At first glance, the Synology Disk Station 409 Slim seems a rather strange concept. Why use 2.5in disks in a four bay Nas enclosure? Surely, you’d want to cram as much storage space as possible into a NAS? Moreover, 2.5in drives are currently limited to around one quarter of the capacity of their 3.5in counterparts, hence, …
I've said it before, I'll say it again...
...Synology rock! There is nothing their boxes can't do. Bootstrap your system to run ipkg and you've got an incredibly compact and ludicrously versatile Linux server that'll do pretty much anything. Like the article says, even with their unmodified stock firmware the options are fantastic- and they really listen to customer opinions.
I think I need a little lie down now.
I'm still not convinced by the 2.5" idea...
Given that a NAS only needs connecting to the network, and not to sit on the desk next to you, the size and noise aren't really an issue are they. For example my home NAS, which is home made, big and noisy, but populated by nice cheap, but large drives, lives under the stairs with my router. No biggy.
The only advantage I can see of this 2.5" model is you could take it as hand luggage with RyanAir!
DLNA is a-coming
Synology have confirmed the Diskstation 2.2 software contains DLNA love. The 409Slim has already passed certification in readiness.
GREETINGS, I AM THE MOST HONOURABLE 409SLIM. YUOR DISK STORAGE DIED RECENTLY AND LEFT ME WITH ONE BILLION BYTES (1,000,000,000) OF YOUR DATA LOCKED AWAY IN A VAULT. TO RELEASE YOUR DATA PLEASE SEND ME DETAILS OF YOUR NAME, PASS-PORT AND ADDRES
I don't see the point of products like this
60% for totally being useless to people like me.
Sorry, but the price premium completely outweighs any power consumption gains doesn't it? And that is just me talking about the cost of a raw disc, not the rather inflated price of this NAS itself
What did I miss within the review that got the score up to 80%?
@ AC 10:10 GMT
So... you'd consider a product "bad" because you, personally, don't just happen to be its target demographic?
I don't know much about these NAS boxen (I'm a fileserver man, myself,) but ~70MB/s seems rather slow to me. Any 3.5" drive available for $60 will read at 70mb/s, and your average 5 year old desktop with a gigabit card can push that speed over NFS.
Plus with those notebook drives you have to consider seek time, which is miserable compared to full size drives. And when you've got a torrent client and a user or two on there, you'll notice that seek penalty, especially using raid5, which is pretty much the only way to fly for 3+ drives of storage.
I just can't see much advantage over standard NAS boxen, which I generally don't see a huge need for. I suppose they're good if you don't want to / can't build yourself a linux fileserver. As it stands I have more unallocated LVM space on my raid5 arrays than you could hope to cram into this little box, especially if you want your data to be redundant (oh, trust me, you do.)
the vanilla 409
Can take either 3.5 or 2.5 disks and has very similar noise levels, but a bit lower - probably because they can fit larger, slower fans into the case.
The power consumption on the 409 is similar at idle (16w for the 409 versus 12w for the slim)
If only the Reg editors would ask their hardware reviewers to study up on benchmarking methodoloy or else focus on the usability and cite more thorough benchmarks than they can provide. benchmarking a nas properly ... it's a complicated process and the benches here provide precious little info, as is invariably the case in hardware reviews.
My tests of the 409 gui leave me very disappointed. It is much prettier than the Promise GUI, yes.
However, all that enabling NFS support does is start the NFS daemon - there is no option to work with /etc/exports given (that I could see) in the GUI in either simple or full mode. The only editor available at the commandline by default is vi. Asking a newbie try to work in vi and then try to get a working exports file going is just atrocious. At least the Promise NFS gui actually did ask "oh, um, who should have access to the NFS mounts?" and then set up an export, even.
Raid level migration is similarly murky. Expanding a raid from 1 disk to three in raid 5, you are not shown which disk will be used as the data source, you have to trust the device that it is in fact going to erase only the newly added disks. Very pretty but very uninformative as to which disk is where. Or how many total you will be left with.
If only the original promise 4300 weren't such a noisy beast! The 4600 is somewhat tempting, but does not give you what Synology does, real root access to the box and a package manager.
If I were recommending one of these to someone who wasn't a pro, though, I might recommend the gen 2 2disk Promise system in preference over a Syn 209, because while ugly the UI is actually more functional. I will wait and see to find out how loud the next generation of Promise systems are. The claim is that the 4600 is fairly quiet and fairly fast.
"So... you'd consider a product "bad" because you, personally, don't just happen to be its target demographic?"
Yes, if the Reg seems to think so, then so do I.
70MB/sec isn't bad over gigabit ethernet, although isn't all that great compared to theoretical max. The benchmarks say that the equivalent products are slower, though, which probably explains the reviewer's enthusiasm.
I'd be more interested in seeing the ESATA performance, personally.
Pack this thing with 4 x SSDs and you have a very nice external disk array for a box limited by internal space. But very pricey if all you want is an external drive array - you would probably be better off using a 3.5" array with brackets to mount 2.5" disks if all you wanted was a 2.5" array.
WTB a dumb 2.5" external drive enclosure...