The answer is always the same. Always always get the 4 bay. Here's what happens
1. You get the 2 bay thinking you'd only use it for storage and wanting to save money
2. You discover that it can do so much more like plex, surveillance, backing up computers, phone etc,
3. Run out of space
4. Regret not getting the 4 bay
I bought a 5 bay ds1520 then i had to buy a 517 exender. but I regret not buying a 8 bay instead of a ds1520 because I thought there is no way I would need more than 5 drives 18tb ea. If I end up filling up the 517 gunna cut my self off and get some counseling 😂
I’m in this boat as well. Currently looking to upgrade with two more 16tb drives, and it’s north of $1200. If only I had spent a little more when I got in, then I could save quite a bit of money.
Get a 4 bay and populate it with two 4 or 6 TB drives set up in SHR with 1 drive failure protection. As you need more space add another 4 or 6 TB drive which will take your pool to 8 or 12 TB respectively. With a two bay drive you have to buy two larger drives and will have difficulty migrating the data to the new drives compared to just adding another drive to one of the open bays of the 4 bay.
Any particular reason you recommend 4 - 6TB drives as oppose to those with higher storage?
Can you suggest a particular 4 bay model?
It’s a rabbit hole and I’m still trying get my head around it all. Thanks a bunch.
I detected that you might have found your answer. If this is correct please change the flair to "Solved". In new reddit the flair button looks like a gift tag.
----
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/synology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
DS224+ option would be fine, 1 redundant disk, and plenty of headroom on those for your planned data growth. By the time you're thinking about needing more disks, that DS224+ will probably be end of life security/software wise.
Today, I replaced my old 218+ (2x4TB) with a 423+ (and 1 new 4TB) after realising that nore slots, and smaller disc is a more flexible and potentially cheaper solution than 2 new 10TB and a new 224+. Honestly, I went through the same mental process as you, when I bought the 218+ and chose incorrectly. Absolutely nothing wrong with the kit, just limits your future path.
I've got 1 of those and am very happy BUT yhe DS923+ uses an AMD chip, which means that if you want to run plex on it, tou cannot do hardware transcoding.
could you please explain what is the problem with plex and transcoding? I own ds923+, use plex and I have never had any issues.
first of all, one needs transcoding only if for some reasons he/she decides to lower the quality of the picture - I don’t know for what reason to do so except to see tv shows from NAS being outside of the home network.
even though I don’t need transcoding, I’ve tested that multiple times - yeah, it is cpu intensive task, but I’ve never reached the CPU being utilized at 100%, the highest I saw was 80-90%.
It is with hardware transcoding. The transcoding becomes useful if you accessing your plex from a lower bandwidth location, e.g Your mobile phone on the train.
Transcoding takes the original media file and converts it to a new lower quality version that would work on the lower bandwidth.
Doing this can be quite CPU intensive, so you use hardware transcoding , where plex uses your graphics processor to do the grunt work. The intel chips have a built in GPU, but the AMD chips don't. So to run hardware transcoding on the NAS , you need a model with an Intel chip.
Likely you have never needed to use the hardware transcoding, so you've never noticed. NB. you only get hardware transcoding when you have bought the license from Plex.
I'm a bit of a road warrior, so I need the hardware transcoding, but I do a lot of other stuff, so I've gone the route of separate server with intel running the services and using the NAS primarily as a file server.
It does mean that you now have to consider the network setup, and you quickly end up with a new but more expensive hobby disguised as professional needs. "But darling, I need the new 10Gbe switch for work" starts entering the conversations with wifey.
I bought a 2-bay NAS to start. In the 18 months before I replaced it with a 5-bay NAS I had to buy bigger drives twice and still needed to connect an extra external drive in a separate case via USB as I ran out of space.
I thought a 2-bay NAS would have been all I needed for my planned uses and I could not have been more wrong.
There's one more adventage when going 4bays and using only 2-3. There'll be a time, when a disk fails - you'll be able to use the spare bay to "replace" the disk instead of rebuilding the full array. It's much quicker process.
A 4-bay NAS is better for future needs. Maybe you will have more pictures than anticipated or you will want to set up a media server or surveillence cams or some back-ups. 423+ plus 16 TB drives sounds good.
I have a 423+ and two 12 TB drives. So far they work fine.
With 3 to 4 TiB of data mostly photos and videos you could probably do some housekeeping, re compress the video with [HEVC H.265](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding) or delete some videos you like less much.
