My current setup is to just have a local 4TB SSD per computer, then use synching to keep everything the same across drives. For 3 systems I think this is cheaper and faster. If you have more than 3, then a nas makes sense.
That is a valid point! I do store my backups and archives on a different NAS which has HDD drives, it’s the one I mentioned in the beginning of the video
@@OptimusMonk01 Ironically karma hit me and now I have an M.2 SSD that won't boot an OS on an HP 840 so I'll see how long it lives compared to a SATA SSD then compare it to my Hard drive which I've had for 10 years.
Agreed. Why isn't this labelled as an advert? It definitely feels like one. Did he buy this himself, or did they send it to him for free? Aren't RUclips videos supposed to disclose this sort of thing? It feels like it's supposed to be an impartial review, but has the taste of 'astroturf' - not grass roots, but paid for advertising masquerading as independent content. UGreen appear to have sent loads of these out to content creators in return for reviews and all of those that haven't disclosed the fact come across insincere.
Maybe you missed the part in the video where I said “this video is sponsored by UGREEN”? Either way my video is based on my thoughts and experiences with the product
Why does 2+2+1+1 gives you 4TB of usable storage with Raid 5 model lol. That's not how it works. You can even check it with the calculator if e.g. Synology. There's a lot of unused storage left in that config it'll give you only around 2.7TB
This system has its own on board storage for the OS and other things which helps keep your hard drive space open. But I also did round up to make things easier so that is indeed my bad
2 main reasons. One is that Synology (at the moment) doesn’t have a SSD NAS that is made for consumers like this one. Secondly the specs, the UGREEN NAS has far better specs for the price making it a better choice for me, just the fact it comes with 10GBE straight out the box is worth it
This feels...odd. You should really be using Thunderbolt to maximize the speeds. You're leaving a lot of performance on the table by using 10gbps ethernet. This would be killer with Thunderbolt 5.
Hes right. 900 MB/s is sht performance for a "working" drive. files should be on a Tbolt 3/4 drive with 3X the potential. Plenty of Tbolt cases for $60-80. Drop in a nice big NVMe. I personally use a dual bay Sabrent (8 TB setup in a RAID 0). Sabrent case + those 990s in a RAID 0 = 4TB 30 GB/s working drive. I get it. sponsored by ugreen.
you're new to NAS, aren't you? The idea of a NAS is to plug the Ethernet cable in, and connect it to a switch or Wifi Router, then everyone in the same WLAN or LAN can access the same data for video edit, coding, etc... Thunderbolt limits the use of a NAS, most of the time that NAS is sitting somewhere not even reachable to be plugged in, doing its thing in the back ground.
@@ConorButkovic What about it is not supported? It should support Thunderbolt P2P, as that is part of the Thunderbolt Standard (Thunderbolt Networking). The computers just have to be in proximity to each other or use very long (and expensive :() Thundebolt Cables.
NVMe NAS Pros: Power efficiency and flexibility.✅ Cons: Limited storage capacity and very expensive.💢 HDD NAS Pros: Affordable price and large capacity.✅ Cons: Inefficient due to higher power consumption.💢 Since I use both (NVMe/HDD NAS), I just smile to myself
$1000? with 0 GB. LOL. 99.99% of users dont need this. Especially single Mac users or those that don't work from the cloud. Local network shared storage is as simple as a gigabit switch and file sharing turned on if you have multiple macs.
That is a valid point, this is could definitely be overkill for lots of people but if you have more than one Mac and or PC (like myself) this could be a great future proofed option
Franchement bravo.
Super idée, bien réalisée !👍
Tu es surprenante et pleine de ressources, félicitations !
My current setup is to just have a local 4TB SSD per computer, then use synching to keep everything the same across drives. For 3 systems I think this is cheaper and faster. If you have more than 3, then a nas makes sense.
Full disclosure, don't use SSDs for long term storage
That is a valid point! I do store my backups and archives on a different NAS which has HDD drives, it’s the one I mentioned in the beginning of the video
@@statuspremier Why? Besides expense.
@@livedreamsg you got atleast 100 years of life time on a hard drive versse 5 to 7 years on an ssd
@@statuspremier that's... completely not true
@@OptimusMonk01 Ironically karma hit me and now I have an M.2 SSD that won't boot an OS on an HP 840 so I'll see how long it lives compared to a SATA SSD then compare it to my Hard drive which I've had for 10 years.
6 minute advertisement.
