Great video. Simple and to-the-point w/o needlessly dragging an 8min conversation out to 2x the runtime. I've seen some mention of limiting the total allocation capacity to 75% (750GB in your case w/1TB SSDs) for long term reliability. Any thoughts on this, one way or the other? Also, do you have any first hand experience with this method versus the other SSD method I see where people are using an unsupported method to basically create a separate SSD pool instead? To me, this doesn't seem like it would yield much actual performance gain over the method you've outlined here. It seems as though there's lots of supporters of just writing lines of code all the time w/o really addressing if it's actually even better in practice than this supported method that requires no additional thought.
Yes, I touched on that in the Video. Synology states, that SSD Caching won't help bulk file transfers. Also I only have 1 gig networking in my house so a single mechanical hard drive can max out 1 gig networking, Factor in my 4 drive RAID 5 and the LAG i have set up with the network ports. I've been able to max out the network transfer from day 1. Also on most of the Synology units there isn't any hardware acceleration with the storage like a traditional server raid card has. So once you peak the performance of the drives it's a drop off on performance. The main benefits I've seen is Plex runs smoother. Even though most of my collection isn't in the SSD cache. The Plex Metadata cache is. So plex moves faster then before. I also assume, Docker would fall into that same situation, but i'm not running anything that uses a noticeable amount of disk. the docker images i run, sit in ram so after it boots the disks aren't touched except to write logs. Basically, if you're regularly using any of the Synology Apps or supported 3rd party apps on the NAS the popular apps, metadata, and/or app data will get moved to the cache from day to day usage.
I think you can (I’m not 100% sure)but if you only have 1 gb networking it’s not worth creating an SSD volume unless you’re running vms or disk heavy docker containers.
@@TDSheridanLab I hear ya. I have 10GB Fiber. But It is basically a File/Plex/Docker/Proxmox/HA kinda gadget for me. I think I will make the m.2 drives in a mirror to run some of my apps. That sound like a good idea? First NAS for me. It is DS1823XS+ with 8x24TB Xeos and 64GB RAM, Synology 10GB card. and (2)1TB m.2 drives.
@lesgarten that’s impressive! Unfortunately those mechanical drives can’t max out a 10 gb link. If you use the cache then the popular vms or parts of vms will get cached. Depending on what you’re doing it may be better to have an ssd tier and a slow tier. And skip caching all together.
my MARIADB app can take up to 45 seconds on my test server. a ds723+ with ssd cache, but my production server is a ds720+ without ssd cache. I wonder how long it will take.
My transfer speeds weren't directly impacted. I verified Synology's statement "SSD caching doesn't help sequential transfers" In my house i have 1 gig wired networking through out the house, Wifi 6 Aps, and the synology is configured in a 2, 1 gbps nic LAG group on the switch. I've always been able to max out 1 gig connectivity to the NAS. With my 4 drive set up I could almost max out 5 gig networking if the NAS supported it mathematically speaking. For file transfers the only thing the SSD does is, that while your doing your large file copies it can smooth out other items at this same time. For example I can copy a RUclips project file thats anywhere from 30-100gbs in size at full speed while my daughter watches frozen on plex without any slow downs of either process. This is from the SSD caching for the transcoding and the LAG set up i have on the NAS and Switch. What problem are you trying to solve?
We're using our NAS at our business for imaging computers. So it's typical that much of the same data is being used over and over. Would we benefit from adding the m.2 cache? Do you somehow specify which data is cached?
Depends? Does the NAS do other things then hold & distribute computer images? Synology states that large file copies don’t directly benefit from it. The benefit comes in when you’re doing other things on the nas at the same time like docker, their productivity programs, Wordpress etc. those programs can sit in the cache and be handled really fast while the file copy goes at line speed. Unfortunately you can’t pick what goes in the cache it’s a popularity contest to offload the most popular eligible items.
@@TDSheridanLab no it's not much more than a file share, so I don't think we'd benefit much from adding cache. Appreciate the video and insight! The sound effects didn't bother me at all like others have said.