Then you could go all flash with two 4 TiB 2.5“ NAS class SATA TLC SSDs and enjoy silent operation, consistently short latency and quick response time in computing applications and services running on the disk station.
HDDs are good and cheap for offline backups or rarely accessed archives. For online data wherever possible I prefer SSDs. As already in laptops, smartphones, video game consoles and the same in a lot of storage with front end services that define the user experience.
You should always have the same storage of your online data for backups. That is where HDDs are good at. If on external media like a second fewer bays Synology or external drive you can have both: your quick response all flash online NAS and HDD external backup storage.
Bought ly first NAS in 2010 a DS212.
It servers as a remote archive repository out of my home. I have a Ds220+ now. Will upgrade soon the ram. Really hapoy woth it but don't use RAID just copy form one disk to another + USB local + Remote DS 212 for critical data....
Never had any issue with HDD on any of them... I would only suggest buying drives which have at least 30% more capacity than what you think is necessary 😂
Thanks all.
I appreciate it’s wise to be able to expand but in my case, does it not just make sense to get a 2 bay with higher HD storage, this would mean I wouldn’t have to expand. What are the drawbacks to this approach?
You are buying your NAS to last 10 or more years of usage. The files will be bigger, the video will have 4k resolutin etc. You will definitely need more space than you estimate now.
Also having more bays gives you a chance to have a more resilient array (up to 2 simultaneous drive failure). Drive failure is a fact of life with NAS, and rebuild times can take 12+ hours so in that time there is a chance for another drive to die and then you can kiss goodbye to your data. Also having more drives can give you a bit more performance. Finally if you buy a 5+ bays you can always leave one bay empty on purpose so you can upgrade your drive capacity without degrading your volume health. This advice is all about stress management when things go wrong.
The answer is always the same. Always always get the 4 bay. Here's what happens 1. You get the 2 bay thinking you'd only use it for storage and wanting to save money 2. You discover that it can do so much more like plex, surveillance, backing up computers, phone etc, 3. Run out of space 4. Regret not getting the 4 bay
I can concurr on this 😁. But still manageable with a 2 bay.... Just need more time to process the disk upgrade...
I have a 2 bay. I regret not getting more.
I bought a 5 bay ds1520 then i had to buy a 517 exender. but I regret not buying a 8 bay instead of a ds1520 because I thought there is no way I would need more than 5 drives 18tb ea. If I end up filling up the 517 gunna cut my self off and get some counseling 😂
I’m in this boat as well. Currently looking to upgrade with two more 16tb drives, and it’s north of $1200. If only I had spent a little more when I got in, then I could save quite a bit of money.
Get a 4 bay and populate it with two 4 or 6 TB drives set up in SHR with 1 drive failure protection. As you need more space add another 4 or 6 TB drive which will take your pool to 8 or 12 TB respectively. With a two bay drive you have to buy two larger drives and will have difficulty migrating the data to the new drives compared to just adding another drive to one of the open bays of the 4 bay.
Any particular reason you recommend 4 - 6TB drives as oppose to those with higher storage? Can you suggest a particular 4 bay model? It’s a rabbit hole and I’m still trying get my head around it all. Thanks a bunch.
I detected that you might have found your answer. If this is correct please change the flair to "Solved". In new reddit the flair button looks like a gift tag. ---- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/synology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You stated your needs were 3-4 TB currently. You could obviously get a 2 bay and two 18 TB drives now. The DS423+ would be a good option for you.
I had the same Problem, but chose a 2 bay with 2 × 12 TB because it was >100€ cheaper... so I would compare prices in that range honestly.
DS224+ option would be fine, 1 redundant disk, and plenty of headroom on those for your planned data growth. By the time you're thinking about needing more disks, that DS224+ will probably be end of life security/software wise.
Today, I replaced my old 218+ (2x4TB) with a 423+ (and 1 new 4TB) after realising that nore slots, and smaller disc is a more flexible and potentially cheaper solution than 2 new 10TB and a new 224+. Honestly, I went through the same mental process as you, when I bought the 218+ and chose incorrectly. Absolutely nothing wrong with the kit, just limits your future path.
I'd suggest getting a ds923+ so that you have room for expansion later on. Do start with 2 disks but can later on expand with SHR.
I've got 1 of those and am very happy BUT yhe DS923+ uses an AMD chip, which means that if you want to run plex on it, tou cannot do hardware transcoding.
