Synology DS918+ SSD Cache Install and Is it worth it?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 фев 2018
- In this video, I install two Samsung 960 EVO NVMe M.2 SSDs in a Synology DS918+ NAS and set it up as cache.
Synology DS918+ (Amazon Affiliate)
US: amzn.to/2EECW3Q
UK: amzn.to/35BD9jW
CA: amzn.to/35ILfYs
DE: amzn.to/2VsP561
ES: amzn.to/3eIwJWc
FR: amzn.to/2VqZHCo
IT: amzn.to/2XEQC8T
IN: amzn.to/2Th9pom
(x4) WD RED WD40EFRX CMR* (Amazon Affiliate)
US: amzn.to/3ewSHvC
UK: amzn.to/354lcOk
CA: amzn.to/3l5syGK
DE: amzn.to/2IfafjF
ES: amzn.to/2TXqa99
FR: amzn.to/35178VF
IT: amzn.to/32fNx28
IN: amzn.to/3l5X6bh
AU: amzn.to/2JCUyn7
* Please verify that you have chosen the WD40EFRX (CMR) model when ordering. Also check that you got the correct drives when your order arrives. Avoid the WD40EFAX SMR models!
Crucial 16GB (8GBx2) RAM CT2K8G3S186DM (Amazon Affiliate)
US: amzn.to/35TmsB1
UK: amzn.to/35Pvsa5
CA: amzn.to/2thVWUy
ES: amzn.to/2VgoecJ
FR: amzn.to/2NoBZSv
IT: amzn.to/2VgwIkb
DE: amzn.to/3avuVwe (HX318LS11IB/8)
IN: amzn.to/37Y1Fgz
AU: amzn.to/2CGypRH
(x2) Samsung m.2 NVMe SSD (Amazon Affiliate)
US: amzn.to/304ULDG
UK: amzn.to/2N7yHmU
CA: amzn.to/2NcEDLj
IN: amzn.to/3c1w0OB
Please follow me!
/ rickmakes
/ rickmakes
Visit my Amazon Storefront!
www.amazon.com/shop/rickmakes
www.amazon.co.uk/shop/rickmakes
www.amazon.ca/shop/rickmakes
Support my channel!
www.rickmakes.com/paypal_dona...
#synology 
Хобби
I have a new video with updated benchmarking! ruclips.net/video/siF3vVkm228/видео.html
Good Video Rick. One quick question, Would I be able to use All SSD's? I'd like to setup a small TV/Movie NAS with 2TB SSD's.
@Lawson Azariah you're right - we don't give a shit
I have a ds918+ and this video helps me a lot. Thanks
Thank You, this video helped me so much, thanks again keep up the good work!
great video. It was exactly what I was looking for. Items ordered thru you affiliate link. Thank you.
Good video to demo, good job, save me a lot of time to search online about ssd cache on Synology, thank you
You turned off sequential I/O caching and test using sequential I/O :O
I had the exact same thought watching this.
Tnx for creating this cache vid. You saved me a few bucks ;)
Thanks for this, i didnt get two ssd's so am just running read cache.. Will have to get another soon for write cache.
Yeah this isn't the type of test you can just shoot a video on right away, it takes time for cache to even be learned, and built up. You could show initial speeds and after a week or two show follow up results. Just an idea.
I have an laptop (primary for RUclips) and SSD 512 Gb and lots of PM 16 Gb! How
to move cach /swap to the PM? Just to save R/W to the SSD?
I think the problem with this test is that the file is far smaller than the memory of the system. The file has to be larger, such that the system can't cache in memory.
Hi Rick, I am wondering - does Synology install the DMS (OS) on internal static memory (i.e M.2) or on the 1st drive? I can't believe in today's technology anyone would use a storage drive for its OS.
Also, how does one set it up to be accessed via Android Phone as with OneDrive and DropBox?
SSD cache is must. I am using on DS920+ with 2 Samsung 512GB. Super fast.
Thanks for the videos Rick, I suspect if you have SSD's in the NAS, the benefit of cache is likely lost on you. The prime benefit would be if you were running 4x spinning disks. And even then, the benefit isn't for sequential files (Even if random data is populated), the cache takes hot files (files that you use often) and allows them to be read without needing to wait for the disks to spin, find the file, provide it, spin to the next file, etc. I imagine the prime target for this is homelabs, VM's and so forth should see increased boot times.
