Quick question.
I want to try Roon on my Synology NAS. I’ve read the recommendation that Roon Server can be placed on an external SSD of relatively small capacity of 64Gb or so. Could a flash drive of this capacity be used instead?
Roon install does not necessarily have to be done on an SSD. The important thing is roon handling its internal database from SSD so delays from random access on magnetic discs is not causing stuttering. I am not familiar with the process on a Synology as with QNAP and Asustor you can point roon to use a certain database path.
Flash drive works but it is advisable to have a really fast SSD thumb drive (such as Sandisk Extreme) and use a USB 3.0 or 3.2 slot. 64GB is absolutely sufficient for libraries a Synology could handle CPU-wise.
1 Like
No.
The recommendation is that the Roon Server database be placed on an SSD (rather than a spinning disk) to maximise performance.
The comment about 64GB has been made in relation to the size of the SSD required for small libraries when the Roon Server of a RoonOS device (Nucleus or ROCK) but is now not quote so much as larger capacity SSD’s are more readily available and are just a cheap these days.
A flash drive is not the same as an SSD (although both use flash memory). A flash drive will generally give poor performance and will wear out quickly potentially leading to a corrupted Roon database.
1 Like
Memory consumption for the internal database in the RoonOnNAS/RoonServer folder is pretty much the same compared to ROCK equivalent. 64GB is absolutely sufficient for any library even a fast Synology NAS can handle, I would not expect the database to consume more than 25GB for 100,000 track library.
Fast flash drives are in many cases 128+GB and they are indeed affordable.
Cannot confirm this if the drive is fast and the library is not crazy big or crazy complicated (100,000+ tracks or zillions of artists/references). It might be the case that with libraries of that size some operations such as compiling composition lists or general track list take a second of additional time but it is not really a problem. The main functions of roon are snappy and reactive. A good flash drive will last for many years.
Many Synology models do not allow additional M.2 SSD and the 3.5" bays might be occupied by magnetic drives. Maybe the OP can specify his Synology model as many of them have insufficient CPU power which is challenging for running bigger libraries in roon.
True - but if you had quoted the whole text, you would have seen that I was referring to RoonOs installations when the OS and the Roon Server application is also hosted on the 64GB SSD.
True when they are not written to very often. However, unlike SSDs, Flash Drives to not do wear levelling and, for applications where writes are continuously being performed they can and do wear out prematurely.
2 Likes
I agree. Moreover, an SSD has much higher transfer speeds than a flash drive – the interfaces for each differ greatly. Flash drives are good for loading an OS into memory, but not recommended for running a database – Roon continuously removes and recreates new database files.
1 Like
Thanks everyone
The Synology is a 220+ with 6GB RAM and 2x8TB HDD. There are only two slots so no room for an internal SSD. I do have a 4TB SSD to connect externally though I was going to use this as a backup for another NAS (DS213) on which data from the 220+ will be backed up. I’d rather have a dedicated drive for running Roon on the 220+ rather than re-commission the 4TB drive onto the 220+ as that seems to be a lot of wasted space. Hence the question about using a flash drive. However, I appreciate the answer that a flash drive may have problems over time. I can look around for a smaller capacity SSD as long as you think that Roon will be viable on my NAS. I have about 2000 CD’s or downloads on the NAS so maybe 20-30,000 tracks? Thanks
I’m sorry to disappoint you, but the Synology 220+ doesn’t have sufficient processing power to run Roon Server. It only has two cores / threads, and their performance is about 50% of the minimum requirement.
1 Like
Thanks Martin. Good to know before I start going down that line. I’ll have a look at how I might install on my laptop (i7 with 8Gb RAM) with the music all stored on the NAS
1 Like
Is this based on actual experience? Can absolutely not confirm that theory as I was running a NAS with the same CPU for years. A dual core CPU is actually an advantage over a slow quad core in this case as the computing-intense procedures can really get all the power they need.
The Celeron CPU in that one is slightly slower than the Core i3-7 in the regular Nucleus when it comes to single-thread operation.
It definitely can run roon core but you should not do crazy multiroom stunts with 5 zones playing broad streams simultaneously and not expect all functions to be snappy. The library size should not be too huge either, 20,000-30,000 tracks I would consider to be the maximum for a smooth experience so things might slow down a bit and stutter at times but still work. I had 65,000 tracks with that NAS and it still worked.
A fast flash drive via USB 3.0 should do the database job in this case pretty well. You can exchange it after some years, as the internal database can be restored using externally stored backups, nothing can happen even in case of a total drive failure.
If the laptop has hardwired ethernet connection and all energy/standy options are deactivated, it might give a faster experience than roon on the NAS. Depends on the Core generation and heat management of the laptop. If you use Wi-Fi or the laptop cannot cope with the CPU running at higher loads, I would try roon on the NAS in your case.
