schumaku wrote:JoBrCoGB wrote:In this case we could speak of inconsistency. The factory 1GB model ships with only one slot populated while the factory 4GB model ships with both slots populated.
The NAS is able to operate with a sinlge module in one slot (so the processor does run in single memory channel mode) as well as the similar spec'ed modules in both slots (so the processor does run in dual memory channel mode).
Of course it can, but that wasn't my point. The point is that it would seem the company doesn't care one way or another how it's populated, right? Otherwise they would be consistent in how they send them out the door. So what does that say about either their customer care or the actual difference between the two configurations?
schumaku wrote:JoBrCoGB wrote:So I take it 'you' don't, yet 'you' can ask them questions?
Yes, I can talk to almost everyone within QNAP, asking questions, placing complaints, feeding bugs, even being a nasty community rep ...
That's nice that you're special!
And as far as nasty goes, I seriously doubt many around here knows more pain than I...
schumaku wrote:JoBrCoGB wrote:All product does not come off the assembly line with the exact same specs, though they should always be within certain allowed tolerances. Though I've known manufacturers that have salt and peppered known, out of tolerance parts, into their shipment, because they didn't want to take the loss associated with a particularly bad production run. Matched sets are exactly: those modules that are hand picked pairs that more closely match the engineering spec, than two that are at each end of the specs allowed tolerance, or one of which might possibly be out of tolerance. So not marketing garbage to all, except for those that have drawn their own particular line in the sand of acceptable/unacceptable loss/gain. When you're only talking of an actual gain of a few percentage points between single and dual channel architecture, every contributing advantage matters to those that care.
I do perfectly understand when this geeky things are reuired. Here on the NAS there is no need.
Simply your opinion, because of where you draw that line, yet you can't speak for everyone, it's that simple.
schumaku wrote:When I'm updating my customers, my friens and my own NAS, I use kits where available.
Better watch out, 'QNAP doesn't support it - they can refuse support if they suspect non-compatible memory is in place.'
schumaku wrote:Doing so is just a recommedation. In general, identical modules are sufficient.
Again, your opinion and while I'd fight for you right to have your own, I have mine. And that's about the end of it!
schumaku wrote:Hand picked ... yeah, dream on.
Some manufacturers have hand picked, which is why they usually cost more, of course no one can say that things don't change.
schumaku wrote:Know what? Let's bring this to an end: QNAP does not support 3rd party memory at all - they can refuse support if they suspect non-compatible memory is in place. This might be the answer to almost all your questions.
You're talking to the wrong man, I don't care what anyone 'can' do, what matters is what they shall do, and if it's actually warranted. I worked with avionics on multi-million dollar aircraft, done micro-min work in an intermediate level maintenance department repairing PCB's for all kinds of avionic systems, not just computers. If you know anything about electronics, you know that just as well as 'you' can know what SoC is used in QNAP systems, so could other memory manufacturers, and for that matter some manufacturer's might make a better module for a particular SoC than is made by the company that makes them for QNAP. Most major memory manufacturers are more than capable of making modules for any particular SoC. I'm sure Intel works closely with Crucial, among others.
Here's the deal Kurt, I take what anyone says in a forum, other than company representatives, with a grain of salt, not that I'm saying that they necessarily don't know what they're talking about, as how can ones ignorance of something speak of anothers? They can't. I'm one of those people that when I'm talking to you on the phone, rest assured I'm recording the conversation? Why? To better serve you of course. Serve what? Either kudos for your honesty or a class action lawsuit, which ever applies. I also like filling out BBB forms if they apply.
schumaku wrote:PS. I'm neither QNAP, nor in control of, nor a forum admin - and I don't care much on what designations are used automatically, based on the forum activity here.
You lost me here. If you care to expound that's fine, if not that's fine too.
Later my debating friend.
P.S. Here is something I'm concerned about: PC Magazine (online): "The Best NAS (Network Attached Storage) Devices of 2017" The QNAP TS-251 is the second mentioned Editors Choice, but they had this to say:
"
Cons
Slow at restoring RAID mirror in testing. Design lends itself to quick wear and tear."
I'm done, I'll make my best guess as to what's more important and take my chances either way.