In the right setup/system, M.2 NVMe can have significantly higher throughput than SATA SSDs but I agree that it would probably be pointless to run both. It would be nice to benchmark something like an Adobe Indesign project (hosted on the NAS) with a lot of linked images. It would be interesting to see if that would trigger the cache and provide some sort of optimization. I unfortunately don't have Indesign or a good sample project. My cache usage shows 38% as of today so something is using it. I just don't know of an easy way to "see" a speed increase.
I have to ask, how much did you spend on the SSD's to get less than 1/2 second speed increase? The performance to dollar is not worth it even if you used both the Gb connections.
Cache like this takes time to warm up. It may take several days for the most used data to warm up.
We work with big indexed maps, with raw audio (WAV) about 90K individual tracks. Sometimes the NAS hick up, and tracks as well, I already upgrade memory to 8gig because indexing big maps has a cost, so would it be worth to put extra cache in the NAS, my HD's are in RAID10 and teaming networking is on, for full bandwith.
What to do when you have 4 volumes?
Why would it cache sequential write ? :|
Could you add comparison for DS Moments app, before/after cache? Browsing photos etc
Since one of the setup steps, was turning off caching on sequential io. Why would you expect any speedup for copying large files?
The main speedup will be when you create a binary file on the Nas, and access it randomly.
Am I missing something?
You bring up a good point. My question is, what is considered a large file by the system? "Large" is relative. A 1 gigabyte file might seem like a large file but in relation to a 250GB cache, it is relatively small. Back in the day, a 2MB file was considered large because it wouldn't fit on a single floppy disk. My current cache usage on this system is 83%. I wish it would tell me what it is caching.
Would that speed up editing from my that nas in Final Cut Pro x?
I'm not sure if it would speed up Final Cut Pro with the files being hosted on the NAS. I've thought about trying to benchmark it but that isn't an easy task.
It need more files say 100+ files to do the cache. And the same needs to be read/write many times for the frequency counter to increase for the cache to populate the
Good video! I've had quite a lot of experience with using SSDs to cache linux based NAS systems (synology and qnap mostly), I manage dozens of Synologies. My experience has been that they speed things up initially but eventually cause the unit to fall on its face (brand doesn't matter, they all use the same caching mechanism). I always end up with better performance just using raw HDDs and maybe adding a couple of mirrored SSDs as a separate volume if I'm going to run VMs on the unit. I would be interested to see what your long term results are with the NVMe drives!
I did some more tests on the server and got better results. ruclips.net/video/siF3vVkm228/видео.html I think the SSDs will help my VM performance. It will be interesting to see how they fair over time. I was hoping I could setup the M.2 NVMe drives as a volume but it doesn't allow that. I'm not sure why not.
I put SSDs in a RS2416 and it ran great for a few months, and then suddenly crashed HARD every single day until the SSDs were disabled. There is over 100 users on this NAS and it reduced the life expectancy of the SSDs by about 30% within those few months. So I concur with Jeff in that it's better to stick with raw HDDs and only use SSD for VMs. Synology VMs run pretty good that way.
@@mikebeutler84 Interesting, makes sense. Basically the SSD got like 100 days worth of wear each day.
Thanks for the video rick! I have a question, if both the nvmes are of a higher capacity (512gb,1tb) what difference does it make to the cache?
The cache advisor will recommend a certain amount. I don't think there will be much of a benefit going over that amount unless the needs of the server are going to change. Mine recommended around 200GB. I installed 250GB. My cache usage is currently 38% (89GB). I'm guessing that will go up as time goes on and I use more features of the NAS. If you value speed over capacity, you could always install SATA SSDs as your main drives.
Wish I would have known about the ssd cache not working before I bought two evos
will be good if you use your nas as a SCSI server / target ;) That test you need to disable ignore sequencial read and write, coping a file is sequencial stuff
Hi RickMakes, away from the interface...is the 918+ noisy ? With the two fans on the back would you hear it whur all day long in the office ? Anyone post a video on a running 918+ to listen to it ?
I made video on the noise level. Sorry for the delay in getting it done. It is pretty quiet. ruclips.net/video/Et91h-L8IU8/видео.html
Thank you...this was helpful
Cache is good for random i/o, and since you said you will be running vms, then that's the way to go
Think nvme is worth it here? I know in “typical” desktop usage nvme isnt noticable, but in server usage I dont know..
Is there a way to use a sata ssd with it? Adapters out there? (My unit uses a m.2 adapter in the case that I have to buy...) (1517+)
can I put 4 normal SSD on the normal bays and create a RAID 1 setup??? I mean, using 2.5 ssd of course, I see no one talking about making a RAID 1 with SSD
You could create a RAID 1 with SSDs. The downside (in 2018) is capacity. Large SSDs are still pretty expensive compared to spinning drives.
