Read more.Quote:
An excellent choice for a four-bay NAS.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
An excellent choice for a four-bay NAS.
I might be in the market for another 4 bay NAS, I usually go with Synology but their x20 series is just dated I/O wise, they are turning into the Intel of the NAS world.
I will give this Qnap unit a closer look.
Shock, horror! A 2.5Gbe interface can be twice as fast as a 1Gbe interface.
I think they are continuing to be Synology; who have always had a conservative approach to adopting new hardware technologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by rs4847
If 2.5Gbe gains traction outside of enthusiasts messing in their bedrooms Synology are very likely to adopt it but for the moment it is bleeding edge and that is not where Synology live (or want to live). In the interim Synology provide multiple Gbe interfaces and suggest using Link Aggregation to fill the gap between their 1Gbe and 10Gbe devices.
Sadly the review failed to explore where the limits of the two devices lie. Can the Synology keep up and how much faster can the QNap go using Link Aggregation? It may be the case the Synology can go as fast and the QNap cannot go much faster, which would put them in the same class.
I would advise anyone buying a NAS to decide where their priorities lie. If you are planning to use a NAS as a fancy external drive, QNap are likely to beat Synology but there are much better value propositions than either of them - A cheap Pentium PC running Windows even.Quote:
I will give this Qnap unit a closer look.
To my mind prioritising throughput completely misses the point of these devices. What makes a NAS really useful are the software packages that can be installed on it. Installing the packages implies concurrent access and a hit on throughput. My NAS buying priorities are the choice of available packages, ease of use and overall reliability of the packages and the hardware. I'm still preferring Synology.