I am trying to clean up my network a bit and wonder if there is a benefit in buying a double NIC Synology NAS.
Here is what I currently have:
NUC NUC8i5 BEH 250 GB m2 SSD for OS with a regular 1 TB SSD for data storage as my desktop computer
NUC 10i7 FNH 1 GB SSD runs exclusively Roon server. Attached to it 8TB USB 3.2 HDD as network drive. Drive stores all my data and music.
Synology 214 play used to backup everything on the 8 TB USB HDD, no file serving or anything, strictly backup.
Disadvantages of the set up: 24/7 operation of the 8TB USB HDD forces 24/7 NUC 10 operation. DS214se way too slow as a file server, basic model, about 6 years old. Backup of Synology 214se via another 4 GB HDD attached to it.
All switches unmanaged
Idea:
Get a Synology 220+ or even 720+ with much faster processor and double NIC configuration and run it as a file server across the network. How can I benefit from the double NIC configuration even though my NUCs are on single NIC versions? I have not intention to run ROCK on a NAS, too geeky for me.
Any words of wisdom? Please consider that I am a network user, not a designer…
Link aggregation usually requires managed switches (802.3ad or 802.1AX support) to implement. Working link aggregation can be used for fail-over (I don’t see a need for this in a small private use network at home) or higher bandwidth. If you have a use case that profits from the higher bandwidth (from/to the NAS only) and is worth the investment is on you to decide (but likely not really as you have to ask [not a pressing bottleneck to resolve]).
At worst it gives you a second NIC in failover mode.
As Blackjack said real link aggregation requires a managed switch, but Synology has 3 different options from memory, the second of which gives you two working cards, doesn’t require a managed switch and also doesn’t double the throughput.
No harming in trying it as pretty much all Synology devices have 2 NICS now and many of them have 4
I ordered a QNAP TS-253D-4G NAS System 2-Bay equipped with Quadcore Intel Celeron 2.5 GHZ and 2 NICs. Came at a very good price and is performance-wise somewhere between the Synology 220+ and the 720 + at a price closer to the 220+.
With that I have a faster core which limits transfer speed today and I use it as a server and see what I can get. The option to later go for a faster network remains and I could even experiment with running ROCK on the NAS.
I really doubt you’ll experience any benefit from a second network link to your NAS given what you described of your environment. I have tried link aggregation on my 1520+ into an unmanaged switch, and bandwidth goes up in the sense that say two PCs can pull very large file transfers simultaneously at higher speed than if simultaneous over a single link, but my network load across all the NAS clients rarely makes that relevant. I have multiple Kodi clients streaming HD+ content, PVR backend services (and if I want, my backup Roon core) all running quite happily with a single gigabit link from the NAS to the switch.
Update:
Changed plans and ordered a Synology 720+ and added 4 Gb RAM for a total of 6 (maximum).
1 M.2 SSD 256 GB configured as cache. Two NAS type 4 TB HDDs
Installed ROCK on NAS as per @crieke tutorial and transferred database from backup. Looks like the database is on the spinning disk and it works without a problem, may the read only cache does its magic. Currently I am very happy with the results.
Any advice how I can store the database on a second M.2 SSD?
Very low cpu utilization you see here with 4 zones working.
Placing the Roon database on an M.2 SSD is not possible. You cannot configure these SSD’s as a disk with volumes on a DS720+. In the future (first quarter of 2023) it will be made possible on a DS923+ with the release of DSM 7.2.
A few remarks about your latest post:
the package from @crieke installs just the Roon Core and not Rock (the package does not install the Operating System).
to my experience 6Gb memory is the absolute minimum for running Roon Core in a Synology DiskStation (on a DS720+ you cannot install more) and with a relatively small database. I have about 6000 local tracks and 150 favorite Qobuz albums in Roon’s database and it is running fine on a DS90+ with 8Gb, a read/write cache and Qobuz.
Thank you for your response and the clarification what the SDK actually installs. Looks and feel of it is like my Roon Server that I used to run on my NU10 i7.
I have some 15.000 local tracks and a few larger Tidal playlists. Memory usage is about 43%.
The processor could actually address 8GB and I don’t understand why Synology does not exhaust that capacity.
What happens if I plug a larger memory stick in?
But, yes you can have your Roon DB running in an attached USB SSD. I did it as an experiment and it was indeed operating faster. 300/400MB/s usb3.2 vs 90-100MB/s for my WD Red NAS HDD.
Basic ssh and console skills required, and all you have to do is setup a symlink! Something like that
RoonOnNas -> /volumeUSB1/usbshare/RoonOnNas
Setup Roon Server from crieke’s package.
ssh to synology and copy the RoonOnNas directory to your usb share. Be sure to copy keeping all permissions untouched. Or, after copying go and restore permissions to RoonServer user. Don’t forget the special execute permissions to the custom bin/ffmpeg file (totally recommended for all media support)
rename the original RoonOnNas directory to something like RoonOnNas.bak etc…
setup you symbolic link
profit
Both my Roon and Plex server were running better and without an issue like this for more than a year.
@KMM, there are several messages on internet about the memory amount subject. Look for example at nascompares.com and mariushosting.com. They say that bigger memory modules will work (even 16Gb ones) but be carefull which one you choose; not all will work. Intel states that the processor in the DS720+ cannot address more than 8Gb.
I am anxious to use more memory than Synology’s maximum.
Coming back to the Synology Link Aggregation. I played with it for a while and can confirm that there is no measurable speed or response time advantage over a standard 1 Gbit network.
It however affect the ability to properly set up ARC. ARC relies on a IP address and an associated open port. With link aggregation, the individual IP address for each NIC are consolidated into one and that one is not visible or accessible well, at least not to me. With that ACR could not be set up correctly.
Went back to standard single NIC operation and gained some understanding in what works and what not.
@Alfred_van_Hoorn
Put a 8 G stick in the 720 and it accurately shows RAM 10 G and appears to use it. The average memory usage % went down to about 30% from some 40s. I used Crucial sticks recommended by one website u mentioned. Thanks for the lead.
BTW added two SSD m.2 as read write cache and I believe (big word here) the 720 reacts snappier.
It should actually not be necessary to manually create a symbolic link. You should be able to select the USB-Volume during installation as the storage location for the Roon database. But please make sure, the USB volume has been initialised with ext4 filesystem, otherwise there might be issues in regards to ffmpeg due to differences in permission capabilities.
If this causes any issues, please let me know and I will look into it.
If I can recall I used that method to avoid dedicating the whole ssd as a share point for Roon. I was utilising it for Plex Media Server too. But for sure, it was ext4 formatted and had no issues at all. Very good performance.
It’s been a while I moved to a NUC so yes maybe I’m missing some details here.
Well, capacity-wise you always share the whole ssd. It does not matter, whether you create a symbolic link or directly choose the volume during installation. The DSM7 version creates its own RoonOnNAS folder where all database files are stored.