1 Like
What part of the “performance is about 50% of the minimum requirement” don’t you understand? The technical details are available for everyone to check. I’ve saved the OP the time, and the disappointment of attempting to run Roon Server on Synology 220+ (especially considering the opening posts about disk.)
Moreover, no one says lesser hardware won’t run Roon, but the experience will be poor, e.g., latency in the UI, and performance issues when adding music to the library etc. Two threads simply doesn’t cut it. It’s also an unsupported configuration for the reasons I set out about.
Accordingly, your advice is unhelpful.
@Peter_Connelly, using your laptop is a good idea whilst trialling Roon. If you enjoy the Roon experience, and commit to a subscription, you may want to look at setting up a dedicate machine, e.g., ROCK, or buying a Nucleus One.
3 Likes
It’s worth pointing out that, no matter what device is used to run the Roon Server (laptop, Nucleus, ROCK on NUC), the local library media storage on the NAS should be fine provided networking best practices are followed.
3 Likes
Could you link to these technical details and explain to which specs you are referring please?
There is not such thing as a minimum requirement, except from RAM which should be 4GB (and is 6GB in case of the Synology). The minimum CPU power needed very much depends on the library size and in this case it is a match which I have been running successfully for years. With a pretty complex library double the size and without disappointment, I might want to add.
If you mean single core CPU performance you say the DS220+ reaches just 50% of the minimum requirement you want to say that an original roon Nucleus is just meeting 59% of the minimum requirement? Yes, that is exactly the benchmark difference. Did you discuss that with all the happy Nucleus owners?
Again: is this your theory, or did you try it? If it is a theory, it is based on what?
I was running exactly that NAS configuration from a different manufacturer with a USB flash drive for database, spinning discs for the files and same CPU for years. It worked flawlessly and felt reactive and pleasant with smaller to medium libraries. It reached the limits and showed unwanted UI behavior when the library exceeded 65k tracks (And my library is rather complex to process).
Dualcore CPU like the one in original Nucleus are actually preferable over slower quad cores when it comes to making roon´s UI as snappy as it gets as most computing-intense operations run on a single core.
With all due respect but I find this advice not helpful unless all the aforementioned conditions for a laptop are met (especially ethernet connection). The laptop might have the necessary CPU power but no-one knows how it will behave cooling-wise if the CPU is pushed to the limits for an extended time or if it runs other tasks simultaneously or has some kind of energy-saving mode.
If the OP wants a dedicated machine and keep a NAS, an upgraded Synology might be a good idea. DS723+ would be the preferred model in this case offering a really fast CPU and additional M.2 slots for caching and database on SSD:
2 Likes
One reason this forum is so full of Support request is people trying to run Roon on underpowered systems. Run your trial on a laptop and get a standalone server if you decide to stay. The new Roon Nucleus One for $500 would be my choice. An internal SSD for music files would work best.
EDIT: For every one person that has success with an underpowered Roon system, there are probably 10 (or more) who have problems. Don’t try to do Roon “on the cheap.”
1 Like
Sorry, no. If the OP would like more information, then I’ll reply.
… has four threads. The J4025 has just two, as stated in my post. The Nucleus has always had an i3 or i5 processor, and an Intel i3 or equivalent is the minimum requirement. The J4025’s thread performance is less than half that of an 8th generation i3 (I think the original Nucleus used a 7th generation i3 or i7.)
1 Like
But 2 physical cores like a dualcore. So if you don’t run other computing-heavy operations while doing roon searches or let roon compile lists, you would not even notice the difference.
Intel i3 says nothing as a minimum requirement as there are numerous generations and derivates, some way slower than the Celeron J4025 (which is not a really powerful CPU but in this case enough), some dimensions faster.
We are talking about a Gen7 i3-7100U, which is not a really fast one in terms of single-thread performance. It is about 20% faster than the J4025 so the latter is absolutely sufficient in case the library is not exceeding 30,000 tracks and not overly complex. The i3-7100U is recommended for libraries up to 100,000 tracks btw.
Again, many thanks to those responding to my post.
To some extent I’m in a fortunate position of having enough kit to try out a Roon installation in various configurations. Laptop, NAS plus or minus attached SSD. I’m not looking for a new NAS for the purposes of running Roon nor would I go down the line of a NUC without being convinced that Roon was for me.
Happy for any further advice
1 Like
I think you like to argue. I’ve said all I’m going to on this topic.
2 Likes
Roon with internal database on a spinning disc is really not recommended and that is the only thing we all can agree on here. It might work but you cannot predict when the next stuttering would happen.