5 Mistakes New NAS Buyers ALWAYS MAKE

Last updated on 02 Dec 2025 📧 Subscribe
Contents hide
1 Buying Your First NAS? Here Are Five Things EVERYONE Gets WRONG!
1.1 Mistake #1: Underestimating NAS Noise in REAL-WORLD Use (IGNORE the official Specs Sheets)
1.2 Mistake #2: Ignoring Future Capacity and Expansion (PLAN AHEAD!)
1.3 Mistake #3: Assuming SSD Cache and RAM Upgrades are a Magic Performance Fix (SAVE YOUR MONEY!)
1.4 Mistake #4: Treating Power Consumption as an Afterthought (You Have CONTROL)
1.5 Mistake #5: Assuming Fewer Large Drives are Better (Often the REVERSE is Better)
1.6 Conclusion – PLAN AHEAD!
1.7 5 affordable Turnkey 10GbE NAS Solutions (Between $499 and $699)
2 Need Advice on Data Storage from an Expert?
2.1 Related
2.2 Discover more from NAS Compares

Buying Your First NAS? Here Are Five Things EVERYONE Gets WRONG!

If you are buying a NAS for the first time, it is very easy to focus on brand names, bay counts and discounts while overlooking practical issues that will shape your experience for the next 5 to 7 years. New buyers often underestimate noise in real rooms, forget to plan for future capacity growth, misjudge the usefulness of SSD cache, ignore long term power consumption, or assume that a couple of very large drives are always the best value. On top of that, many people treat a NAS like a simple external drive rather than a 24/7 network device that will sit near family members or co workers and quietly draw power every day. This article looks at 5 common mistakes that first time NAS owners make and explains how each one happens, what it looks like in normal home or small office use, and the straightforward checks you can perform before you spend any money so you do not end up with a noisy, inefficient or inflexible system.

Mistake #1: Underestimating NAS Noise in REAL-WORLD Use (IGNORE the official Specs Sheets)

A common mistake with a first NAS is to assume it will sound like a quiet router or a small external drive. In practice a NAS contains several moving parts that generate and transmit noise into the room, especially at night or in a small flat. Drive seek clicks, spindle hum, fan airflow and vibration passing into the furniture all add together. If the system ends up in a bedroom, living room or small home office, the constant whirr can lead to complaints from other people in the house and leave the owner wondering whether the device is faulty when it is simply behaving as designed. It is also easy to forget that scheduled tasks such as antivirus scans, backups and indexing will often push the CPU, fans and disks harder than normal file access, so a system that seems acceptable during light daytime use can become noticeably louder when these jobs run.

Noise levels are heavily influenced by physical design choices that new buyers rarely consider. Metal chassis units tend to amplify vibration compared with plastic enclosures, which means every drive click and fan change is more noticeable. Larger capacity HDDs, particularly above 8TB, usually contain more platters and a more active actuator assembly, which produces sharper clicks and a deeper background rumble than smaller disks. Fan design also matters. Rear mounted fans tend to push sound directly into the room, while models with downward facing or internal fans may spread the noise more evenly into the surface under the NAS. Even the desk or cabinet matters, since hard surfaces can resonate and make a quiet system sound louder. Simple changes such as placing the NAS on a foam pad, an anti vibration mat or thick rubber feet will reduce the amount of vibration transferred into the furniture and can make a noticeable difference to perceived noise without changing the hardware.

The practical way to avoid this problem is to plan acoustics at the same time as you choose capacity and CPU. If the NAS must live in an occupied room, it makes sense to look at lower noise HDD lines, to avoid the very largest capacities where possible, and to consider using SATA SSDs for the working volume if budget allows. Checking vendor spec sheets for noise ratings in dB is useful, but you should also think about where the NAS will physically sit and how air can flow around it, since putting a box in a sealed cupboard simply forces the fans to run harder. Most modern NAS systems allow fan speed profiles and drive hibernation, which can reduce noise during idle periods, and many also support power schedules so the unit can power down completely during hours when it is not needed. You can also move heavy jobs such as RAID scrubs, indexing and backup windows into predictable time slots, for example overnight if the NAS is in a separate room, so that short periods of higher noise are less disruptive while the system remains quiet for normal daytime access.

Mistake #2: Ignoring Future Capacity and Expansion (PLAN AHEAD!)

A second common mistake is to buy a NAS that only matches your current data footprint with no realistic allowance for growth. Many first time buyers look at their existing files, see that they use 2TB or 4TB, then choose a 2 bay unit and a pair of modest drives that cover today with a small buffer. Once the NAS is in use, however, new cameras, phones and laptops start backing up to it, family members begin storing photos and videos, and it often becomes the default place for downloads and shared work files. Within a year or 2, the system that once looked spacious can be near its usable limit, especially once you take RAID overhead and snapshots into account.

The physical bay count and the way you populate those bays on day 1 has a direct impact on how easy it will be to grow later. A 2 bay NAS that starts fully populated leaves you with only a couple of options when you run out of room. You either replace both drives with larger ones, which is expensive and involves a full rebuild, or you bolt on an external expansion chassis if the vendor offers one. A 4 bay unit that initially uses only 2 drives gives you a much smoother path. You can add extra disks one at a time, or take advantage of flexible RAID schemes from some brands that allow mixing different drive sizes over time, which is far more forgiving when budgets are tight or upgrade windows are short.