I got the gliche installed 16gb ram first and when I click Cache advisor it says RAM is full. My question for you is did you install the 2x SSD cache with only 8gb of ram installed or still with 16gb ram?
I only removed the 8GB to run the cache advisor but then reinstalled it and installed the SSD cache. I now have all 16GB RAM installed and the SSD cache. You don't technically have to run cache advisor. I just wanted to see what it would recommend.
thanks for the fast reply, I ask because I installed 16gb ram and two 256 SSD WD Black NVMe and it freeze afterwards it shutdown and never rebooted. I took everything out and left the 16gb ram in but then it still didnt boot just constant blinking blue light. I wonder if the RAM is incompatible. It was Gskill brand ripjaws DDR3L 1866 PC3L-14900. Took both the ram out and SSDs and now Synology is working without issues
Sir, Great video. I just installed the ssd cache and it says ok under the volume tab. However I can't find the screen you're showing at 9:51. Am wondering if they removed it in DSM 7??
Could be. I haven't upgraded yet. I probably will one of these days.
I have the same NAS with 4x 4tb drives in it. I've been looking for a cheaper memory solution as I also would like to have 16gb of memory. Unfortunately, Synology's website isn't showing any compatible memory other than their own brand. Do you have a cheaper solution by any chance? Thank in advance!
You can use two of these 8GB modules: amzn.to/2GkJWp9 (Amazon Affiliate)
I think perhaps you are not testing the ssd cache performance right. Try to test the random IO. BTW the network env could be the bottleneck.
I think the network was my bottleneck. I did some tests right on the server and it appears as if the cache is working. ruclips.net/video/siF3vVkm228/видео.html
great video good job. Seems like a complete waste of money for someone just using this at home and accessing it locally. I am curious though if it would speed up a TIme Machine back up.
Wouldn't that file you created be read and written as sequential data? I think you'll find much better performance when you start running VM's, or possibly when you are loading directories.
I think you might be right although I did turn off the "skip sequential data" option and got similar results. It currently says it is caching over 90GB on my system so it is caching something. I wish I could come up with an easy benchmark to show some optimization.
RickMakes There may be tests for IOPS that could show better results. Maybe write and read a directory with tons of files? Anyways, I enjoyed the video.
Hi, I want to purchase a NAS. I have 2 internet connections in my home. I want to know if I buy a Synology 918+, can I connect 1 internet connection directly to 1 network card and download and share torrents with this internet connection and connect in the second network card a cable to mi router to share the content of the NAS in my network but don't use the internet of my private network?
I'm not sure if the Synology NAS is capable of that out of the box. I know a basic Linux box with two network cards is capable of all sorts of custom networking configurations but I don't know if the Synology gives access to that.
It was a 500GB file across a 1Gb link, nothing surprising here about the speed, its random io where it will come into its own. A homebrew ZFS will still demolish it though :)
I thought about building my own. Years ago I ran a homebuilt server on Ubuntu. Then I switched to Mac OS X server. This go around I wanted to try a "NAS" device. I have to say, the interface and this is very slick. I can't rule out building my own again sometime in the future.
You know I hate to sound corny but sometimes you just want the device to work. Especially for WORK. I have a FreeNAS server and a UNRAID server and they are cool but the Synology 1817+ just works. Drive application is great and it's expandable.
I recently came to the same revelation after running FreeNAS for about a year. I love tinkering but the ease of use and additional features from Synology are worth it. Always thinking you gotta have the best is not reasonable.
@@nynty5 Same.. When I'm at work and getting paid I'll mess with more complex systems but when I'm at home I just want it to work. I don't do that many complex things with my home setup.. so the Synology 1817+ was a great choice. I thought about adding M.2 Cache but this doesn't seem like it made a huge difference. possible over time it will get better as things are "cached" ?
Interesting pick up that John Behm made - would there be any comments on this from you @RickMakes?
If this does make a difference, would you like to perform a new test with updates on this matter?
Really nice video BTW - I'm sitting here with drives in the "basket" strongly considering to make this upgrade with some 970 pro SSD's also for a 918+ :)
could you also make one using 120GB optanes (the smaller ones are slower). my reason being that Synology seems to still use flashcache which has a lot of issues because it drags most reads through the cache. the optane would be a lot faster on that task.
Sorry, I don't have any optanes.
Rick. Thanks for the video. I have a question that nobody can answer.
If you are using RAM + SSD caching, data will filll RAM then CACHE before written to hard drive.