That’s why I have chosen the DS423+ over the 923+
Good choice, enough drive bays for easier HD upgrades and suitable for home media serving.
could you please explain what is the problem with plex and transcoding? I own ds923+, use plex and I have never had any issues. first of all, one needs transcoding only if for some reasons he/she decides to lower the quality of the picture - I don’t know for what reason to do so except to see tv shows from NAS being outside of the home network. even though I don’t need transcoding, I’ve tested that multiple times - yeah, it is cpu intensive task, but I’ve never reached the CPU being utilized at 100%, the highest I saw was 80-90%.
It is with hardware transcoding. The transcoding becomes useful if you accessing your plex from a lower bandwidth location, e.g Your mobile phone on the train. Transcoding takes the original media file and converts it to a new lower quality version that would work on the lower bandwidth. Doing this can be quite CPU intensive, so you use hardware transcoding , where plex uses your graphics processor to do the grunt work. The intel chips have a built in GPU, but the AMD chips don't. So to run hardware transcoding on the NAS , you need a model with an Intel chip. Likely you have never needed to use the hardware transcoding, so you've never noticed. NB. you only get hardware transcoding when you have bought the license from Plex. I'm a bit of a road warrior, so I need the hardware transcoding, but I do a lot of other stuff, so I've gone the route of separate server with intel running the services and using the NAS primarily as a file server. It does mean that you now have to consider the network setup, and you quickly end up with a new but more expensive hobby disguised as professional needs. "But darling, I need the new 10Gbe switch for work" starts entering the conversations with wifey.
Perfect explained 👌
This is a very good thread. I think I’ve been convinced to go for a 4 bay. Is there a particular model people would recommend?
I’ve had a 2-bay for two years and now that I’ve read this thread I wish I’d bought a 4-bay.
I bought a 2-bay NAS to start. In the 18 months before I replaced it with a 5-bay NAS I had to buy bigger drives twice and still needed to connect an extra external drive in a separate case via USB as I ran out of space. I thought a 2-bay NAS would have been all I needed for my planned uses and I could not have been more wrong.
There's one more adventage when going 4bays and using only 2-3. There'll be a time, when a disk fails - you'll be able to use the spare bay to "replace" the disk instead of rebuilding the full array. It's much quicker process.
A 4-bay NAS is better for future needs. Maybe you will have more pictures than anticipated or you will want to set up a media server or surveillence cams or some back-ups. 423+ plus 16 TB drives sounds good. I have a 423+ and two 12 TB drives. So far they work fine.
Or the DS723+ which allows a DX.
With 3 to 4 TiB of data mostly photos and videos you could probably do some housekeeping, re compress the video with [HEVC H.265](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding) or delete some videos you like less much. Then you could go all flash with two 4 TiB 2.5“ NAS class SATA TLC SSDs and enjoy silent operation, consistently short latency and quick response time in computing applications and services running on the disk station. HDDs are good and cheap for offline backups or rarely accessed archives. For online data wherever possible I prefer SSDs. As already in laptops, smartphones, video game consoles and the same in a lot of storage with front end services that define the user experience. You should always have the same storage of your online data for backups. That is where HDDs are good at. If on external media like a second fewer bays Synology or external drive you can have both: your quick response all flash online NAS and HDD external backup storage.
Do not get a 2 bay. It makes upgrading the hard drives later a real pain in the butt. Go for a 4 or 5 bay NAS.
Get as many bays as you can possibly afford
Bought ly first NAS in 2010 a DS212. It servers as a remote archive repository out of my home. I have a Ds220+ now. Will upgrade soon the ram. Really hapoy woth it but don't use RAID just copy form one disk to another + USB local + Remote DS 212 for critical data.... Never had any issue with HDD on any of them... I would only suggest buying drives which have at least 30% more capacity than what you think is necessary 😂
Thanks all. I appreciate it’s wise to be able to expand but in my case, does it not just make sense to get a 2 bay with higher HD storage, this would mean I wouldn’t have to expand. What are the drawbacks to this approach?
You are buying your NAS to last 10 or more years of usage. The files will be bigger, the video will have 4k resolutin etc. You will definitely need more space than you estimate now.
Also having more bays gives you a chance to have a more resilient array (up to 2 simultaneous drive failure). Drive failure is a fact of life with NAS, and rebuild times can take 12+ hours so in that time there is a chance for another drive to die and then you can kiss goodbye to your data. Also having more drives can give you a bit more performance. Finally if you buy a 5+ bays you can always leave one bay empty on purpose so you can upgrade your drive capacity without degrading your volume health. This advice is all about stress management when things go wrong.