Synolgy DS918+ and a really really big collection

Agreed, but the logic here was that it was something built for OP’s father, and thus “officially supported and therefore appliance-like” > “best power/cost ratio”. Also, I haven’t seen idle power draw on desktop systems, but I’d guess they’d be less efficient than NUCs.

1 Like

This sums a lot…how you get a system that will perform with a good user experience will depend on how much you can do on your own or have to rely on 3rd party products.

1 Like

I would not recommend running a collection that large on this machine.

Even for a collection a fraction of that size I would recommend something that meets our recommendations, and for a collection that large you are almost certainly going to want more power.

That NAS should be fine for storing the media, but I think you’re going to have issues running the Core there.

1 Like

I’m not sure I agree about a DS series not being able to handle Roon Server. I have a DS415+ (w/ 8GB RAM) running Roon Server hosting 15,500 tracks (FLAC, DSD) and it’s never so much as hiccuped. Using 4x4TB WD Red Pro in SHR and a DX213 2x2TB in RAID 1, with a 256GB USB SSD as cache for Roon. It’s connected to our home gigabit network via ethernet and serves DLNA movies and audio as well. So I would think a newer DS918+ would be plenty.

Is the point here that real time library monitoring with 25,500 albums would be too much for the DS? Or the one time import?


Hello everyone,
First of all I want to thank you for the support and suggestions that you bring me and especially @cwichura for his comment on SSD M.2.
So I change the NAS DS918+ for a DS1019+, is the same processor but there is 8GB of RAM and a 5th Bay. I will put a Samsung 860 QVO 1TB SSD drive in the 1st Bay for RoonServer. I am also thinking of exploring the possibility of using some of the SSD in SSD cache for other volumes. This SSD is validated by SYNOLOGY and inexpensive.
I assume that the music collection must be accessible outside the LAN and therefore unfortunately without ROON, that’s why I keep the concept of NAS with AUDIO STATION, it is a non-negotiable point.
I think it will still be time, in case of big disappointment on this configuration, to add a ROCK, about this, how many times can we change the core with the same license?
I also find very relevant the question of @Prashant_Sistla , when the processor is requested? At the time of first indexing, when adding music files, at specified times or days, or at each library path? Also I guess during audio streaming and depending on the type of conversion?
I understand that the addition of a ROCK, on ​​a dedicated and efficient machine, will increase the comfort of use but as we say in France I do not want to build a “cathédrale gothique”.
Thanks again to those who can answer all these questions.
Stéphane ROZET

What works for 15’000 tracks is very different to what works for 250’000 tracks. Roon’s database grows exponentially more complex the more you add tracks, because those tracks are interconnected. Just to emphasise how different the use cases are, here’s a post from @brian, RoonLabs’ CTO, where he touches on how different dealing with a 300’000 track library is, as compared to the more usual ones.

This is not a good idea.

The hardware @mike recommended for your use case as a strict minimum has a passmark of around 6500. He is actually pretty explicitely recommending that you get something that’s even faster, and that’s in the context of a super-optimised Roon system. The processor you want to use is around 2100, and to top it off it will have stuff that isn’t Roon to deal with.

Behind the scenes, Roon is a complex database. The more tracks you have (and your father has a lot of them), the more complex the database, because those tracks, and those albums, are interconnected. Of course, there’s nothing stopping you from trying…

There’s a longer explanation right here, and @mike linked to it:

"Roon’s library management is based around an object database. This means that instead of storing data in the traditional tabular form, we model your music as a web of interconnected entities and their relationships to one another.

For a typical music library, Roon is tracking millions of objects–everything from tracks and albums to works, performances, labels, genres, credits, and a dozen other kinds-of-things. Modern CPUs, generous memory allotments, and modern solid state disks are enabling technologies for software like Roon.

Together, they allow us to keep your library “live”, and continuously ready for browsing and playback.

They enable us to perform complex queries that would be impractical for a traditionally architected application, and they let us perform background processing on your music library in order to continually improve the user experience.

Many core-less systems shoehorn library management into a low-cost embedded processor that already exists within the system (typically, these are about as powerful as a 3-5 year old cell phone). Roon would not be able to do what it does within those constraints."


Remember that some of the recommendations in the previous posts are 3 years old. which means that the current gen i5 is faster than a previous gen i7.
And that a current gen mobile i7 used in a NUC is slower than a current desktop i5.

And avoid a fanless build if you can place your Core away from your listening room.
Better performance and cheaper.

I have experienced some issues with storing my music on a Synology NAS drive. It has problems in handling unicode characters in the file name (ie non-english accented characters). Sometimes these files just disappear when transferring or renaming. This could be an ext-4 formatting issue or the Synology OS.
With that in mind I would recommend a separate unit for Roon (Roon Nucleus plus) and ethernet cabling to the NAS (in another room to quieten fan noise.

1 Like

Just want to add my view which mirrors @rugby above. Don’t try to run Roon Server on a NAS with a library this big. It won’t result in a good user experience, by which I mean sluggish, “buggy” and endless trouble.

