published for the DS211j:

Power Consumption: 25W(Access); 10W(HDD Hibernation). These numbers include the power used by two Seagate 750GB ST3750640NS hard drives. While I admit that real - world power consumption testing from Bit - Tech would be nice, I would like to think that the manufacturers specs were realistic, and I am pleased to see that Synology saw it fit to publish them.

I've been looking for a simple, affordable NAS box for some time now, and low power consumption is one of my key specifications. After all, in a home environment, the NAS is going to spend most of its life asleep, wasting whatever power it uses while in standby. Whilst this is not as low - power as the home brew NAS bos I have built around a 1 - 2 Watt ARM processor and ARM Linux, I have to admit that I am very tempted to buy this due to its superior performance, ease of use and long list of useful features, which would take me a very long time to implement and debug using my current solution.
Cthippo 23rd January 2011, 21:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technobod
Suprisingly quick compared to the much more expensive Qnap boxes. I just wonder how an old home pc with FreeNAS on it would compete...

Mine is a Via C7 based system that does everything this box does, and has a GB NIC. I didn't spend much more than this, either. These stand-alone NICs are quicker and easier than a DIY one, but not necessarily better. A decent older PC running FreeNAS will go a long ways.

I think my power consumption is something like 40W with everything running and 15W in standby.
Andy Mc 23rd January 2011, 23:49 Quote
How can this score so highly with such poor network speeds?
Sterkenburg 24th January 2011, 00:39 Quote
The network performance is inherently included in each of the tests, because it's a NAS. Why do you think there are network speed issues?
Andy Mc 24th January 2011, 01:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterkenburg
The network performance is inherently included in each of the tests, because it's a NAS. Why do you think there are network speed issues?

The large file write speed,35.1MB/sec

On a gig network that write speed is terrible in my opinion. I got write speeds of 50+MB/sec on an old box I used for downloads. This was over ftp for large files and that was on an old P3 (900mhz with 384mb SD ram). Yes it had more memeory but it was slower ram, slower cpu and was running a full Xubuntu install too.
I really cant justify getting a consumer NAS over any old PC hardware built as a NAS.
Cleggmeister 24th January 2011, 02:08 Quote
Yawn, it copies files at xx mb per sec. What media server apps does it employ, how are they, will it act as a proper uPnP media server?... Come on bit tech, post a proper review FFs.
Phalanx 24th January 2011, 10:43 Quote
I've had this NAS for about 3 months now and it's simply amazing. I've recommended it over and over again. Synology are quickly becoming the go-to people for these kinds of things.
RonanH 24th January 2011, 11:01 Quote
I have the older DS210J and I can vouch for the reliability, ease of use and general all round amazingness of these NAS boxes.

As someone said these NAS all use the same software which is a delight to use. Very simple to set up and use and has more options that you could ever want all at the click of a mouse. I use mine as a bit torrent station and media streamer.

There are apps to control downloads via Android and iPhone, and stream audio to these too. It has a built in web server with php and sql. It's an FTP server, iSCSI server, itunes server, uPnP server, the list goes on and on...
kenco_uk 24th January 2011, 11:38 Quote
Why are the transfer speeds generally so limited on nas boxes? It should be limited purely by hdd speeds, surely? Transferring to a 7200rpm 3.5" drive should saturate a gigabit connection these days.

I have a WHS server and a desktop and over a gigabit network, I can get around 75MB/s which is limited by the speed of the drive in the server (a 2.5" sata).
Salty Wagyu 24th January 2011, 13:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenco_uk
Why are the transfer speeds generally so limited on nas boxes? It should be limited purely by hdd speeds, surely? Transferring to a 7200rpm 3.5" drive should saturate a gigabit connection these days.

I have a WHS server and a desktop and over a gigabit network, I can get around 75MB/s which is limited by the speed of the drive in the server (a 2.5" sata).

Most premade NAS boxes seem to have bad transfer rates, probably because of the cheapo specs they use. Although if some of them have jumbo frame support you can use that to increase throughput and decrease CPU utilization, but I haven't tested this. Downside is your switch and other PCs will need Jumbo frames enabled too to benefit from this.

I'm going for an easier route though :p with the i3 HTPC I'm building next month, I'm popping a 2TB drive in there so I can be sure I'll get 90-110 MB/sec transfer rates.
Cthippo 24th January 2011, 21:48 Quote
I think a lot of the NAS boxes also use very low spec processors, which becomes a bottleneck. Even an old low-end CPU has more computational grunt than what these boxes do, and if you're using a lightweight NAS OS then nearly all of the CPU is available to the box.
Nelviticus 28th January 2011, 20:29 Quote
The main reason that the cheaper NAS boxes are slower is so that they don't cut into sales of the more expensive NAS boxes.
Ciber 16th March 2011, 01:28 Quote
Can this NAS be used as a squeezebox server?
Phalanx 16th March 2011, 03:01 Quote
Yes it can. You download the squeezebox attachment from their site and implement it. Job done.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums