Synology DS1812+ vs QNAP's TS-659 Pro II

[mark887]

I am having a hard time deciding between a Synology DS1812+ and QNAP's TS-659 Pro II. Could really do with some advice from the NAS community

Primary use for the NAS will be:
FTP - Need to access and edit data remotely, securely (pref HTTPS) and as user friendly as possible with the min amount of hassle
ISCSI - The NAS will be hosting multiple VM's for a Hyper-V server and Acting as my docs location for a couple of machines
NICs - Would like to team the NICs so they have a 2GB connection to the core switch
File System - Integration with Active directory with ability to use my Domain groups and permissions (ACLs) in a way that makes the file system seem like just another NTFS disk
Encryption - would be nice and ability to encrypt using SSL certs I link into my network
Disks - QNAPs biggest con is there awful compatibility list, considering the High price of enterprise disks and next to no stock at the moment I am strongly looking into WD's Green drivers and Seagate’s barracuda (3TB-4TB versions) as a stop gap till disk prices and availably are back in the game

In short big on the enterprise features but not going into an enterprise environment.

Synology DS1812+
More drive bays + Scalable with additional chassis able to added
Faster CPU (though not sure what make it is)
Cloud station FTP - looks almost perfect for my intended uses

Cons:
Petty in some peoples mind but lack of SATA III very disappointing
not a great choice of RAID configs even though expansion and more disks are a strong point of this unit


QNAP TS 659 PRO II. Pro's
Better choice of RAID Levels RAID 0 / 1 / 5 / 5+Hot Spare / 6 / 6+ Hot Spare, 10, 10+Hot Spare
Questionable I know but forums have suggested better ISCSI features
SATA III (I know its not going to translate to a massive real world difference but does make for better support and throughput of SATA III disks, faster RAID rebuild and the comfort your not using yesterdays standard)
Seems more feature rich / mature than the synology

Cons:
The most awful HDD compatibility list I have ever seen, a huge put off for alot of people I think
No expansion

If anyone can give any real life advice on the units or good / Bad experience trying the same type of thing. I would appreciate it allot

Thanks in advance

[Crush]

You will find equally poor compatability of the Synology devices with 'green' or desktop drives, it's not the NAS's fault it's the drives themselves. Compatible drives are easy enough to get hold of, it's just that the most commonly available (Seagate and WD desktop drives) are the ones to avoid! Choose carefully, use Hitachi brand and you won't have trouble. There are other bugs - like the data transfer slowdown when you near max capacity of your array. Nothing is perfect. I would hesitate to make a recommendation either way but I guess you could make either solution work. In your position I would be investigating whether technical support is sufficient to my needs.

[mark887]

Thanks for the fast reply but based on the compatibility charts from both company’s synology supports allot more disks and even 4TB disks have been rated and many desktop models like ST3000DM001. I know these drives are far from ideal and I would far rather be using some real enterprise class drives (even if they are around £500 and a month lead time almost every supplier) but at a cost of £130 per 3TB it is very tempting as a short term solution. Hitachi drives seem to have a good niche in the NAS market but there poor performance and failure rate lead my company to abandon them many moons ago and have faithfully been running seagates drives in our raided servers for a long time now so I will admit to a definite bias but always ready to reconsider with the support of the community.
The Hard drives are by no means the be and end all though. If the NAS is not fit for purpose then it’s all ecumenical but good point about the support

[ehunt]

Just google "QNAP major file system bug" and read the thread on the QNAP forum regarding the serious issue several users are facing for so long and (lack of) QNAP action on the issue. May make your choice easier...worked for me and I decided to go with Synology . Good luck!

[P3R]

Thanks for the fast reply but based on the compatibility charts from both company’s synology supports allot more disks and even 4TB disks have been rated...

Qnap have 4 TB on the list as well. You probably need to be fast to get any of the very few 4 TB disks available already now.

Synology is a little better at having new disks on the list quickly. The importance of that slight advantage can be disputed. Personally I don't trust any disk model until it have seen action out in the real world with customers and that the disk firmware situation have stabilized. That usually takes at least several months post initial general product availability.

...and many desktop models like ST3000DM001.

Are you looking at the correct Qnap disk compatibility list? That disk have been on the Qnap list for a while now. Considering several bad experiences reported here in the forum by the customers that have already tried it, it wouldn't be my choice though. I'd much rather go with the better proven ST33000651AS if I were limited to Seagate only.