Avoiding this mistake means planning capacity as a multi year decision rather than a single purchase. It is usually better to buy a slightly larger chassis with more bays than you think you need, then start with a sensible number of mid sized drives that offer a good cost per TB. This gives you headroom to add disks later without reorganising everything and lets the array performance improve as you add more spindles. It also leaves space for other changes such as introducing SSD volumes or cache in the future without having to retire the entire unit. In short, it is safer to overspec the enclosure a little and understuff it at the start than to buy the smallest possible model and discover that you have run out of practical expansion options far sooner than expected.

Mistake #3: Assuming SSD Cache and RAM Upgrades are a Magic Performance Fix (SAVE YOUR MONEY!)

New NAS owners often treat SSD cache and RAM upgrades as a universal answer to “my NAS feels slow”, without checking whether the underlying workload or hardware actually benefits. It is common to see a 2 or 4 bay system with a modest CPU and a couple of M.2 slots promoted heavily as “cache ready”, which encourages buyers to add SSDs and memory on day 1. In reality, if the processor is already running close to 100 percent under load, extra RAM will mostly sit idle and cache will only accelerate specific types of access. For simple sequential workloads such as bulk media streaming or large backup jobs, disk performance and network limits usually matter more than having faster cache in front of the array, so the investment does not translate into a noticeable improvement.

SSD cache in particular is often misunderstood. Write cache temporarily lands incoming data on SSDs and then flushes it to HDDs later, which can smooth out bursty writes but does not change the final speed of the array. Read cache keeps copies of frequently accessed “hot” data on SSDs, but in most NAS use this tends to be small random IO, metadata and thumbnails rather than entire large media files. Some platforms allow you to tune cache block size and policy, which can help in database or VM heavy environments, but for simple file sharing the benefit is limited. If a NAS mainly serves big video files to a handful of clients, using SSD cache rarely justifies the cost. In many cases, placing the NAS operating system, app data and indexes on an SSD volume, or using SSDs as a small primary pool for truly performance sensitive shares, delivers more predictable advantages than a generic cache layer.

The same caution applies to memory upgrades. More RAM allows the NAS to keep more filesystem cache and run more services concurrently, but it does not compensate for an underpowered CPU or a saturated network link. A basic check of CPU and memory utilisation under your typical workload is essential before buying additional modules. If CPU usage is consistently low while memory is pegged, extra RAM may help. If the processor is the bottleneck, adding memory or cache will not change the response time of apps and shares. For most first time buyers, it is more sensible to size CPU, network and base storage correctly first, then consider SSD based OS volumes, manual or automated tiering, and targeted RAM upgrades later if monitoring shows clear evidence that these changes will address a real bottleneck rather than an assumed one.

Note – If you are a QNAP NAS owner, you CAN use an alternative to ‘SSD Cache’, but using QTier – this MOVES (not copy) to data from slower HDDs and onto faster SSDs, as data is frequently accessed.

Mistake #4: Treating Power Consumption as an Afterthought (You Have CONTROL)

Many new NAS buyers focus on purchase price and capacity, then only think about power consumption after the first full month of electricity bills. A NAS is designed to be available around the clock, which means that even modest differences in idle draw add up over a year. Larger HDDs with more platters, multiple bays running full time, and older or less efficient CPUs all contribute to a steady baseline load, even when no one is actively using the system. In small flats or home offices this continuous draw can be a surprise, particularly for users coming from purely cloud based workflows where the power cost is hidden in the subscription fee.

Hardware choices have a direct impact on how much power a NAS will use at idle and under load. High capacity HDDs tend to have higher idle consumption because the mechanics must be ready to spin and seek immediately. A system with fewer, larger disks may draw more power at rest than a similar capacity built from several smaller drives, although this is not a strict rule and depends on the specific models. CPU generation and class matter as well. Modern low power x86 chips such as Intel N series parts can idle in the single digit watt range but still turbo high enough for typical home workloads, while older desktop class processors often draw more even when idle. Buyers who only look at drive capacity and bay count without checking HDD datasheets and CPU TDP figures can easily end up with a system that runs hotter and more power hungry than necessary for basic file serving and backups.

Software features and configuration also play a major role, yet many first time owners never touch these options after initial setup. Enabling HDD hibernation for lightly used volumes can drop disk consumption from around 8 to 12 W per drive to well under 1 W when idle, multiplied across several bays. Most NAS platforms support scheduled power on and power off, which allows you to shut the system down completely during hours when it is not needed and wake it automatically for work periods or backup windows. Moving heavy jobs such as backups, RAID scrubs and indexing into specific time slots also helps, since the system can stay in a lower power state for more of the day. Simple measures like these, applied on top of sensible hardware selection, make the difference between a NAS that quietly adds a manageable cost to your electricity bill and one that runs at full power far more often than your usage requires.

Mistake #5: Assuming Fewer Large Drives are Better (Often the REVERSE is Better)

A frequent assumption among new NAS buyers is that the best approach is to purchase the largest individual HDDs they can afford, fit a pair into a small enclosure and rely on that pair for both capacity and protection. On paper this looks simple and neat. Two 30TB drives in a 2 bay unit appear to offer an easy route to 30TB of usable space with RAID protection. However, this approach often produces a poor price per TB compared with building the same or greater capacity from several mid sized disks, and it concentrates a lot of risk and cost into each individual drive. When one of these large disks fails or needs replacing, the financial hit is substantial and rebuilds can be lengthy.