I am a video editor. I have a 1522+ RAID 5 config. I have a wired 10gbe connection. I just installed 1 SK hynix Gold P31 1TB. Obviously I have it set to read only b/c that's the only option. Will this set up help my editing performance? Do you recommend getting a 2nd 1TB SSD and enabling R/W cache? Will that help my performance even further? Thanks. Bonus question: I know NVME's can slow down if they reach almost full capacity. When setting my cache size, I had 930GB available, I set it to 800GB, which leaves roughly 14% free on the drive at all times. What is your recommendation here? Should I recreate the cache and change it to the full 930GB?
The best answer to that is a maybe. Heres the easy math on it. We don't need to super precise because it doesn't help the numbers. the 1522+ is a 5 bay unit and if you have 7200 rpm drives in it they can only transfer at 100-130 MBps or 500 to 600 MBps before the Raid 5 read and write penalties. a 10 gbps is 1 GBps so the mechanical drives can only consume ~50% of the 10gbps connection. Synology Cache has no impact on sequential read and write so the file copies back and forth the cache will be useless for that. The read/write cache is essentially a popularity contest that we can't control. So If your current project(s) are the only thing the NAS does then working on new project will eventually kick the previous project out. But it may be sluggish editing until the new project gets moved into the cache. Also i don't know how the size of the projects could impact this. For example if you had a large project you worked on for a month straight and then a simple project that only took a few days. I don't know if the simple project would kick out the large project because it was newer but not technically used more. depending on your working style it make make more sense to make a RAID 1 nvme array for your current projects. Then move the project to slower storage when you're done. This would allow you to max out the 10 gbps connection and allow you to create an array larger then 1 TB. As far as nvme life span goes. Yes cells in SSD get worn down and the drive will swap cells in out to maintain performance. If you're going to be a heavy storage user, instead of limiting yourself on space i'd life cycle my SSD based on the drive warranties. that way it's a predictable schedule for replacement and you don't have to worry about to hard drive math all the time. Hope this helps! Thanks for watching.
I've got a Synology Ds1621+ and I'm planning on getting 2x Iron Wolf 510 960gb. On the compatibility list Synology only show their branded NVme's. Would the Seagate still work?
I can’t say for sure because I don’t have a unit that came out after that change. To actually block non Synology hard drives. Synology would have to do it in firmware. Which is a big undertaking. The big brands like Dell and HPE only block non manufacturer’s hard drives on their top tier storage devices($100k+). On their servers if you plug in a non Dell/HPE drive they throw up errors saying it’s not official but still allow you to use the drive. On Synology’s web site they have the following wiggle room statements. “Works Best with synology drives” “Synology will not provide technical support if your device is not on the Synology Products Compatibility List” I can’t verify this, but most likely standard hard drives still will work but you give up some support and warranty options in doing so.
If Synology purposfully hobbles their future products by locking out other brands then they have lost this customer. The only reason I bought the 723+ is because it is the only unit with ECC memory in its electrical power class currently on the market. I would like a TrueNAS anyway but building an ECC capable box that idles at 8w is not feasable with off the shelf parts (nor cost effective).
I wouldn't be jumping ship just based off of the hardware piece of it. Most of Synology's services are included with hardware which is rare in this day in age. They are actually targeting the SMB market with their devices. I spot checked their hard drive prices and currently their price point is right in the middle between Seagate's Cheap NAS drives and their regular Server drives which isn't bad. I put Seagate Server drives in mine. I don't like it either but probably cuts down on a lot of terrible ideas like people shucking external hard drives and such. If you think those prices are crazy then go spec out a SAN from Dell or HPE to see how much they upcharge a seagate or wd hard drive. It's insane the markup in those devices. TrueNas is a beast. In the past i've built a server to use as a SAN for ESXi. Supermicro servier, Server grade drives, plenty of RAM etc and it was the most unstable POS i've ever used. When it worked performance was great. When it would crash it would take time to fix. The main pain point was the frequency that it had issues. Etherway good luck with the Homelab projects. i understand the urge to want to build stuff.
