The last time i checked, M.2 SSD was only available for SSD caching. That was for the M2D17 expansion card. I can’t say for sure if this is still the case with onboard m2 ssd option (but i guess so).
I don’t have one m.2 ssd capable synology device here, so I can’t check it.
No problem. If I ask Synology if the M.2 SSD can be used for normal storage and creating shared folders and they say yes, then that should be fine for RoonServer? Any other question I should ask them to be sure it would work with RoonServer or is that sufficient?
I’m also curious about this. So you have to sacrifice one of the drive bays for the 2.5" SSD drive? Do you install that as a separate partition? It really sucks that you can’t store files on the M2D17.
Thanks again, Sean. So if I’m understanding this correctly, it’s ok if the Core is installed on spinning disks but the database should be on SSD, correct? The important thing for the Core is the CPU (I’m planning on getting a DS3018xs btw, do you think that’s sufficient?).
By the way today I received an email from Synology support. It seems there are plans to implement a software update so that it will be possible to use the M2D17 as storage space in the future. I was not given a timeline, however.
That is correct.
The database can be stored on any volume that can be used as a shared folder. (Internal bays and external devices). However external devices are always shared as a whole volume. It is not possible to create multiple shares on an external volume.
If the database is stored on an external USB volume I’d recommend to use a ext4 filesystem as it is the native filesystem and should also offer best performance.
As a database storage a SSD will have a significant gain of performance. The media files itself can also be stored on a spinning disk.
(Edit: Sorry, didn’t realize I was necroing such an old post. Not sure why the forums showed me this as a recent activity…)
Presumably if users are installing internal m.2s and setting them up as a volume cache, they should provide suitable performance for Roon (assuming the RoonServer file share is placed on the volume the SSD cache is configured for) without needing additional SSDs in the system, no?
Also, the Roon database ends up being pretty small absolute storage wise, even for really gargantuan libraries. Expanding RAM in the system (NAS or ROCK or whatever) will also give you the benefit of the OS’ file system block cache that will also likely make Roon perform well even on spinning disks (at least once it’s had a chance to start up and the OS block cache has loaded it into RAM – if you reboot frequently then this approach will be less beneficial). Of course, RAM is also price inflated these days (and some of the smaller NAS units don’t really let you add much additional RAM), but it should still be cheaper than buying a pair of m.2 SSDs…
FWIW, I’ve got my Roon Core on a dedicated CentOS 7 system with 32GB of RAM and I see the OS’ block cache consuming a good chunk of that and I have zero performance complaints with Roon despite the system having a pair of 1TB 7200rpm HDDs in a RAID1 mirror as the storage. (The CPU is an E3-1270v6.)