I have two Synology NAS's. I use SHR. I can see where SHR will be a little slower due to extra software that must be executed but I have a large SSD cache that mitigates this difference with very high percentage hit rates. BTW, the Synology Web management tool says my SSD cache is too big but the two 512GB SSD were the smallest I could find with the new faster technology. My IT guys thinks SHR is only for beginners. He read that off the Synology website but I don't see the difference. I just looked. My SSD cache has a 96% hit rate for the month and I am only using 54 GB. My SSD cache is read-write.
I personally think the performance comparison is fairly meaningless as SHR is simply a combination of the various RAID levels to maximise the capacity of the disks being used. In this comparison, I suppose that there are 4 drives installed of the same size, which would likely imply that SHR would simply configure the array into a single RAID 5 array anyway. This can be easily verified through mdstat.
Hello, really nice and informative video (thank you!). Interesting the performance analysis on a very large files. It looks like Raid 5 and SHR give almost same performance, but how about when uploading/copying a large number of small size files? I wonder if you have any video with this kinda test, just to appreciate performance for non-sequential (and small) data. Thank you!
Would the underlying file system have any impact on the rebuild times of the array post replacing the hard disk unit? Does this play any substantial role in this context?
Are you using standard 1gb ethernet? if yes, than isn't the bottleneck is your lan connection, so regardless of how fast each raid is, you will never get the actual raid speed isn't?
You're 100% right. It's unfortunate that he ran the tests at the same time because you can see both transferring about 50-60MB/sec each, which is exactly 1Gbit. He was saturating his ethernet and not testing the disk throughput at all in those tests.
@@0xB3F4LL Exactly :), It's very strange this coming from someone who claims to be a NAS expert and running this channel from years who don't understand this simple logic of data transfer rate, 1 Gbit Ethernet speed means 80MB/sec approx., which bottle neck let along single 3.5 HDD speed which ranges from 150 -250 MB/sec, so raid testing is too far off on 1Gbit(80 MB/sec approx.) ethernet. The main difference between Raid 5/6 to SHR is Raid 5 is performance efficient and SHR is data storage efficient. So if you just using raid for backup your personal thing than use SHR and if you're using as central storage to be access by multiple users than one should go for Raid 5/6.
No idea why you like to say, not clear, your speaking very blur, pls don’t post this type, we need good prepared video, not waste time watch yourself not know what is what.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
How about raid 5 to 6 and. SHR1 to SHR2 compared?
I have two Synology NAS's. I use SHR. I can see where SHR will be a little slower due to extra software that must be executed but I have a large SSD cache that mitigates this difference with very high percentage hit rates. BTW, the Synology Web management tool says my SSD cache is too big but the two 512GB SSD were the smallest I could find with the new faster technology. My IT guys thinks SHR is only for beginners. He read that off the Synology website but I don't see the difference. I just looked. My SSD cache has a 96% hit rate for the month and I am only using 54 GB. My SSD cache is read-write.
I personally think the performance comparison is fairly meaningless as SHR is simply a combination of the various RAID levels to maximise the capacity of the disks being used. In this comparison, I suppose that there are 4 drives installed of the same size, which would likely imply that SHR would simply configure the array into a single RAID 5 array anyway. This can be easily verified through mdstat.
totally
Hello, really nice and informative video (thank you!). Interesting the performance analysis on a very large files. It looks like Raid 5 and SHR give almost same performance, but how about when uploading/copying a large number of small size files? I wonder if you have any video with this kinda test, just to appreciate performance for non-sequential (and small) data. Thank you!
Would love to see the read/write speed while drive is rebuilding. That is where my synology perform the worst
Would the underlying file system have any impact on the rebuild times of the array post replacing the hard disk unit? Does this play any substantial role in this context?
this is strange. usually read speed should be faster than write. in my raid5 storage i have a 300mb read and 50mb write
Probably not during a degraded state though...
Are you using standard 1gb ethernet? if yes, than isn't the bottleneck is your lan connection, so regardless of how fast each raid is, you will never get the actual raid speed isn't?
You're 100% right. It's unfortunate that he ran the tests at the same time because you can see both transferring about 50-60MB/sec each, which is exactly 1Gbit. He was saturating his ethernet and not testing the disk throughput at all in those tests.
@@0xB3F4LL Exactly :), It's very strange this coming from someone who claims to be a NAS expert and running this channel from years who don't understand this simple logic of data transfer rate, 1 Gbit Ethernet speed means 80MB/sec approx., which bottle neck let along single 3.5 HDD speed which ranges from 150 -250 MB/sec, so raid testing is too far off on 1Gbit(80 MB/sec approx.) ethernet. The main difference between Raid 5/6 to SHR is Raid 5 is performance efficient and SHR is data storage efficient. So if you just using raid for backup your personal thing than use SHR and if you're using as central storage to be access by multiple users than one should go for Raid 5/6.
Looks to be the nas network port only 1GB unless you do port aggregation.
9:10 left screen shows RAID 1. So the test is btwn raid 1 vs shr if I'm not missing anything.
At 1:00 you see the RAID type which is 5. So just the Pool naming was incorrect.
No idea why you like to say, not clear, your speaking very blur, pls don’t post this type, we need good prepared video, not waste time watch yourself not know what is what.