[mark887]

I have mostly been working from the unoffical lists but I see this being a subject that could go on and on and on but like I said "If the NAS is not fit for purpose then it’s all ecumenical". Does any1 have experiance with QNAP vs Synology for LDAP access, FTP, ISCSI or preferances on 1 vs the other permissions wise? Thanks again (have a sence all of these points could come down to the minor details)

[mark887]

I was leaning toward QNAP for its support of RAID 6 + hotspare and good ISCSI support (and yes petty but the SATA III is nice) but after looking though the posts on the firmware issue (ty ehunt) I am starting to question the safty of data on QNAP products with large volumes (not helpful as Synology offers more bays for your £).

[snedker]

Sata 3 are on comming X69 models - but used on a gigabit connection and with ordinary harddrives - there isn´t much difference on speed (actual) sata 2 vs sata 3

[schumaku]

Sata 3 are on comming X69 models - ...

...and are already in place on all TS-x59 Pro II NAS models

[paulsmith]

Just google "QNAP major file system bug" and read the thread on the QNAP forum regarding the serious issue several users are facing for so long and (lack of) QNAP action on the issue. May make your choice easier...worked for me and I decided to go with Synology . Good luck!

I was going to buy QNAP back in 2011, but started to read reviews and found the "QNAP major file system bug" thread and chanced my mind and waited for CES 2012 and saw that Synology release their new line of the DS1812+ & DS1512+ at a great prices. So for me I'm real happy that I waited --- The choice for me is Synology DS1812+

Seems more feature rich / mature than the synology

The firmware on Synology with the release of 4.0 is equal too the feature if not better then QNAP and Synology looks way better. Plus Synology has had more firmware release with the last year and half.

[mark887]

I would like to thank everyone for thier help, after much research I have to agree that Synology offers a great product in the DS1812+ and DSM 4.0 looks like it has a very bright future. QNAP have some nice features but the high cost / drive bay ratio comparied to synology, the unsolved file system bug and the only thing left in QNAPs favour being a SATA III backblane and RAID 6 + hotspare (very minor features).I think I am going to have to go with synology thier good track record and excellent product reputation is clear even in QNAPs own forums

[P3R]

...synology thier good track record and excellent product reputation is clear even in QNAPs own forums

That Qnap have the confidence to also allow such views in the forum (and thereby open up for occasional fake posts from the competition) and negative opinions about Qnap is one of the things that make this forum great.

I'm sure Syno have excellent products as well, good luck with them!

[snoopy78]

Hello @all,

currently i do use 3 different QNAP products (TS-509, TS-412 & TS-119PII).
Since my TS-509 is starting to fail i also think about replacing it. Here comes the Synology DS-1812+ in place as i currently don't know what to buy.

Does anyone here, who bought a DS-1812+, has some real-life experiences?

The Cons for QNAP are in my opinion the easy handling and stability. While these comes with an too big price gap to Synology's 1812+.
Also Synology offers out-of-the box 3 years warranty. (Currently my TS-509 LAN1 port failed and it's nearly 3 years old, so the repair would be about 600!!€....)
Also for future demand i could use the DX510 extension shelf.

My additional question will be if it's possible (like now with my 2 qnaps) to use RSYNC between DS-1812+ and TS-412.

please advice me

BR
snoopy78

[GEON]

Hi All,

I have had a QNAP 639 Pro for several years and looking to upgrade. After looking again at QNAP, I think the Synology DS-1812+ is my current choice. I plan to populate with 3T drives.

Although the QNAP has been OK - it has lots of very minor quirks (like-which drive is the spare???) My biggest beef was when the power supply failed and QNAP took over a week to get one (ordered from wherever...) - they don't stock spares in Fremont. A bit surprising to me...

Would like to hear from anyone with *another* opinion!

G

[looopy]

Hi All,

I have had a QNAP 639 Pro for several years and looking to upgrade. After looking again at QNAP, I think the Synology DS-1812+ is my current choice. I plan to populate with 3T drives.

Although the QNAP has been OK - it has lots of very minor quirks (like-which drive is the spare???) My biggest beef was when the power supply failed and QNAP took over a week to get one (ordered from wherever...) - they don't stock spares in Fremont. A bit surprising to me...

Would like to hear from anyone with *another* opinion!

G

Did you check this post: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=32525&start=15