or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming › Synology DS1511+ first look (mini review)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Synology DS1511+ first look (mini review) - Page 5

post #121 of 581
Those are beasts. I think with all of those drives they've probably got monster fans and are significantly louder than you'd want in (or near) your living room. Definitely enterprise units.
post #122 of 581
I'm getting ready to order one of these. Do you need sata and power cables, or do the drives slide right in without cables?
post #123 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by thugnerd View Post

I'm getting ready to order one of these. Do you need sata and power cables, or do the drives slide right in without cables?

no cables are required... drives slide into connectors...
post #124 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lush78 View Post

no cables are required... drives slide into connectors...

Thanks for the quick response!
post #125 of 581
Thread Starter 
One more little update to the story here as I have just recently made a backup of my primary shares onto a 2X3TB RAID-0 set and wanted to share a few observations.

Any time you add or remove a volume (not disk) from the Synology it is recommended to shut the device down. Alternatively you could probably SSH into the box and unmount the volume from the command line. There is no GUI mechanism for "ejecting" or unmounting a volume safely.

The good news though is that if you add a volume, do a backup of your shares, then shut the box down and take the discs for that backup volume away and then reboot, the Synology won't pitch a fit that the volume is "gone". This is a good thing.

Another little takeaway.... I did a full back up of about 5TB of data onto the new RAID-0 two disk setup for a couple of reasons. First it is a very good idea not to consider your Synology setup your "backup" solution. It could still fail, be stolen, etc. So an offsite backup makes sense. The two 3TB disks making up this volume will go into a safe deposit box.

Secondly, I discovered that if a volume with 5X2TB drives was built under DSM 3.0 then the largest that volume could ever be grown to would be about 18TB. Since there is the potential that at some distant time down the road I will need more than 18TB of space I elected to back up all of my shares, then re-create the volume under the recently released DSM 3.1 and then restore all of my data. This all went very smoothly with the only hiccup being that Mac DS Store created files that have a ._ prefix will not be backed up (and will cause the backup to stall out and fail) so I had to use Blue Harvest tool on one of my Macs to clean the network shares of those files and then backup and restore went without a hitch. The good news is this problem is supposedly fixed in DSM 3.1 so hopefully I won't run into it again.

Upgrade of the box from 3.0 to 3.1 was also very easy, you just point it at your new version file, it will transfer data for a few minutes (be patient) and then you get a screen indicating the box is rebooting. After reboot (3 mins) it is up and running on the new code.

Was extremely painless and no hiccups I have seen so far.
post #126 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

One more little update to the story here as I have just recently made a backup of my primary shares onto a 2X3TB RAID-0 set and wanted to share a few observations.
...
So an offsite backup makes sense. The two 3TB disks making up this volume will go into a safe deposit box. ...

Creating an offsite backup of important data ... very wise.
Using RAID-0 ... not so wise. (Much too tempting for Murphy -- think about it.)

-- Uh Clem

"FREE SPEECH!! (one each)" --RH
post #127 of 581
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uh Clem View Post

Creating an offsite backup of important data ... very wise.
Using RAID-0 ... not so wise. (Much too tempting for Murphy -- think about it.)

-- Uh Clem

"FREE SPEECH!! (one each)" --RH

I'm willing to take my chances considering that it is a backup of a RAID-5 type set that can already survive a disk going down.

Chances that both my RAID-5 primary volume and RAID-0 backup both have unrecoverable problems at the same time is EXTREMELY remote.
post #128 of 581
Guys - need some help. I know this isn't a general NAS thread, but it seems to be getting the most amount of attention on the topics of NASes.

I'm looking to get a NAS, but I'm way in over my head. I don't need anything super fancy since my main goal is music and video sharing. However, my main concerns is not having enough room. I'm on the fence about a mirror setup as well. It would be better for redundancy if I'm storing such large amounts of data, but then you chew up the capacity more quickly, especially if you only have a 2 bay unit.

Things I'd like to have support for:
- iTunes server
- Xbox/PS3, Blu-ray media sharing
- Sonos (thinking of finally picking some up)

There are so many options that I don't know where to turn. The Synology DS211+ looks good, but then again it's almost double what the 2 Bay Netgear ReadyNAS runs.
post #129 of 581
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superman07 View Post

Guys - need some help. I know this isn't a general NAS thread, but it seems to be getting the most amount of attention on the topics of NASes.