If you are copying a large amount of data and you have 16 GB RAM full and ssd cache full then you have a power outage, you have to wait for 16 GB to be written to hard drive before your UPS runs out of juice. Isn't this a bit dangerous?
Cache or no cache, an unexpected shutdown is always risky. I use a UPS that connects to the Synology via USB. It will send a signal to the NAS to shutdown when the battery gets low.
@@Rickmakes What UPS do you use for this?
This may be a dumb question but I can't find it anywhere so here the question Because the Synology DS918+ NAS use m.2 ssd for cache only would it be better to use intel optane for cache and it speed up hdd?
Often times the network is the bottleneck for the DS918+. This isn't the case when you are dealing with virtual machines on the DS. I'm guessing a person wouldn't notice much difference in performance between different brands of SSD/cache. I like the Samsung because it is a good quality product and a good value.
ok will thank you RickMakes
is it possible to start (blank) with two cache ssd and the hdd drives beginning installation (you show us when you already installed your harddrives)
You can install them all at the same time.
@@Rickmakes Thanks Rick it will be my first NAS in live !!!!!
Hey,
Please make a video for using Synology NAS as
1. Storage server for *home office* .
2. Map NAS as network drive in all Windows computers in network.
3. Set scheduled, automatic, incremental, and encrypted back up *FROM* NAS *TO* Google Drive. To protect my data from *Ramsomware, Home Fire etc* (while making sure that Google *can't* read my data).
Feels like 500GB of cache would work for a large org with many users, probably one SSD of 80GB would be more than enough for home usage
can I install a SATA SSD cache? I have some spare SATA SSD, and I don't really want to buy an NVMe for this purpose
This only supports NVMe SSDs.
Hi, I suggest editing out the 'errs'. BobUK.
if i understand correctly, disabling sequential I/O caching is the reason you didn't see any improvement. When copying a single file to a drive, it's written as a sequential block, A better test might be to run an rsync with 200 smaller files, and check for any improvement. just my 2 cents.
Buen video!
Cuál recomiendas Synology DS718+ o DS918+?
I have a video where I talk about the physical differences between the two devices. ruclips.net/video/X1Blepp4Mo8/видео.html The DS918 is probably best if you want or need more storage.
I'm sure someone already commented on this... but the specs say the Max RAM for this unit is 8 GB, so maybe that's why it wasn't working right with 16GB installed.
Can anyone confirm that the DS918+ limits the interface to the NVMe to PCIe gen 2x1, which is 500MB/s?
Do you know of any way I could find this out on the command line? I tried googling but I didn't get anywhere.
Rick I have put 2 of the older Samsung 850 EVO m2 card in my DS -1817+ in December . The are both now have an "estimated lifespan" of 25% !
Currently have turned them off - Looks like they may last 6 months of usage and that is ridiculous! What are your % 's
Mine have been in around a month. I have 100% estimated lifespan on both drives. My "Cache Usage" is at 53%. I think the endurance on the drives I am using is 100TB.
Thanks Rick , I have been suspicious something is wrong with mine since the first few days. Mine dropped 20+% in a few weeks.
The are M.2 SSDs that are designed to be used as a cache like the intel optane memory and they are designed to take more read and write
before the memory starts to degrade. Samsungs are good but NOT designed to be used like this
I'd like to how good this NAS is using 2x32GB intel optane or the bigger optane h10.
If the NAS is intel CPU based the is a instruction set that can only be used if optane memory is detected
(I'm not saying this NAS has this but the are devices that do like my intel NUC)
does plex utilize this cache feature?
I'm guessing it would for the Plex system itself but I'm not completely sure. I haven't done much with Plex. If you have it turned off for sequential files, it won't use it for streaming the media itself but the traditional hard drives should have no trouble keeping up with that.
SSD is not for raid 10?
It is not raid 10. That would limit you to the size of the SSDs. It is better to use a "smart" caching algorithm so you are only cached often used files. The DS also has the ability to turn off caching for things like file streaming which wouldn't have any benefit and would cause unneeded wear on the cache.
Whats the point of 2.5 GB/s ssd cache if your NAS has only gigabit ethernet? That is 125MB/s If you aggregate the 2 ethernet port is's still only 250MB/s
The cache can work for internal processes and for the virtual machines.
Over 1000M or 10G? 1000M will be limited even with cache
Thanks for your input. I'm using gigabit ethernet. I think you are right. I appear to be reaching the limit of the network. I did some more testing directly on the server and got better results. ruclips.net/video/siF3vVkm228/видео.html
Is it possible to have both? I thought there is only one PCIe slot for nvme or 10gbe
How is RAID 5 performance compared to RAID 10 Synology 918+?