Cost of NAS Hard Drives (Example)
Seagate Ironwolf HDDs (Regular) WD Red Pro HDDs (Pro Series)
1TB – $35
2TB – $65
4TB – $105
6TB – $158
8TB – $177
10TB – $224
12TB – $258
14TB – $271
16TB – $309
18TB – $389		 4TB – $140
6TB – $173
8TB – $215
10TB – $245
12TB – $253
14TB – $270
16TB – $298
18TB – $349
20TB – $419
22TB – $551

In most cases, the price per terabyte on both sides will remain largely consistent at each capacity. HOWEVER, when you start putting these drives into a NAS/DAS enclosure and acting in the RAID configuration, it soon becomes apparent that the ben efits in Drive #s in a RAID 1 vs a RAID 5 immediately show a saving in almost every single capacity the smaller you go! Below are two examples of achieving 12TB in a NAS enclosure using RAID 1 vs using RAID 5 (so, still maintaining 1 disk drive failure protection and having 12TB of storage to use):

12TB Storage in a RAID 1 MIRROR 12TB Storage in a RAID 5

Looking at retail pricing makes the problem clear. Large capacity HDDs carry a significant premium that is not always reflected in proportional capacity gains. At the same time that a 30TB drive might cost 500 to 600 in local currency, 10TB or 12TB drives can often be found for less than 200 each. Four 12TB drives in RAID 5 or similar single disk fault tolerant layouts can deliver 36TB of usable space for less money than a pair of 30TB disks that only provide 30TB usable, while also offering more spindles for better aggregate performance. The trade off is higher drive count, which brings extra power use, more noise and additional points of failure, but in purely cost per TB terms the multi-drive configuration is often more efficient.

The practical lesson is that drive selection for a first NAS should consider more than headline capacity. New buyers should compare price per TB across several HDD sizes, factor in the desired RAID level and protection scheme, and understand how many drives their chassis can support now and in future. In many cases it is more effective to choose a slightly larger enclosure and populate it with several mid sized disks that offer a good value point, rather than filling a small unit with the largest drives available. This gives better flexibility for future expansion, more options if a disk fails, and a storage layout that balances cost, capacity and performance instead of relying entirely on a small number of very large and expensive disks.

Larger NAS/DAS systems are always more expensive, as they need to have more physical space, resource use in production and power/PSU sizes to run the larger enclosure. Add to this, thanks to memory shortages right now, that smaller scale NAS systems are starting to arrive with more memory by default (as 2-4GB is becoming less cost-effective to produce with chip shortages) and often with little/no increase in the base price. For example, below is the TS-264 and TS-464 NAS. Same CPU, design and ports – however the 2-Bay system has 8GB memory by default AND IS STILL $134 cheaper! So, this can often mean that you can save money on smaller quantities of larger capacity HDDs becuase the enclosure they are going in is cheaper over all.

Conclusion – PLAN AHEAD!

New NAS buyers rarely set out to make poor choices. The problems described above usually arise because a NAS is treated like a simple storage box rather than a device that will run all day, sit in shared spaces and gradually absorb more roles over several years. Noise, expansion, SSD cache, power consumption and drive sizing are all easy to overlook when you are comparing spec sheets or promotional bundles, yet each one has a direct and practical impact on how comfortable and economical the system will be to live with. The safest approach is to treat the first NAS purchase as a medium term infrastructure decision rather than a one off gadget. That means thinking realistically about where the box will sit, how many people will rely on it, how much data is likely to arrive over time and how much power draw and running cost is acceptable. A slightly quieter chassis, a few more bays, a balanced drive choice and sensible use of features like hibernation and scheduling will matter more in day to day use than chasing the biggest individual drives or adding SSD cache on day 1. By addressing these 5 areas before you buy, you reduce the risk of needing early upgrades or workarounds and increase the chance that the NAS you choose will remain suitable for several years without constant attention.

5 affordable Turnkey 10GbE NAS Solutions (Between $499 and $699)

For years, 10GbE networking has been seen as a premium feature reserved for high-end or enterprise-grade NAS devices, often pushing total system costs well beyond the reach of home users and small businesses. However, as controller prices have dropped and demand for faster data transfers has grown, a new wave of affordable NAS solutions has started to appear with built-in 10GbE. These systems no longer require expensive proprietary upgrade cards or third-party NICs, and many sit comfortably below the $699 / £599 price point. They cover a range of use cases, from compact SSD-based NAS devices to rackmount storage appliances and versatile desktop units. Below is a selection of some of the most notable options currently available, each offering a balance of performance, connectivity, and affordability for users who want to move beyond 1GbE or 2.5GbE without breaking the bank.

UniFi UNAS Pro (7-Bay, Rackmount)

I keep coming back to two words for the UniFi UNAS Pro—fundamentals and consistency. UniFi has clearly focused on making this system a strong addition to their ecosystem, prioritizing the essential storage needs of a NAS. They’ve succeeded in this, but comparisons with long-established competitors are inevitable. While solid, reliable, and stable, the UniFi UNAS Pro will take time to be competitive on the software front. If you’re deeply invested in the UniFi ecosystem, you’ll appreciate its ease of use and integration. However, outside of a UniFi network, it may feel feature-light compared to alternatives. The pricing is competitive for a launch product at $499, and while it’s not the best NAS on the market, it’s the most user-friendly and UniFi-ready. It will likely satisfy many users’ needs. I can certainly see this being integrated into existing UniFi networks as a 2nd stage backup alongside their already existing 3rd party NAS solution, with the potential to graduating to their primary storage as Ubiquiti continue to evolve this platform above and beyond the fundamentals their have nailed down in the UNAS Pro system.