I'm looking to get a NAS, but I'm way in over my head. I don't need anything super fancy since my main goal is music and video sharing. However, my main concerns is not having enough room. I'm on the fence about a mirror setup as well. It would be better for redundancy if I'm storing such large amounts of data, but then you chew up the capacity more quickly, especially if you only have a 2 bay unit.

Things I'd like to have support for:
- iTunes server
- Xbox/PS3, Blu-ray media sharing
- Sonos (thinking of finally picking some up)

There are so many options that I don't know where to turn. The Synology DS211+ looks good, but then again it's almost double what the 2 Bay Netgear ReadyNAS runs.

RAID-1 isn't really optional on a 2 bay unit, it is a MUST unless you also plan on having an offsite backup of your data that you will rotate on a regular basis.

ReadyNAS Duo is a good unit, but it's way way slower than the 211+. A comparable Synology NAS would be an older discontinued model in the 200 series.
post #130 of 581
Another thing to add is that the Synology does a whole lot more than just basic music/video sharing. I too recently got the DS1511+, and am now using it for the following functions which I had not even considered much before buying:
1. Audio Station - Stream all songs from the NAS to my iPhone over WiFi and 3G. There are utilities to extract iTunes playlists as well. I also use it to stream it from NAS -> iPhone (over 3G) -> Car head unit (over bluetooth). Works rather well!
2. Photo Station - Share photos with family & friends over the internet. Frees photo sharing from any space related restrictions. There is also an iPhone app to access the pics quite easily.
3. Security Cam - Planning to test out this functionality over next few days. Has iPhone app too.
4. DS File - This iPhone app lets me access and read/save/download regular files (PDF, DOC, XLS etc) from the NAS within the app.
5. Sonos - No brainer, of course.

I am not saying that Netgear does not do the above, in fact I have no idea if it does or not. I do know that the DLink DNS-323 I had before this doesn't come even close to any of the above functionalities (except Sonos). Using it now as a backup for the DS1511+.
post #131 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uh Clem View Post

...Using RAID-0 ... not so wise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

I'm willing to take my chances considering that it is a backup of a RAID-5 type set that can already survive a disk going down.

Chances that both my RAID-5 primary volume and RAID-0 backup both have unrecoverable problems at the same time is EXTREMELY remote.

Sorry I wasn't clearer (but it's no fun to just spell it out); I wasn't suggesting that you use a 3 (or 4)-drive RAID-5 (or -1). That would be way overkill. What I was hoping to convey was that RAID-0 buys you nothing but added risk and hassle, versus just splitting your 5TB across 2 independent drives.

Then, not only are you not dependent on a particular enclosure (and its RAID-0 implementation), but you do not jeopardize the entire 5TB backup if a single bit flakes. Also, in case one of the two drives does go funky, it will be *much* easier to recover the unaffected files on it (not to mention that no harm will ensue for the non-funky drive's data.) Remember, you are making preparations for recovery from a potential catastrophe (think northern Japan).

-- Uh Clem
post #132 of 581
Thread Starter 
I completely understand the risks. I have been working with data for about 15 years now so I am pretty comfortable with what I am dealing with.

For me, personally, backing up in the manner you suggest is more hassle than it is worth, especially when it is time to make a periodic incremental backup, something you can't easily do when you are separating out your content (movies A-J on disc 1, K-Z on disc 2, etc).

What happens when amass 15-20 TB of data, you're really going to try to filter it down so you put parts of each share on their own individual hard drive? Yick.
post #133 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

I completely understand the risks. I have been working with data for about 15 years now so I am pretty comfortable with what I am dealing with.

Unless you have written disk drivers and filesystems, you (barely even) vaguely understand the risks. And those risks are exacerbated by the prevalence of non-ECC memory on typical systems nowadays. working with ... 15 years? Feh! I received my first software royalties 40+ years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

For me, personally, backing up in the manner you suggest is more hassle than it is worth, especially when it is time to make a periodic incremental backup, something >>you<< can't easily do when you are separating out your content (movies A-J on disc 1, K-Z on disc 2, etc).

(Actually, *I* can.) And, such a simple tool should be available for this application. Although, I can accept that if it is a (relative) hassle for you, then you may (have to) be willing to accept a greater risk. But, if one is incurring the effort and expense of putting a backup of critical data in a safety deposit box, shouldn't they try to minimize the inherent risk in the procedure they use to do so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

What happens when amass 15-20 TB of data, you're really going to try to filter it down so you put parts of each share on their own individual hard drive?