I haven't tested RAID 5 vs RAID 10 but generally speaking, RAID 10 has higher read and write performance. RAID 5 has high read performance but slower write performance. RAID 5 gives you more storage space compared to RAID 10. If you haven't see it yet, Synology has a RAID calculator that will let you know how much storage you get with certain configurations: www.synology.com/en-us/support/RAID_calculator If you want more redundancy, RAID 6 or SHR-6 is a good choice.
Does it matter the size of the nvme like 2 ssd 512gb or 2 256gb does it make any different or it depends?
It is probably best to go whatever size the SSD Cache Advisor recommends, or larger.
@@Rickmakes ok thank you!
How are you getting 16GB of memory in the DS918+? Synology's product page says it only goes to 8GB.
Magic! Intel specs the processor at 8GB but it works with 16GB. I have a video on the RAM. ruclips.net/video/vZC1IBhlS-w/видео.html
But the bios/board in the DS918+ is not, necessarily, the same as the processor's. Although it looks like it is working for you. This reminds me of when we found out that the Mac Plus (way back when) was capable of 4 times the ram as they allowed in the machine. They even had a resistor you had to cut out to get to their recommended about of ram. I am thinking of get one of this DS918+ here soon. More ram always seems to be better.
RAM is really nice for running virtual machines. Mostly because I don't have to put a lot of thought into how much RAM to assign them. For instance, if I am running two VMs, I could give them each 4GB and still have 8GB left.
Hey Rick, I'm guessing the VMs you refer to are NOT via VMWare and resident on the Synology itself?
Is it worth installing these for running VMs on ESXi and using the Synology only for iSCSI storage over a 1Gbps link? I use it like this for a home lab to run network simulators - Cisco Virl, Virtual F5s.
Also, would you say stick with 250GB for this use case or go 500GB? The SSD cache advisor doesn't show my iSCSI storage connected to my ESXi environment, it only shows a Volume disk on a separately installed drive I've configured in a separate storage pool just for home file storage. Thanks.
I have my DS918+ it 16GB too!
Would you use a cheaper WD Black 250GB NVMe 250gb m.2 ?
I would be okay using a WD SSD. Just make sure it is m.2 NVMe.
The RAID 1 of the SSD volume is definitely slowing it down. If you try it with RAID 0, it will show considerable difference. Most of these boxes have CPU with low power consumption and limited speed.
RAID 1 is required for read AND write cache.
Rick is right... :-)
What am I missing here?
With 1gbit network, I have to wonder how an SSD cache will help. My DS918 is pretty much pegged at 111-112MB/s writing or reading (RAID 5 with 4x 10TB NAS drives). Constant. That is basically the top you can expect on a 1Gbit ethernet.
I'm not familiar with that problem. I am guessing you are using the latest version, correct?
@@Rickmakes I'm speaking to a problem. I'm speaking to the explicit limitations of 1Gbit ethernet. 1Gbit gives ~112MB/s transfer max. For large file write I achieve ~110-112MB/s constantly so there is little need for a cache.
I suppose if you were copying many small files the inefficiency of mechanical hard drives would result in I/O that does not utilize the full 1Gbit ethernet (thus the HD being the bottleneck) at which point an NMVe could be useful.
I recently purchased the Asustor 6 NVMe NAS that comes with 2.5Gbit. I regularly get 250-280MB/s with it, and of course they are all NVMe so no cache needed. :)
I have my 918+ with 16GB RAM and 256 SSD x 2. No single issue encounter.
Holds 16gb? manufactured says 8gb max.
John Smith. You should refer intel cpu spec. The single channel support upto 8gb and the cup support dual channel.
what ram are you using?
I using normal SKhynix memory.
Please rename this video to "on the interface" .. I think you said it about 98 times. Good video, and thanks for the information I'll be updating mine soon as well.
wd green sara SSD M2 2280 não funciona no DS918+ comprei errado :(
A unidade WD é SATA. Você precisa usar uma unidade NVMe.
@@Rickmakes Good job I saw this as I was thinking of using those drives as they are a lot cheaper!
You really need to use real world file writing/reading to see decent results. Otherwise good video
what is the recommended size of cache SSD ( Samsung EVO 970) for 4x2TB RAID 10 setup?
You can find the recommended size by going to the "Storage Manager" app. Open "SSD Cache" on the left and click "SSD Cache Advisor" towards the top of the "Storage Manager" window.
The problem I have is that the drives must spinning up, before I can search or read/copy. The SSDs should minimize that problem.