  • Approx. Price: $499 / £400

  • Specs: ARM Cortex-A57 quad-core CPU, 8 GB RAM, seven 2.5″/3.5″ SATA bays, 1×10GbE SFP+ and 1×1GbE.

  • Why It Stands Out: Exceptional price-to-performance for pure storage needs. Lacks advanced multimedia or container apps but ideal for high-speed backups in a rackmount setup.

BUILD QUALITY - 10/10
HARDWARE - 7/10
PERFORMANCE - 7/10
PRICE - 9/10
VALUE - 8/10


8.2
PROS
👍🏻Nails down the fundamentals of NAS Storage very well
👍🏻Easy to use GUI and well suited in the UniFi Ecosystem/UX
👍🏻Complete Offline Use is supported
👍🏻Use of a UI account is NOT compulsory
👍🏻Excellently deployed Snapshot Features
👍🏻10GbE out-the-box
👍🏻Open HDD Compatibility, but also 1st party options too
👍🏻Backup and Restoration Options Nailed down perfectly
👍🏻Very power efficient and CPU/, Memory utilization rarely high
👍🏻Compact, Quite and well designed chassis
👍🏻The LCD controls are completely \'different level\' compared to other brands in the market
👍🏻Promised competitive pricing
👍🏻FAST deployment (3-5mins tops)
👍🏻Reactive Storage expandability and easy-to-understand storage failover options
👍🏻Mobile app deployment is intuitive/fast
👍🏻Feels stable, secure and reliable at all times
👍🏻Performance is respectable (considering SATA Bay count and CPU) but also sustained performance is very good
👍🏻Single screen dashboard is clear and intuitive
👍🏻Ditto for the native file explorer
CONS
👎🏻7 Bays is a bit unusual, plus feels like the existing UNVR with different firmware
👎🏻Additional App installation (eg. \'Protect\') not currently supported. So no container support for 3rd party apps
👎🏻Network Controls are limited
👎🏻Works at it\'s best in an existing UniFi managed network, feels a little limited in \'standalone\'
👎🏻Multiple storage pools not supported (nor is RAID 0)
👎🏻Lack of Scheduled On/Off
👎🏻Lack of redundant PSU
👎🏻Only 1 10Gb port and 1x 1GbE, no USBs for expanded storage or an expansion

 

Asustor Flashstor 12 Gen 1 (Compact NVMe NAS)

The Asustor Flashstor Gen 2 12-Bay NAS is a robust and versatile solution for users with demanding storage needs. Its combination of high-performance hardware, extensive connectivity options, and compact design makes it a standout choice for content creators, small businesses, and enthusiasts. With dual 10GbE ports, USB 4.0 connectivity, and support for up to 12 M.2 NVMe drives, it offers exceptional speed and scalability. While the device has a few quirks, such as its mixed PCIe slot speeds and lack of M.2 heat sinks, these are manageable with proper planning and aftermarket solutions. The Flashstor Gen 2 excels in raw performance, handling intensive workflows with ease and maintaining low noise levels even under load. Its power efficiency and robust thermal management further enhance its appeal for 24/7 operation. For users prioritizing hardware capabilities and performance, the Flashstor Gen 2 delivers on its promises. While its complexity may deter less experienced users, those with the technical expertise to configure and optimize the system will find it a valuable addition to their workflow.

  • Approx. Price: $750 / £600

  • Specs: Intel Celeron N5105, 12×M.2 NVMe slots, single 10GbE port, compact form factor.

  • Notable Traits: High-density SSD storage in a small desktop chassis. Excellent value for SSD-heavy builds.

SOFTWARE - 6/10
HARDWARE - 9/10
PERFORMANCE - 10/10
PRICE - 7/10
VALUE - 8/10


8.0
PROS
👍🏻Exceptional Performance: Dual 10-Gigabit Ethernet ports and USB 4.0 connectivity deliver fast and reliable data transfer speeds, ideal for 4K editing and collaborative environments.
👍🏻Extensive Storage Options: Supports up to 12 M.2 NVMe SSDs, allowing for large-scale, high-speed storage arrays.
👍🏻ECC Memory Support: Includes 16GB of DDR5-4800 ECC memory (expandable to 64GB), ensuring data integrity for critical applications.
👍🏻Compact Design: Small footprint makes it perfect for workspaces with limited room.
👍🏻Quiet Operation: Dual-fan system keeps noise levels low, even under heavy loads.
👍🏻Flexible Connectivity: Features two USB 4.0 Type-C ports and three USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A ports for direct storage access and peripheral integration.
👍🏻Power Efficiency: Low power consumption (32.2W idle, 56W under load) makes it economical to run, even for 24/7 operation.
👍🏻Thermal Management Enhancements: Dual fans and copper heat pipes efficiently dissipate heat, ensuring stable performance.
👍🏻Support for Third-Party Operating Systems: Compatible with platforms like TrueNAS and Unraid for advanced customization.
CONS
👎🏻Mixed PCIe Slot Speeds: Inconsistent PCIe bandwidth across M.2 slots complicates unified RAID configurations.
👎🏻Lack of M.2 Heat Sinks: NVMe slots do not include heat sinks, requiring aftermarket cooling solutions for intensive workloads.
👎🏻No Integrated Graphics: The AMD Ryzen V3C14 processor lacks integrated graphics, limiting hardware transcoding and multimedia capabilities.
👎🏻Steep Price: The 12-bay model’s cost ($1,300–$1,400) and the six-bay version’s lack of ECC memory make them expensive compared to alternatives.