@@TDSheridanLab I'm not an ESXi user but I have several rock solid Debian machines (TruNAS scale is derived from Debian) I don't really use Synology's services. And vender lock in is a terrible corner to back yourself into; hardware or software.(Proprietary is ok for some things, just not in general.) The only reasons I use synology are standards-compliant hardware connections; the OS does not try to lock me out of the underlying Linux system; and they use standard formats and filesystems so even if the NAS box fails, I can pop the drives into my workstation and browse all of my files as usual.
I thought TrueNas came from FreeNAS which was based on FreeBSD. Either way. Vendor lock is a thing, but in most cases it's unavoidable. You can only safely skip it if your a home user, start up, or so large where you can spare parts/servers/sans laying around your datacenters. Every business in the middle needs to rely on vendors for support. Otherwise the first time there is an outage from the open source solution, the costs will out weight the savings immediately. That is the double edge sword of synology because they just your linux software raid, its cheaper and more flexible. On the other side your storage subsystem caps out at the specs of your drives since their isn't a hardware raid controller. So it's not hard to max it out.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video. Simple and to-the-point w/o needlessly dragging an 8min conversation out to 2x the runtime. I've seen some mention of limiting the total allocation capacity to 75% (750GB in your case w/1TB SSDs) for long term reliability. Any thoughts on this, one way or the other?
Also, do you have any first hand experience with this method versus the other SSD method I see where people are using an unsupported method to basically create a separate SSD pool instead?
To me, this doesn't seem like it would yield much actual performance gain over the method you've outlined here. It seems as though there's lots of supporters of just writing lines of code all the time w/o really addressing if it's actually even better in practice than this supported method that requires no additional thought.
did you consider internal processes improvements? the bandwith might be a limiting factor for external access, but not for internal processes.
Yes, I touched on that in the Video. Synology states, that SSD Caching won't help bulk file transfers. Also I only have 1 gig networking in my house so a single mechanical hard drive can max out 1 gig networking, Factor in my 4 drive RAID 5 and the LAG i have set up with the network ports. I've been able to max out the network transfer from day 1. Also on most of the Synology units there isn't any hardware acceleration with the storage like a traditional server raid card has. So once you peak the performance of the drives it's a drop off on performance.
The main benefits I've seen is Plex runs smoother. Even though most of my collection isn't in the SSD cache. The Plex Metadata cache is. So plex moves faster then before.
I also assume, Docker would fall into that same situation, but i'm not running anything that uses a noticeable amount of disk. the docker images i run, sit in ram so after it boots the disks aren't touched except to write logs.
Basically, if you're regularly using any of the Synology Apps or supported 3rd party apps on the NAS the popular apps, metadata, and/or app data will get moved to the cache from day to day usage.
I rarely comment, but this was outstanding, just the level of technical information I needed as a consumer/user to make informed market decisions.
Thank you 🙏 I try to cut through the marketing fluff on videos like this.
Can you allocate some of a SSD to a cache and some of it as a drive for apps? Like for instance say a 1TB drive into a 500gb cache and a 500gb drive?
I think you can (I’m not 100% sure)but if you only have 1 gb networking it’s not worth creating an SSD volume unless you’re running vms or disk heavy docker containers.
@@TDSheridanLab I hear ya. I have 10GB Fiber. But It is basically a File/Plex/Docker/Proxmox/HA kinda gadget for me. I think I will make the m.2 drives in a mirror to run some of my apps. That sound like a good idea? First NAS for me. It is DS1823XS+ with 8x24TB Xeos and 64GB RAM, Synology 10GB card. and (2)1TB m.2 drives.
@lesgarten that’s impressive! Unfortunately those mechanical drives can’t max out a 10 gb link. If you use the cache then the popular vms or parts of vms will get cached.
Depending on what you’re doing it may be better to have an ssd tier and a slow tier. And skip caching all together.
