I was humming along very well using Roon on my Synology DS918+ with my Core database sitting on my SHR2-configured spinning disks - eschewing the recommendations.
Then I decided to “follow the recommendations” and switch to using an attached SSD (both as eSATA, which I cannot get to work despite following Cannot use eSATA on SynologyDS920+, have set drive description to RoonServer - #12 by DDPS and as USB 3). Since Synology seems to rename USB-connected drives between boots when you use more than one (which I do - my primary is for backups), I cannot rely on Roon to come up reliably if my NAS reboots (which happens a couple of times a year due to long power outages in my area - I have UPSs for shorter outages). Also, each reboot resets not just the name of the RoonServer drive, but it also resets the permissions.
All that aside, I haven’t seen any noticeable performance improvement using the SSD anyway.
I have about 2TB of music, consisting of about 40,000 tracks / 2500 artists / 4200 albums. I do NOT use streaming services. Is it by any chance the streaming services data (of which I have none) that leads to the recommendation to use SSDs for the Roon Core database?
If there really is no performance benefit, I would really prefer to go back to having the database on my spinning disks, where it may be found more reliably so I don’t have to think about things during reboots.
Any insight would be appreciated. Thank you!