 

UGREEN NASync DXP4800 Plus

BOTTOM LINE – The UGREEN NASYnc DXP4800 Plus does not feel ‘finished’ yet and still needs more time in the over, but UGREEN have been very clear with me that this product is not intended for release and fulfilment till summer 2024 and improvements, optimization and product completion is still in progress. Judging the UGREEN NAS systems, when what we have is a pre-release and pre-crowdfunding sample, was always going to be tough. The DXP4800 PLUS is a very well put-together NAS solution, arriving with a fantastic launching price point (arguably even at its RRP for the hardware on offer). UGREEN has clearly made efforts here to carve out their own style, adding their own aesthetic to the traditional 4-bay server box design that plagues NAS boxes at this scale. Equally, although they are not the first brand to consider Kickstarter/Crowdfunding for launching a new product in the NAS/personal-cloud sector, this is easily one of the most confident entries I have seen yet. The fact that this system arrives on the market primarily as a crowdfunded solution (though almost certainly, if successful, will roll out at traditional retail) is definitely going to give users some pause for thought. Equally, the UGREEN NAS software, still in beta at the time of writing, although very responsive and nailing down the basics, still feels like it needs more work to compete with the bigger boys at Synology and QNAP. Hardware architecture, scalability, and performance are all pretty impressive, though the performance of the Gen 4×4 M.2 NVMe slots didn’t seem to hit the numbers I was expecting. Perhaps a question of PCIe bottlenecking internally, or a need for further tweaking and optimization as the system continues development. Bottom line, with expected software updates to roll out closer to launch and fulfillment, such as an expanded App center and mobile client, the UGREEN DXP4800 Plus is definitely a device worth keeping an eye on in the growing Turnkey and semi-DIY NAS market. As an alternative to public cloud services, this is a no-brainer and worth the entry price point. As an alternative to established Turnkey NAS Solutions, we will hold off judgment till it is publicly released.

  • Approx. Price: $595 / £475

  • Specs: Intel Pentium Gold 8505 (6-thread), 8 GB DDR5, 4×SATA + 2×M.2 slots, 1×10GbE and 1×2.5GbE, plus HDMI, USB-C, USB-A, and SD reader.

  • Why It’s Attractive: Well-rounded design with rich connectivity and media support, undercuts most rivals on price and features.

SOFTWARE - 6/10
HARDWARE - 9/10
PERFORMANCE - 6/10
PRICE - 9/10
VALUE - 8/10


7.6
PROS
👍🏻Exceptional Hardware for the Price
👍🏻4 HDDs + 2x Gen 4x4 M.2 in 1 box under $400
👍🏻Good Balanced CPU choice in the Pentium Gold 8505
👍🏻10GbE and 2.5GbE as standard
👍🏻An SD Card Slot (wielrd rare!)
👍🏻10/10 Build Quality
👍🏻Great Scalability
👍🏻Fantastic Mobile Application (even vs Synology and QNAP etc)
👍🏻Desktop/Browser GUI shows promise
👍🏻Established Brand entering the NAS Market
👍🏻Not too noisy (comparatively)
👍🏻Very Appealing retail package+accessories
CONS
👎🏻10GbE Performance was underwhelming
👎🏻Crowdfunding choice is confusing
👎🏻Software (still in Beta) is still far from ready 22/3/24
👎🏻non-UGREEN PSU is unexpected
👎🏻

 

TerraMaster F4-424 Max / F6-424 Max

The TerraMaster F4-424 Max is a robust 4-bay NAS system that offers a powerful mix of features and flexibility for a wide range of tasks. Powered by the Intel i5-1235U CPU with 10 cores and 12 threads, the F4-424 Max excels at resource-intensive applications such as Plex media streaming, 4K hardware transcoding, and virtual machine hosting. Its dual M.2 NVMe slots running at PCIe Gen 4 speeds significantly improve storage performance, especially when used for caching, while the two 10GbE ports offer high-speed networking environments, allowing for 20Gbps throughput via link aggregation.

In terms of software, TOS 6 brings notable improvements, although it still lags behind the more polished ecosystems of Synology DSM and QNAP QTS. That said, TerraMaster’s continuous software evolution with each new version of TOS ensures that users have access to more robust tools and security features. For its price point of $899.99, the F4-424 Max is a compelling option for those seeking high-performance NAS solutions with scalability in mind. While the Pro model offers competitive performance, the Max takes it a step further with advanced networking, making it ideal for environments where speed is a priority.

  • Approx. Price: $675 / £550 (F4-424 Max, during sale) – $899 / £700 (F6-424 Max, regular)

  • Specs: Intel Core i5-1235U (10-core), 8 GB RAM, dual 10GbE ports, dual M.2, with 4 or 6 SATA bays depending on model.

  • Why It Helps: The F4-424 Max frequently drops below the $800 mark in promotions, offering unusually strong CPU performance and dual 10GbE at a mid-range price point.

Where to Buy?