@@TDSheridanLab That's what I was thinking as well. Run some of the apps on a SSD mirror
After all of this I'm still confused whether or not an SSD read / write cache will benefit editing video from the NAS. Can you help?
Probably, what is your set up?
for sequential reads/writes the benefit will be almost null. It is only beneficial for db-tasks, and high-io operations.
my MARIADB app can take up to 45 seconds on my test server. a ds723+ with ssd cache, but my production server is a ds720+ without ssd cache. I wonder how long it will take.
Is the db used enough to be in the cache?
@@TDSheridanLab I think so, the mariadb app uses the 3rd to forth most memory and cpu over a week.
I'm getting the Synology DS1522+, primarily for file transfers and backups. Will the SSDs help with reading and writing?
Nope, not unless it’s doing something else at the same time like Plex or docker.
what transfer speed u got after cache it?
My transfer speeds weren't directly impacted. I verified Synology's statement "SSD caching doesn't help sequential transfers" In my house i have 1 gig wired networking through out the house, Wifi 6 Aps, and the synology is configured in a 2, 1 gbps nic LAG group on the switch. I've always been able to max out 1 gig connectivity to the NAS. With my 4 drive set up I could almost max out 5 gig networking if the NAS supported it mathematically speaking.
For file transfers the only thing the SSD does is, that while your doing your large file copies it can smooth out other items at this same time. For example I can copy a RUclips project file thats anywhere from 30-100gbs in size at full speed while my daughter watches frozen on plex without any slow downs of either process. This is from the SSD caching for the transcoding and the LAG set up i have on the NAS and Switch.
What problem are you trying to solve?
I have DS1812+ with 3GB of memory. What is the maximum SSD size I can use for read/write (RAID-1)? Should I buy two 1TB SSD's or two 4TB SSD's ?
Given its age probably the 1 TB SSDs. Since the unit is end of life i can't find the specs to see what the supported limit is.
We're using our NAS at our business for imaging computers. So it's typical that much of the same data is being used over and over. Would we benefit from adding the m.2 cache? Do you somehow specify which data is cached?
Depends? Does the NAS do other things then hold & distribute computer images? Synology states that large file copies don’t directly benefit from it. The benefit comes in when you’re doing other things on the nas at the same time like docker, their productivity programs, Wordpress etc. those programs can sit in the cache and be handled really fast while the file copy goes at line speed.
Unfortunately you can’t pick what goes in the cache it’s a popularity contest to offload the most popular eligible items.
@@TDSheridanLab no it's not much more than a file share, so I don't think we'd benefit much from adding cache. Appreciate the video and insight! The sound effects didn't bother me at all like others have said.
I am a video editor. I have a 1522+ RAID 5 config. I have a wired 10gbe connection. I just installed 1 SK hynix Gold P31 1TB. Obviously I have it set to read only b/c that's the only option. Will this set up help my editing performance? Do you recommend getting a 2nd 1TB SSD and enabling R/W cache? Will that help my performance even further? Thanks.
Bonus question: I know NVME's can slow down if they reach almost full capacity. When setting my cache size, I had 930GB available, I set it to 800GB, which leaves roughly 14% free on the drive at all times. What is your recommendation here? Should I recreate the cache and change it to the full 930GB?
The best answer to that is a maybe. Heres the easy math on it. We don't need to super precise because it doesn't help the numbers. the 1522+ is a 5 bay unit and if you have 7200 rpm drives in it they can only transfer at 100-130 MBps or 500 to 600 MBps before the Raid 5 read and write penalties. a 10 gbps is 1 GBps so the mechanical drives can only consume ~50% of the 10gbps connection.
Synology Cache has no impact on sequential read and write so the file copies back and forth the cache will be useless for that. The read/write cache is essentially a popularity contest that we can't control. So If your current project(s) are the only thing the NAS does then working on new project will eventually kick the previous project out. But it may be sluggish editing until the new project gets moved into the cache. Also i don't know how the size of the projects could impact this. For example if you had a large project you worked on for a month straight and then a simple project that only took a few days. I don't know if the simple project would kick out the large project because it was newer but not technically used more.
depending on your working style it make make more sense to make a RAID 1 nvme array for your current projects. Then move the project to slower storage when you're done. This would allow you to max out the 10 gbps connection and allow you to create an array larger then 1 TB.