Agreed. Why isn't this labelled as an advert? It definitely feels like one. Did he buy this himself, or did they send it to him for free? Aren't RUclips videos supposed to disclose this sort of thing? It feels like it's supposed to be an impartial review, but has the taste of 'astroturf' - not grass roots, but paid for advertising masquerading as independent content. UGreen appear to have sent loads of these out to content creators in return for reviews and all of those that haven't disclosed the fact come across insincere.
I’m not trying to convince anyone to buy it… it’s just my thoughts and my experience with a product I was interested in
Maybe you missed the part in the video where I said “this video is sponsored by UGREEN”? Either way my video is based on my thoughts and experiences with the product
Why does 2+2+1+1 gives you 4TB of usable storage with Raid 5 model lol. That's not how it works. You can even check it with the calculator if e.g. Synology. There's a lot of unused storage left in that config it'll give you only around 2.7TB
This system has its own on board storage for the OS and other things which helps keep your hard drive space open. But I also did round up to make things easier so that is indeed my bad
From 3TB to 4TB is a bit of a stretch for a roundup :)
It was 3 and some change but yeah definitely my bad
What made you go with Ugreen over Synology other than the fact they sent it do you?
2 main reasons. One is that Synology (at the moment) doesn’t have a SSD NAS that is made for consumers like this one. Secondly the specs, the UGREEN NAS has far better specs for the price making it a better choice for me, just the fact it comes with 10GBE straight out the box is worth it
Which Synology would you compare the Ugreen to?
It hard to compare this model because of the SSD only setup… but I guess just any model in the same price range
@@ConorButkovic nvme vs regular hds makes a big difference, I think they are difficult to compare.
What is the largest amount of storage this can support. Can it host 8TB drives?
Not available in the UK Store
nas is not a replacement for the cloud, you still need to backup your nas - be it another nas in a different location or cloud storage
Hdd offer too much capacity for me to justify a ssd nas right now
That’s true, if you need the space, SSDs aren’t there yet… hopefully one day though
is it DAS with NAS function or NAS with DAS function
Just a NAS
This feels...odd. You should really be using Thunderbolt to maximize the speeds. You're leaving a lot of performance on the table by using 10gbps ethernet. This would be killer with Thunderbolt 5.
If it had the ability to use the TB ports as a connection I would be using it in a heart beat but unfortunately it’s just not supported
Hes right. 900 MB/s is sht performance for a "working" drive. files should be on a Tbolt 3/4 drive with 3X the potential. Plenty of Tbolt cases for $60-80. Drop in a nice big NVMe. I personally use a dual bay Sabrent (8 TB setup in a RAID 0). Sabrent case + those 990s in a RAID 0 = 4TB 30 GB/s working drive. I get it. sponsored by ugreen.
you're new to NAS, aren't you? The idea of a NAS is to plug the Ethernet cable in, and connect it to a switch or Wifi Router, then everyone in the same WLAN or LAN can access the same data for video edit, coding, etc...
Thunderbolt limits the use of a NAS, most of the time that NAS is sitting somewhere not even reachable to be plugged in, doing its thing in the back ground.
@@ConorButkovic What about it is not supported? It should support Thunderbolt P2P, as that is part of the Thunderbolt Standard (Thunderbolt Networking). The computers just have to be in proximity to each other or use very long (and expensive :() Thundebolt Cables.
I think this is more for NAS. Something like this would be fantastic to use as a kind of dropbox across your network.
Please let me know how it goes. Update me 4-6 months from now. I am srsly thinking of this too - media business owner
I might switch its use case around but I’ll make sure to update at some point!
this is a poor solution and not cost effective. Its got "nvme" in the title and its all the buzzword rage.
NVMe NAS
Pros: Power efficiency and flexibility.✅
Cons: Limited storage capacity and very expensive.💢
HDD NAS
Pros: Affordable price and large capacity.✅
Cons: Inefficient due to higher power consumption.💢
Since I use both (NVMe/HDD NAS), I just smile to myself
$1000? with 0 GB. LOL. 99.99% of users dont need this. Especially single Mac users or those that don't work from the cloud. Local network shared storage is as simple as a gigabit switch and file sharing turned on if you have multiple macs.
That is a valid point, this is could definitely be overkill for lots of people but if you have more than one Mac and or PC (like myself) this could be a great future proofed option
@@ConorButkovic Nothing a $40 1000BT switch cant solve.
I really want this one, but I'll wait for a sale.
The Christmas sale is pretty good!
I heard if you want your nas os update, it will wipe all your data
I’ve done a few software updates and haven’t had that happen