Originally Posted by EricN
Huh. The reviews peg them at ~60-90MBps streaming to multiple clients. I'm curious where the "totally crap" info comes from. Are you talking about running PMS or some other form of real-time transcoding? That's whole different ballgame in terms of what constitutes low power usage.
I can say the Synology DS1813+ can TimeMachine backup both Macs, and record 6 HD shows via WMC iSCSI Target and playback 2 HD shows to extenders all simultaneously. CPU utilization never approached 10%. Using multiple clients I was able to achieve Synology's posted average transfer rates of 350MB/s / 220MB/s read/write.
Even a DS411Slim with 4 2.5" drives could handle the WMC workload above (not configured for the Mac TimeMachine backup). Switches and HTPC NICs posed more of a problem than the Synology NAS.
Originally Posted by shortcut3d
There is a trade off between performance, capacity and energy efficiency. I originally planned to go with a Qnap SS-839Pro for energy efficiency and performance, sacrificing capacity. Fortunately, it was DOA from Newegg.com and I went with Synology DS1813+. I already had the 8 2.5" 1TB HGST 7200RPM 32MB Cache drives, so I started the Synology DS1813+ with them. After 1 month, I found the capacity too restrictive and upgraded to 8 3.5" 4TB Seagate NAS drives.
Qnap SS-839Pro is spec'd at 34w operational vs Synology DS1813+ (w/3.5" drives) spec'd at 75w
2.5" 1TB HGST drives are spec'd at 0.6w idle / 3w operational vs 3.5" 4TB Seagate NAS spec'd at 4w / 5w
I imagine half the power savings from the Qnap is because of the 2.5" drive limitation (~16w total). The other half is probably composed of smaller power supply and lower performance chipset of the Qnap.
FWIW. To offset the energy cost of the 8 bay DS1813+ loaded with 3.5" drives, I installed 25 Phillips Dimmable LED bulbs. Now only if I could offset the cost of the Tivo Roamio, which is much higher than the Intel NUC running WMC (primarily due to Tivo Roamio never sleeping).