As far as nvme life span goes. Yes cells in SSD get worn down and the drive will swap cells in out to maintain performance. If you're going to be a heavy storage user, instead of limiting yourself on space i'd life cycle my SSD based on the drive warranties. that way it's a predictable schedule for replacement and you don't have to worry about to hard drive math all the time.
Hope this helps! Thanks for watching.
Thanks for the video, but I would definitely suggest minimizing the sound effects and music a bit. They're kinda overpowering your voiceover.
Yep I’ll admit I over did it on this one.
I've got a Synology Ds1621+ and I'm planning on getting 2x Iron Wolf 510 960gb. On the compatibility list Synology only show their branded NVme's. Would the Seagate still work?
I can’t say for sure because I don’t have a unit that came out after that change.
To actually block non Synology hard drives. Synology would have to do it in firmware. Which is a big undertaking. The big brands like Dell and HPE only block non manufacturer’s hard drives on their top tier storage devices($100k+). On their servers if you plug in a non Dell/HPE drive they throw up errors saying it’s not official but still allow you to use the drive.
On Synology’s web site they have the following wiggle room statements.
“Works Best with synology drives”
“Synology will not provide technical support if your device is not on the Synology Products Compatibility List”
I can’t verify this, but most likely standard hard drives still will work but you give up some support and warranty options in doing so.
If Synology purposfully hobbles their future products by locking out other brands then they have lost this customer. The only reason I bought the 723+ is because it is the only unit with ECC memory in its electrical power class currently on the market.
I would like a TrueNAS anyway but building an ECC capable box that idles at 8w is not feasable with off the shelf parts (nor cost effective).
I wouldn't be jumping ship just based off of the hardware piece of it. Most of Synology's services are included with hardware which is rare in this day in age. They are actually targeting the SMB market with their devices. I spot checked their hard drive prices and currently their price point is right in the middle between Seagate's Cheap NAS drives and their regular Server drives which isn't bad. I put Seagate Server drives in mine.
I don't like it either but probably cuts down on a lot of terrible ideas like people shucking external hard drives and such.
If you think those prices are crazy then go spec out a SAN from Dell or HPE to see how much they upcharge a seagate or wd hard drive. It's insane the markup in those devices.
TrueNas is a beast. In the past i've built a server to use as a SAN for ESXi. Supermicro servier, Server grade drives, plenty of RAM etc and it was the most unstable POS i've ever used. When it worked performance was great. When it would crash it would take time to fix. The main pain point was the frequency that it had issues.
Etherway good luck with the Homelab projects. i understand the urge to want to build stuff.
@@TDSheridanLab I'm not an ESXi user but I have several rock solid Debian machines (TruNAS scale is derived from Debian)
I don't really use Synology's services. And vender lock in is a terrible corner to back yourself into; hardware or software.(Proprietary is ok for some things, just not in general.)
The only reasons I use synology are standards-compliant hardware connections; the OS does not try to lock me out of the underlying Linux system; and they use standard formats and filesystems so even if the NAS box fails, I can pop the drives into my workstation and browse all of my files as usual.
I thought TrueNas came from FreeNAS which was based on FreeBSD. Either way. Vendor lock is a thing, but in most cases it's unavoidable. You can only safely skip it if your a home user, start up, or so large where you can spare parts/servers/sans laying around your datacenters.
Every business in the middle needs to rely on vendors for support. Otherwise the first time there is an outage from the open source solution, the costs will out weight the savings immediately.
That is the double edge sword of synology because they just your linux software raid, its cheaper and more flexible. On the other side your storage subsystem caps out at the specs of your drives since their isn't a hardware raid controller. So it's not hard to max it out.
Couldn’t watch because of the annoying and repetitive music in the background
Sorry, thanks for trying