No more waiting time?
The transfer speed should not be affected so much, as it is the network that is the bottleneck.
Why do you let them spin down? I'm letting mine run 24x7 since it's a SAN and the WD Red harddisks are designed to be used that way.
@@Yggdrasil42 I don´t know.. :) Saving energy, less heat or want my drives to live longer. Just the way I´ve done for years.
I don`t see the need for cache if you`re only using gigabit connection.
There`s a different matter with 10Gbe connection to the NAS.
A good HDD can easily saturate the gigabit speed in terms of files transfers and others ...
I agree. I don't think cache will be very useful for network sharing. It seems more useful for virtual machines. I did some more tests on a different video but I also posted some test results in the comments. ruclips.net/video/siF3vVkm228/видео.html
It is useful if you are accessing many tiny files often.
clearly, the NVMe cache, running at over 2.5 GB/s are useless in this NAS except tested with "internal processing", like the Virtualization : VM manager and Virtual DSM
Sadly, the Synology line up is bad : those NVMe are really useful for the 10 Gbps and VM system, like the DS818+ or the DS1219+ and bigger system ...
Note : HDD (SATA) = 100 to 200 MB/s, SSD (SATA) = up to 550 MB/s, MVNe (PCIe interface) = up to 4 GB/s, 1 Gbps ethernet = up to 125 MB/s (theorical without headers and protocol overhead), and 10 Gbps = 1250 MB/s (theorical without headers and protocol overhead)
The recomended hard disks are not on the compatibility list of synology anymore. There using the SMR method and can have failures while restoring a RAID disk... :-/ Take care!
Thank you for your input. I tried updating the links a few months ago and had trouble finding the correct models. For instance, this listing in the UK shows a Plus in the picture but it appears to be an EFAX drive: www.amazon.co.uk/Western-Digital-WD40EFRX-NASware-Internal/dp/B00EHBERSE/ Very confusing! I just went through my descriptions and updated what I think is the correct drive but I also added a note to remind people to confirm that they ordered and received the correct drive. Hopefully this helps people get the correct drives.
416k memory cache for every 1GB? Even if you have 40TB 2x240G samsung pro ssd is overkill.... You need like 2x32GB or 2x64GB tops.... Same goes for ram 4-8GB is more than enough....
I'd like to see a test number of transferring a 1TB file or so and see if file size matters
Can you do SSD caching without having it in RAID?
You can do read caching using only one SSD. You need two SSDs to do read and write caching.
I expect you had a problem with the memory as this NAS only officially supports 8GB not 16GB.
Could be. The only problem I had was with the advisor. Everything else has worked fine.
I thought i could use those to run the OS on
Unfortunately they limit it to cache for this model.
I owna DS1019+ and I do not recommend using premium Samsung Evo NVME's. I bought the cheapest WD 250GB x2 on Amazon for around $35 a piece, and they work just as well. The Synology NAS will not take advantage of the more premium Evo's.
Thank you for the advise
If you look at the specs for the processor at ark.intel.com, you will find it can only address 8GB of RAM. Anything more than 8GB is wasted and will cause problems
just like the issue encountered here. 16GB showing is an anomaly of reading 8+8 from the DIMMs and displaying the total it comes up with in Linux.
ASRock makes a motherboard with the J3455 and they spec it for a max of 16GB of RAM.
So who is correct? Intel who made the chip or ASRock ? If you look at the address lines in the CPU spec and do the math, you'll find 8GB of addressable bits are present, not 16.
ark.intel.com/products/95594/Intel-Celeron-Processor-J3455-2M-Cache-up-to-2-3-GHz-
I think I read that the 8GB on the Intel site is per channel and there are 2 memory channels. So, 16GB, no?
It amazes me how people work on computer products without being grounded. As a former Apple tech it was engrained in all he is from Steve Wozenack that it is paramount that one be grounded. Because ESD will be an issue without you even knowing it it's proper protocol when performing work on hardware.
Good call. I usually touch the case before installing components. This was plastic so I should have reached in to ground to the metal chassis.
I've been working inside computers for 20 years and have never bothered with any sort of grounding. Touch the case and get on with it.
Same here. 19 years in the business and I've never used a grounding strap. I was a JAMF Casper admin for 6 years and a Windows tech/scripter for 10. Before all of that, I strictly built PCs for local businesses. ESD isn't as scary as most people think. I believe Mark Furneaux has said several times in his videos that people that freak out about ESD don't really understand much more than someone older than them telling them at one point "BE VERY AFRAID of ESD"
The ESD Monster will drag you out of your bed and stomp on you and send 1000 Volts thru all your electronics.... :) 30 years and never had to worry, just touch metal and don't be moving your shoes back and forth on carpet as you perform the surgery...