Terramaster F4-424 Max ($899 Amazon) – HERETerramaster F4-424 Max ($799 Aliexpress) – HERE

SOFTWARE - 6/10
HARDWARE - 9/10
PERFORMANCE - 9/10
PRICE - 9/10
VALUE - 8/10


8.2
PROS
👍🏻Powerful Hardware: Intel i5-1235U with 10 cores and 12 threads for resource-heavy tasks.
👍🏻Dual 10GbE Ports: High-speed networking capabilities with link aggregation for up to 20Gbps, ideal for large file transfers.
👍🏻PCIe Gen 4 NVMe Support: Two M.2 NVMe slots offering exceptional performance for caching or additional high-speed storage.
👍🏻Efficient Cooling: The large 120mm fan ensures quiet and effective cooling, making it suitable for home and office environments.
👍🏻Improved TOS 6 Software: Enhancements in GUI, backup tools, and overall security bring TOS closer to its competitors.
CONS
👎🏻Higher Price Tag: At $899.99, it’s more expensive than TerraMaster’s other models, which may deter budget-conscious buyers.
👎🏻No PCIe Expansion: Lack of a PCIe slot limits potential for future upgrades, such as adding 10GbE cards or more M.2 drives.
👎🏻Presentation: The software has improved a lot, but still feels inconsistent in places compared with alternatives from brands such as Synology and QNAP.

 

📧 SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER 🔔


    🔒 Join Inner Circle

    Get an alert every time something gets added to this specific article!


    Want to follow specific category? 📧 Subscribe

    This description contains links to Amazon. These links will take you to some of the products mentioned in today's content. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Visit the NASCompares Deal Finder to find the best place to buy this device in your region, based on Service, Support and Reputation - Just Search for your NAS Drive in the Box Below

    Need Advice on Data Storage from an Expert?

    Finally, for free advice about your setup, just leave a message in the comments below here at NASCompares.com and we will get back to you. Need Help? Where possible (and where appropriate) please provide as much information about your requirements, as then I can arrange the best answer and solution to your needs. Do not worry about your e-mail address being required, it will NOT be used in a mailing list and will NOT be used in any way other than to respond to your enquiry.

      By clicking SEND you accept this Privacy Policy
      Question will be added on Q&A forum. You will receive an email from us when someone replies to it.
      🔒Private Fast Track Message (1-24Hours)

      TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions
      If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a ☕ Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  
       
      Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US
          
       
      Alternatively, why not ask me on the ASK NASCompares forum, by clicking the button below. This is a community hub that serves as a place that I can answer your question, chew the fat, share new release information and even get corrections posted. I will always get around to answering ALL queries, but as a one-man operation, I cannot promise speed! So by sharing your query in the ASK NASCompares section below, you can get a better range of solutions and suggestions, alongside my own.

      ☕ WE LOVE COFFEE ☕
       
      locked content ko-fi subscribe

      Discover more from NAS Compares

      Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


      DISCUSS with others your opinion about this subject.
      ASK questions to NAS community
      SHARE more details what you have found on this subject
      IMPROVE this niche ecosystem, let us know what to change/fix on this site

      391 thoughts on “5 Mistakes New NAS Buyers ALWAYS MAKE”

      3. if i understand this correctly, unraid mix disk, is perfect for homelabs servers (old dell, hpe, ibm, etc.) with refurbises sas drives. does truenas have something similar?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      4. Long term power usage starts to add up when you consider the drives running 24/7/365 for the next 4 or 5 years at least. I’m looking at replacing my ageing 10 drive 8/12 TB Unraid server with 20 or even 24TB drives and newer hardware that will use less power at idle. A huge setup cost, and that will allow me to use my existing setup as a backup system that powers up occasionally and does a backup of the new server. I’m looking at something with better reliably and a 5+ year minimum lifespan, and my existing unraid server is starting to show its age in terms of power use and reliability.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      5. at the end of the day it depends on how much you are storing. some will need 18 TB * 8 or whatever.
        also: notepad instead of spreadsheet? ????you could’ve normalized for example for 72 TB (18 tb * 4) 3:30
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      6. 2+2+1+1 tb nvme/ssd drives w my desktop for gaming(ofcourse i would have loved haing only 2*4tb but price was about 1/3 w 2tb+1tb drives and w discounts at the moment of purchase i could even buy ram for my previous desktop+ a few cables(even a few bucks left after this last year)

        So why are bigger drives more expensive per 1tb vs samller ones? its more materias n work one would think or is the smaller just so much worse in quality or something?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      7. Well the video is really usefull.you are right, not many are interested in this but for me is crucial. My new home is open space, including where I will put network and my future home made NAS. While my miktotick gear is all passive cooled, for nas I landed on zima2 for it’s passive cooling and 2×20TB in RAID 1 is enough for storage at decent price and with your help I know audio treatmemt of the corner is enough to not not hear it, specially sing it will be reading and writing ONLY when I will be at my pc with my headphones, not when I will be using my hifi system.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      8. More drives means more frequent failures. Less drives means more impact of each failure. This can be compared by doing calculations using the announced MTBF, but some models don’t meet their official MTBF.

        Larger drives tend to have better performances (higher density means less head movements). The way to know which is faster would be to actually measure both configurations.