I say “buggy” because computers do strange and unpredictable things when hardware constrained.

I would suggest a dedicated i7 desktop server in another room running Windows 10. You can add drives and a RAID array as you wish.

A NAS is just a heap of drives with a low powered CPU. Even the best NAS CPU is going to splutter here.


I 100% agree with @andybob .
I have long experience with Kodi for movies + music - using a dedicated SQL DB. Have not tried it on my new Syno 1817+ but with the 1812+ it was just too slow. (>100000 Tracks)
I have a central PC in the office room (NAS is in the same room) and Roon CORE is installed on this highspeed machine (latest M.2 SSD, i7 8700K running at 3,7GHz, 32 GB RAM) and everything is performing fast. I don’t use WLAN for Streaming, everything is on Gigabit LAN.
Syno is fast enough for the stored data, but not designed to run large databases.

1 Like

Hello, here you compare the performance of a Synology DS1812 + which has 1GB of RAM and an Intel Atom D2700 with the DS1019 + which has 8GB of RAM and an Intel Celeron J3455. I do not find it relevant.

With my father, for whom I am doing this research, we finally agreed that it will not be possible to enjoy the entire library with ROON. It will be necessary to make a sorting. Essentially because the financial investment would be too much, either in a “correct” NAS or in NUC, because he works on a mac-mini mid-2013 and does not want Windows, and also because the addition of a NUC is not acceptable, too much “Cathédrale gothique”. The whole house is not wired networks, just the office room, the wifi is not a solution which explains the refusal of the NUC in the office because the power required by ROON CORE requires a ventilated NUC and therefore potentially noisy.

Thanks again for your support.

There are a lot of passive NuC options, for example Akasa case. Put Rock on it, and no Windows is needed.

I’m ok for rock as the core but i have read somewhere that for a big library Windows was better for running ROON than Apple.

You should be OK - @brian was talking for libraries even bigger than yours, and before circa 2018 optimisation work.

Opinions and official recommendations will vary on this but I can only offer up my personal experience with my two Synology NAS. I have the DS918+ and the DS718+. Both have identical CPUs and I’ve run Roon Core on both NAS with no issues. As an aside, before going NAS I ran Roon on my Mac Mini (2012) i7 quad-core 2.6GHz, 16GB RAM, and two 1TB internal SSD.

I have about 12,000 tracks so half as many as your father. I have mostly 44.1kHz/16-bit lossless CD rips but I also have a handful of 192kHz/24-bit and DSD128 files. I am presently using the DS718+ with two 4TB WD Red HDD and 6 GB RAM, no SSD. Of the 6 GB RAM I have never seen more than 24% memory utilization while playing music so RAM will not be an issue.

As hard as I have tried, I have never hit 40% CPU utilization on the NAS and that’s with various DSP settings enabled including sample rate conversions PCM to PCM 352.8KHz and PCM-DSD up to DSD128 (the most my DAC will handle), parametric EQ, headroom management, etc. Is there a setting that will exceed this? Probably. But here’s the interesting part. If I play straight PCM or straight DSD with no DSP functions enabled (how I normally roll), CPU utilization is literally around 1% to 5%.

As for navigating the library and swiping through album art running Roon Remote on the iPad, I’ve had no issues there either. So for me, I have no issues at all running Roon Core on my modest Synology NAS. My “end-point” network streamer is the Sonore microRendu. DAC is PS Audio NuWave DSD DAC. YMMV.

Chart with various DSP enabled

Chart playing straight 192kHz/24-bit PCM no DSP

Again, just my experience. YMMV. Good luck!


its Albums not tracks my friend…one issue at the very start will be analysing 25,000 albums full of tracks and this will bog the system down for days maybe weeks at the same time rendering it a very slow platform for searches and stable playback IMHO.

You’re right I misread it. But still a data point for others with smaller collections. For my measly 12,000 tracks (about 1000 albums) it made no difference running on a modest Intel Celeron J3455 based NAS with no SSD vs Intel i7 quad-core Mac with SSD.

Im running 300,000 tracks on a 1813+ and while its all been updated and imported from a faster machine backup it does work. that said I don’t use it as a daily driver. there is no SSD and systems runs on 8 x 6TB SHR 7200RPM drives. its not zippy but its tolerable for playback of non upsampled, non DSP’d options material.

while once could start with a suck it and see…its well below what is recommended.

Just to add to this, as I am running exactly this setup (8gb Ram) with a 34,000+ library and I have no performance issues at all.
If your father already has this set-up then it has got to be worth trying.


I run a similar sized library to the OP and use and i7 NUC for core. Files are stored on a USB 94xHDD) caddy and backed up to a Synology DS1813+. I can swap the store and backup around but find the use via USB quicker and also better to avoid the failing of the NAS SMB file monitoring.

The NUC can be a bit noisy but it is out of the way in my setup. Looking at cooler devices would be good but not essential depending on where it sits.