Not "try" -- "do". Software is a beautiful thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

Yick.

I'm not familiar with yick; I suggest you try perl.

Kidding aside, I'm not trying to give you a hard time. But, maybe you should suggest/request to Synology that they enhance their backup procedures to include such features. It *is* a better approach. And, it will improve their product.

-- Uh Clem "5 jobs; 2 detached."
post #134 of 581
I'm still trying to understand how some things work like iSCSI since different manufacturers appear to describe them differently.

If I bought a 2 bay until and set it up in RAID to have a mirrored set up, can you externally expand the RAID through iSCSI, or would that be setting up a new RAID that the unit simply manages? The DS211+ sounds like a good unit and then some, but with only 2 slots seems potentially limiting for the price.
post #135 of 581
Thread Starter 
Clem,

We can certainly agree to disagree and keep it civil, I understand your rationale. My rationale is that the chance of a RAID-0 two disc volume failing is exactly double that of a single drive.

So, if the percentage chance of a hard drive that sits in a box not getting any use 99% of the time is 1% over a 3 year period of time the percentage chance of failure of a RAID-0 volume that is kept in the same conditions (not getting much use) is EXACTLY 2% assuming similar MTBF rates for both drives, etc.
post #136 of 581
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superman07 View Post

I'm still trying to understand how some things work like iSCSI since different manufacturers appear to describe them differently.

If I bought a 2 bay until and set it up in RAID to have a mirrored set up, can you externally expand the RAID through iSCSI, or would that be setting up a new RAID that the unit simply manages? The DS211+ sounds like a good unit and then some, but with only 2 slots seems potentially limiting for the price.

Why on earth would you want to deal with ISCSI? All it does is make the disc look like locally attached storage.

SMB shares is what 99% of users would want. Unless that is you have some super duper server that you want to treat the raw storage on the system as direct storage.
post #137 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

SMB shares is what 99% of users would want.

I would stress 99% of home / media centric users.. The DiskStation also services small and medium businesses
post #138 of 581
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal View Post

I would stress 99% of home / media centric users.. The DiskStation also services small and medium businesses

True dat!

From his post I do not get the idea his a business user.
post #139 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

SMB shares is what 99% of users would want. Unless that is you have some super duper server that you want to treat the raw storage on the system as direct storage.

Again, this is all new to me. The impression I had was that iSCSI was the mechanism used to expand the capacity of the unit beyond the physical enclosure in the event you exceed the drive slots and/or drive capacity of the unit itself.

How/what is SMB and likewise how does that work in terms of RAID setups?
post #140 of 581
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superman07 View Post

Again, this is all new to me. The impression I had was that iSCSI was the mechanism used to expand the capacity of the unit beyond the physical enclosure in the event you exceed the drive slots and/or drive capacity of the unit itself.

How/what is SMB and likewise how does that work in terms of RAID setups?

I would recommend starting your own thread with some of the questions, etc, that you have as we have detoured quite a ways off of the purpose of this thread.
post #141 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

True dat!

From his post I do not get the idea his a business user.

Looks like we both misunderstood

I just realized now that the DS-211+ that I reviewed is much more of a powerhouse than I had thought it was initially. Pity that the 2 bay is just not enough storage for most home users :| But, the DS-1511+ seems to take care of that (at a price premium, unfortunately).
post #142 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

Clem,

We can certainly agree to disagree and keep it civil, I understand your rationale. My rationale is that the chance of a RAID-0 two disc volume failing is exactly double that of a single drive.

Yeah, I did go off on a bit of a technical tangent. Your approach is correct for your own situation and resources. (There is room for improvement, by Synology.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

So, if the percentage chance of a hard drive that sits in a box not getting any use 99% of the time is 1% over a 3 year period of time the percentage chance of failure of a RAID-0 volume that is kept in the same conditions (not getting much use) is EXACTLY 2% assuming similar MTBF rates for both drives, etc.

Basically true (do try to keep a clear head if/when catastrophe occurs, and you access your backups); but that doubled likelihood (2%) also has twice the consequences, so net downside is ~4x. Fortunately, the 1% is probably 5-10x on the high side for those conditions (Murphy willing).