Go Bill GO! lol. I was also going to comment on the vid posters misuse of the dd command and why his testing methodology was wrong but no use in beating the horse.
Thanks for the very useful video! I'm clear about what the M.2 SSDs do and am kind of disappointed that they only can serve one purpose. About 10 years ago I suggested to Synology to allow adding designated disks/volumes to run the system and then separate for data. This was because it was spinning up all disks too frequently for no apparent reason (a ping form the local net etc.) or when the system needed to do something thus shortening lives of disks based on plates (had one died). I was hoping my suggestion has been implemented but not quite. Still, I hope I can create separate volumes e.g. 2 bays with SSD in RAID1 for Synology OS and then standard 3.5 HDDs in RAID5 creating separate volume for data only. However, I do not know if OS operations would trigger other bays 3-n to pin up the disks as well when SSDs do something - can anyone confirm? Ideally, 2 SSDs serve the OS and others spin up only when data volume is being accessed for read/write by devices or users otherwise they should sleep like bears.
I'm not sure if the separate volumes would trigger each other to spin up. I'm not sure my drives ever spin down as I am running surveillance station and backing up to the NAS regularly from multiple computers.
This is not a true test of SSD caching in Synology. Copying or writing a single file is not a test of IOPS its a test of Bandwidth and sequential disk reads. SSD Caching is for random IO from different places on the disk. It is to increase IOP/s and no READ/Write speeds of a single file or or write. For example you should see greater benefit on a ESXi Host running a bunch of vm's than you would from file copy.
Also the data being written is done so over NAS the protocol is not Block Level Access. You can randomize the data all you want on the client and Synology may still write sequential blocks.
All of the tests I have seen on youtube are not true tests. To test from the client side accurately you would need to setup ISCSI and write at the block level and then read a high volume of iops and compare the results.
Additionally you would not be able to use the volume level ISCSI as it is virtual block level. You would actually have to use the block level ISCSI. The overhead for NAS protocols (Cifs, SMB) is greater than block level.
Why did you use 2x ssd cache not 1 ?
If you have 1 SSD, you get read caching. If you have 2 SSDs, you get write caching along with the read caching.
@@Rickmakes should it be equal space or it doesn't matter?
Is the memory upgrade worth it?
Having more memory is useful if you are doing lots of different things (audio, video, file sharing, surveillance, etc...) on the NAS. This allows the computer to retain things in RAM as opposed to swapping it in and out of the hard drive. This is especially important if you are running virtual machines or docker containers. A 16GB memory upgrade isn't for everyone but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to at a 4GB module to the factory 4GB to give the NAS lots of breathing room.
@@Rickmakes I see. Thanks for the advice!
Ssd caching is sooo 2009. Qnap is using ssd tiering instead, and that's waaay better.
call me a idiot, but isn't this what intel optane is supposed to do to give the same results as having 512 gb of cache (at least on home systems) this setup is aimed at large companies right?
Optane is like a cross between RAM and an SSD. I don't have experience working with it.
@@Rickmakes Yeah I am trying to learn these things that seem to be a gap in my knowledge. Fun video. 👍
How come you went for the low end 960 evo drives? I use 970 pro and its much faster.
The 960s were a lot cheaper.
Low end? the 960 EVO is capable of 3300 MB/sec reads, and 2200 MB/sec writes...hardly a big bottleneck issue for any NAS with 1 GbE or even 10 GbE connections (But, yes, the 970 is faster)
It makes absolutely no difference in a NAS. And the fact that you said “Much Faster” sent me into a laughing frenzy 🤣
@@dw6187 I can't fix you being a pauper who laughs uncontrollably at virtually anything.
I just installed SSD into synology. Why can't I click Create? And, Yes, I have 16GB RAM installed.
Do the drives show up under HDD/SSD? Mine say, "Cache device 1" and "Cache device 2". Also, maybe a dumb question, do you have "SSD Cache" selected on the left when you are looking to click "Create"?
@@Rickmakes the drives does not show under hdd/sdd.
If I click SSD Cache, i can only start SSD Cache Advisor. I can not click Create.
That is odd. Which SSDs (model number) are you using?
@@Rickmakes 2x WD green SSD 240 GB. Model number 205149
Robert Horvat That is an mSATA drive. The DS918+ uses m.2 NVMe drives
Cache will be used more for virtual machines and containers ... that`s where you`ll see it`s worth
Can you expand on this?