        One either presents results for specific configurations, which does not help many people, or is bound to end with an “it’s complicated” conclusion. At the end, people choose one or the other on personal preferences and selection criteria. Is consumption or noise important to a YouTuber with a separate server room?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      9. 2 years on this is what i can tell you this. big drives become small drives in the future. thank goodness i went for 18tb drives, bought another one today and just expanded my capacity by 16.4 tb, 2 bays left open and next year i might add yet another 18tb drive, if i had gone for small drives i would need a huge storage bay with 20 hdd, so go big as soon it will be small, 18tb is no longer large in a world of 36 tb drives. capacity is the only reason for hdd use, otherwise go ssd. yes it is expensive and yes the only way to sleep at night is to go raid 6 with large drives.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      11. Go for a home server. Put an left over motherboard, CPU, memory, and PSU in a PC case with a LSI HBA card (hopefully a 16 drive card) and run UNRAID… then you can just put whatever you want (no need to match drives since UNRAID allows for any configuration [SATA HDD, SATA SSD, M.2, U.2, NVMe, USB, SAS, whatever you can connect to your machine] you want (no need to match drive capacities)) in there and as many as you want and add another LSI card as you grow insanely large. Plus you’ll have parity drive redundancy, cache drives (if you want them), add on PCI cards if you want, run dockers, run plugins, run VMs, LAN-wide VPN, and a ton of stuff.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      12. I run a small home Synology just for file archive, an always on backup for my main PC. I have 2x 8TB and recently obtained a 16TB. I can’t see any way of dividing the 16TB into 2 and running two 8TB raid 1 volumes with each 8TB drive using half of the 16TB drive. Manual partitioning would be a very nice feature.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      16. Bigger hdd but never ever EVER a Nas, I simply build a server with filters ventilation etc.
        Way better in terms of performances and everyday use and repairs.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      18. If I could set it up as I imagine, I’d avoid all hardware RAID and go for the highest capacities that work in cheap enclosures that will simply put everything on three devices. Let some automated management software ensure it.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      19. In the two situations you presented in the beginning of the video the 4TB drive was a better option than the 6TB ones.

        5 X 4TB drives = US$525.
        12TB in a RAID6.
        Or 16TB in a RAID5.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      20. Since I know which ever I buy, I have to buy at least an additional one for back up, buying more smaller ones means buying even more or buying the big one for backup which would need a backup.Lol???? Fact is that I bought several 8 TB drives because they were a great price and serve my needs well.????
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      21. Since I know which ever I buy, I have to buy at least an additional one for back up, buying more smaller ones means buying even more or buying the big one for backup which would need a backup.Lol???? Fact is that I bought several 8 TB drives because they were a great price and serve my needs well.????
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      23. i want to say that 30db is very quite , you have 10db there , you would hear your Heart and blood if you were in a room with 10dB. , speech is 70dB , hardly half of it on your meter . But i get it , its not scientific measurement , there is a microphone , its ok . Just saying , the chart is of the scales wrong .
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      24. hi, i’m from the future – HDDs are $10/TB now, so you might as well go big instead of holding a ton of small ones. your failure chance is about proportional to the number of drives you have anyways, so the risk cancels out if you copy-paste (RAID 1 equivalent) every once in a while to a copy
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      25. Hold on….did you really ask “why are they popular”? Or “Why use one”? Those answers are extremely obvious. I mean, they seem so so obvious. You build your first storage server, you’re gonna have all the same size, of course. But upgrade time comes. And you can spend $1,600 to $2,400 OR MORE to replace every single drive with new sizes….or you can spend $300 or $400 for one drive upgrade. I feel like that’s just…I mean…obvious 😐
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      26. The cost of having like a 6 or 8 bay nas and a bunch of smaller drives id rather get a 4 bay and populate with 12tb drives in paritiy, if one fails il just rebuild and im essentially big in the middle sweet spot of price/per tb and setup/storage capacity wise 4 bay makes the most sense.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      29. SHR is a major reason for having stuck with Synology given the flexibility for upgrading storage gradually.