Come to think of it, maybe there is an alternate approach that affords you the same upside (having the entire backup as a single volume) with a much smaller downside (not striping [interleaving] your data across the 2 drives). Does your enclosure offer you the option of BIG (a pseudo-perversion of JBOD)? In the case of a marginal (not total DOA) drive, you'd still have a very good chance of majority recovery. Even with one drive DOA, odds are good that you could recover almost all of the other one. (With RAID-0, neither has much likelihood.) *Now* is the time for these considerations (vs could-a would-a should-a).

--Uh Clem
post #143 of 581
Thread Starter 
Yes, Synology supports JBOD for multiple drives of a variety of sizes that are bundled together into a single virtual disc.

I was not aware that contents of such a volume was more recoverable than a RAID-0 volume if one of the drives failed.

I am with you that it would be nice if Synology created a backup utility that could back up as much data as desired onto multiple serialized drives, and then go back to that same backup "set" for subsequent incremental backup changes, etc.

However, I imagine it would take at least a little bit of development and there does not seem to be much demand for it currently.
post #144 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakmal View Post

I just realized now that the DS-211+ that I reviewed is much more of a powerhouse than I had thought it was initially. Pity that the 2 bay is just not enough storage for most home users :| But, the DS-1511+ seems to take care of that (at a price premium, unfortunately).

Ideal for home users....the DSM 3.1 functionality + DS-1511 performance + unRAID type expansion capability @ a price <$750
post #145 of 581
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbryanr View Post

Ideal for home users....the DSM 3.1 functionality + DS-1511 performance + unRAID type expansion capability @ a price <$750

DS1511+ is a bit more than that, at least from everywhere I have checked.
post #146 of 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

Yes, Synology supports JBOD for multiple drives of a variety of sizes that are bundled together into a single virtual disc.

I was not aware that contents of such a volume was more recoverable than a RAID-0 volume if one of the drives failed.

In the most general/typical scenario, it wouldn't be. *But*, in your specific usage (essentially a two-reel tape backup), the data on the non-failed drive should be easily "re-constituted" back to its files. In fact, if the second drive died, there might be no work required to recover the first drive's files. If the first drive died, a simple tool could recover the 2nd drive's files.

Disclaimer: I don't know the details of how a BIG volume is "structured", but there should, at least, be the option (at initialization) to favor recoverability (serial allocation) over performance (parallel allocation). ["Your mission, Mr. Phelps ..."]

[All above should hold for a "sick" (but non-terminal) drive, also.]

-- Uh Clem
post #147 of 581
Thread Starter 
okay, thanks for the information, I will consider changing the volume to JBOD and doing a fresh backup before the next time the disks go under lock and key (and 300 tons of steel and concrete).
post #148 of 581
Hey not sure if its been talked about but for those with the 1511+ if you plan on buying the expansion (x510) and you are going to use nothing but 3tb hard drives you have to create your volumes using DSM3.1. I created my volume in 3.0 with (4) 3tb hard drives. I had to delete my volume and recreate it under dsm3.1. I got this from both the Synology forums and an email directly from Synology support. Here is what the email said

Thank you for your message.



The answer is yes, unfortunately.

The 3TB became popular after the DSM 3.0 was released. Therefore, the support for 3TB is greatly improved in DSM 3.1 which resolved problem with volume expansion limitation on DSM 3.0.



I'm sorry for any inconveniences.



Thank you again for your message.



Best regards,



Sang

Synology America Corp.

www.synology.com
post #149 of 581
Thread Starter 
Just to clarify a bit more, the issue is with vertical expansion and use of 3TB drives. So if you have 2TB drives and want to swap them for 3TB drives you would be capped at 18TB with a volume built under DSM 3.0.

With the same volume built under DSM 3.1 there is no limitation and it will go to 45TB.

I had to deal with this myself, as I have no real immediate plans to do something like this (only have 5X2TB right now) but it's always a possibility down the road. I backed my data up onto a 2nd volume on the DX510 (and also ran into a minor bug with OS X breadcrumbs halting the backup job, also fixed in 3.1) and then upgraded to 3.1 and re-created the volume.

From what I understand, if someone did create an initial volume of 3TB drives (as a few people in this thread apparently did) it should work fine, the problem is just with vertical expansion to 3TB disks if you did not start with them.
post #150 of 581
Interesting.

Let's hope a similar issue doesn't occur in 12-18 months time when people want to start swapping out drives for 4TB models!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming › Synology DS1511+ first look (mini review)