For example, does this mean the NAS would work in conjunction with a VM container, or does this pertain to something else such as the interface of the NAS itself?
Have you tried putting a intel optane ssd in there to see if theres a difference! And the cache will only get faster and actually see results when you start using your files often, thats all it is a faster way to access the same files or programs you use every day! So quicker loads,searches,indexing
,algorithmic speed! Thats why paired with an older computer using an 2.5 in ssd can hlep balance to loads cause 2.5 sata ssd still have bottle necking issues, cause it has to be connected to a cable ,unlike M.2/nvme can access the MB speed on the pcie slots or attached to the board!
You're not going to see much of a performance boost with sequential tests. Run a random test instead. Something like FIO - github.com/Crowd9/Benchmark/raw/master/fio-2.0.9.tar.gz
Also: What kind of network cabling are you using?
The cabling is cat5e.
@@Rickmakes My "back of the napkin" calculations suggest your transfer speed is sitting somewhere around 0.4 Gb/s. That sounds like a network bottleneck. Full gigabit speed is the upper bound of Cat5e. How long are your cable runs? I would upgrade to Cat6 if at all possible. They are rated for 1-10 Gb/s.
Also, it looks like the DS918 has 2 Gigabit ethernet ports. If you have a managed switch on your network, you can trunk 2 of the ports on the switch together to service the NAS. IT won't matter much for individual gigabit devices, but if you are accessing the NAS with multiple gigabit devices at once (or one of those fancy macs with the 10Gb ethernet adapters!) you will see additional performance gains.
I just about lost everything because Synology adds the SSD Cache to the volume. If you had RAID set up on your Synology, and then have Read/Write Cache...If your SSD degrades, your RAID is useless. I had 24 TB of SHR RAID set up on my Volume 1 of my 918+ with the SSD set as Read/Write for Cache. No power failure. No disk failure. SSD degraded, I ordered a new one on Amazon, and installed, repaired 100% according to Synology's instructions---my volume immediately crashed after "repair" and after over a month, Synology Support was able to recover any data on my Volume 1. None of the drives failed or anything...Just the SSD degraded. Beware of using SSD Read/Write. Note: I was able to recover it by running ReclaiMe File Recovery after removing the drives, installing all of them in a computer, and running the recovery for several days. Then formatted the drives and re-copied everything back onto the Synology. Complete waste of a week of my time after being without a NAS for over a month waiting for Synology Support to restore my volume.
Did both SSDs fail at the same time? The SSDs are installed in a RAID 1 (mirror) configuration so they should be fault tolerant towards a single drive failing. If you haven't yet, I would work on getting a backup setup for your NAS. There is no way to predict exactly when any component will fail (on any system). Having a backup will greatly decrease the odds of losing data.
RickMakes I have a back up NAS that automatically mirrors everything every 24 hours. That is the only reason I did not lose everything. And to answer your question, neither of the SSDs failed, one of them degraded. Synology had no explanation for me as to why my whole volume crashed. All four drives we’re just fine in the extended SMART scan. It was an extremely frustrating experience, and I am extremely disappointed with their support help. I ended up having to recover everything on my own and they did nothing but waste a month of my time.
The DS918 is only rated to 8GB RAM.Perhaps that’s why you were getting weird results with 16GB.
KeithGadget I’ve only had weirdness during the SSD cache analysis. I’ve had no other problems.
Somebody got the upgrade bug I see. You’ve dumped a ton of money into the NAS.
I reckon you need to test at 2 following scenarios.. 1. 200k small files. 2. one single big file over 4g.
???Do you have any ideas of how would I check the M.2 PCIe slot speed on the DS1019+ before I buy it??? Synology won't tell me. Thks
Synology DS1019+ NAS Hardware Review ruclips.net/video/XeRJIwZgqH0/видео.html
Background: The DS918+ sucked because the M.2 PCIe slots had a slower speed than SATA3 SSDs. SATA3 speed is 0.75GB/s but the DS918+ has a M.2 PCIe 2x1 slot at 0.5GB/s, ridiculous.
Use TLC to make cache is too bad.
Its not how "long" the SSDs last for. Time has nothing to do with it. SSDs can only be written to so many times then they start failing. So if you write / rewrite more often, the life expectancy goes down. In this cashe situation, they do not last long. Definately should get PROs instead of EVOs. There was a fella that posted his EVOs failed after 3 months in a 920+. He calculated 121TB of write to them in the time it was on. So no fault of the SSDs
its very expensive1