        Since Synology’s vendor lock-in nonsense has convinced me that I need to look for alternatives, TRAID looks like a good alternative to SHR.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      30. 4:45 Spin Up / Idle
        6:35 4GB AJA Performance Benchmark Test (Independent Read & Write)
        8:40 Windows Write
        10:38 Windows Simultaneous Read & Write
        12:08 Power Down
        12:40 Spin Up
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      35. @AhmadZeyadah beat me to it and three years ago at that 🙂 but.. thanks so much for this video 🙂 .. I was going nuts wondering if the hard drive sounds were normal from my exos drive now I know they are 🙂 .. I made the unusual choice of using one in my desktop drive to store files (working out great so far, it was on sale at a great price for the 8 TB version) ..
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      36. I don’t think it was really extremely bad as far as sound goes but hard drives are always going to make noise but I really do think hard drives in general I’ve gotten a lot quieter especially considering some of the old IDE hard drives those things were loud so compared with something much older these things are virtually quiet I could hear it a little bit probably most likely it’ll get a lot louder once you start writing multiple files to it or larger files but like I said before hard drives are always going to be noisy because they have Spinning Disk that are metal but probably most likely when it start writing a lot of data it’s going to be noisy anyways thanks for the video
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      38. I usually go for bigger drives because the cost of smaller drives is always much higher per TB, I generally look for a cost of 11-12 USD or 16-17 CAD per TB as a good value I paid about that for 2 18TB x18 EXOS drives One for my NAS and one for my Desktop/Workstation a few years back from server part deals before they raised the prices up so high it was not worth it anymore. I also do not need redundancy since the data on my DIY NAS is all just media on Jellyfin and some files I have backed up elsewhere. It’s also got a 500GB SSD cache just for good measure.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      39. Right now I am buying off used 500GB HDDs off local market and building a 12 disk array. Works out quite cheap and enough supply is available to buy extra as spare. I am doing this not because I prefer 500GB but because the price is very cheap and available in plenty. I switch it on only twice in a week for taking backups, so small drives doesnt matter much.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      40. While I quite appreciate you doing this test, it could have been done better. -isolate your own talking and noise away from the test, probably recording your commentary seperately. Have more clear graphics of the min/max/average running volume during each test. Cut out the fat in the video, it is painful trying to find relevant information within a 10 minute video that could easy be half that time. And probably offer more clear indicator between each test and what the test is, either via youtube chapters, large obvious graphic on screen, etc. Also a comparison of this to other tested models would be nice.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      43. Remember how processors became more powerful ? Not by increasing processing power per processor, but by increasing number of processors, I.E. cores. Same with the disks: more smaller disks, configured as RAID volumes, with redundancy and striping, managed by hardware accelerated controllers where required.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      45. A lot of hand waving about nothing. The best way to do it is start with a 4 bay or more NAS, and buying 2 of the largest drives you can afford. Run that in RAID 1 (mirroring) until you fill it up. Then add another matching sized drive and switch to RAID 5 or SHR, your space will double. Run that till you fill it up and add one more matching sized drive. Now you’re at max capacity of the array (for a 4 bay) and you fill that up. Then you either buy a NAS with more bays, or you start swapping drives out for larger drives.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      46. I’m new to this. I get how 2 18TB drives equals 1 18TB RAID. I don’t get how 4 6TB drives equal 1 18TB RAID. To me, that only makes sense as a 12 TB RAID. How can one 6 TB drive manage to play defense for 3 entire drives of the same size? Wouldn’t there have to be SOME data loss in the event of a drive failure? I’ve yet to see anything actually explain how this magic works.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      47. Lots of people want mixed raid on day 1 because we have random old drives lying around already. Why buy 4 new drives today when I have 4 drives already just not all the same size?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      50. I think the obveous answer is more big hard drives. – last year I put together a 36 bay server chasis, currently with 3x 8 disk raidz2 vdevs (2 16tb and 1x 14tb), and I’ve got room for 1 more vdev worth of disks to expand.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      51. As I mentioned to another user here in the comments:

        To clarify, yes, 3dB is actually a doubling of sound output, but it doesn’t take into account the typical way a human ear/brain housing group combo perceives the loudness. In all of the research out there, scientists have found that it take (on average) ~+6dB in low freqs & ~+10dB in high freqs to have a human perceive a doubling in sound output.

        Now the issue w/ this test, even w/ the post-processing made to single out the noise. The recorded sound file is compressed to be posted on Youtube, so what you hear via the video will never be what you would actually hear IRL. Additionally, the noise floor of a quiet room is around 25-35dB. An HDD at ~10dB would not be heard over the ambient noise of the room. Likely what you’re hearing isn’t the drive, it’s likely the vibration of the drive transferred to the drive cage, fasteners, & chassis the drive is mounted in. So, my recommendation is get thin sheets of foam/rubber & start using it to dampen all of your case panels (like dynomat for mobile audio systems), get rubber or silicone o-rings or even use silicone caulk for fasteners, etc. I know that’s a lot of work, but if you’re sensitive enough to care about that type of noise & refuse to relocate the rig you installed the drives in, then this is really your only option.

        Honestly, your case fans likely make more noise than any HDD out there, unless you’re using like 180mm to 200mm fans at low RPM, so IMO, being concerned about drive noise in smaller at-home systems is a bit ridiculous.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      53. I personally prefer a few large capacity drives. Get a NAS with multiple bays and buy 2 or 3 16TB drives. When you need more storage buy another drive and add it to the pool. Drives also get cheaper over time.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      55. Like you may mention this yourself, but the funny thing is that if your building your own NAS ITX cases are actually more expensive, ITX motherboards are more expensive, so when building your own NAS is actually often the same price or cheaper to have the ability to have more drives, but that comes at the cost of the cases not being made to be compact so they do take up more space.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      56. To save everyone a lot of time: Here’s what chatGPT had to say about this :

        More Drives vs. Bigger Disks for NAS
        Factor More Drives Bigger Disks
        Performance More drives = higher IOPS & throughput (RAID benefits) Fewer drives = less overall performance
        Redundancy Better redundancy with RAID (e.g., RAID 5/6/10) Fewer drives = Higher risk of multiple failures
        Capacity Growth Easier to expand by adding drives (if NAS supports it) Can be limiting unless you replace all drives
        Power Usage More drives consume more power Fewer drives use less power
        Cost Efficiency More small drives can be cost-effective at times Bigger drives may have a lower $/TB cost
        Failure Risk More drives = higher chance of individual failures Fewer drives, but longer rebuild times if one fails
        RAID Rebuild Time Faster rebuilds (especially in RAID 5/6) Longer rebuilds = higher risk of failure during recovery
        General Recommendations:
        If you prioritize performance & redundancy, go with more drives (e.g., RAID 10, RAID 6).
        If you want higher capacity with fewer slots, use bigger disks.
        If you have limited NAS bays, opt for the largest disks you can afford.
        If your NAS supports ZFS (like TrueNAS), more drives help with redundancy and performance.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      58. Just shy of two minutes in, and already something needs addressing.

        IronWolf drives are currently more expensive than the more capable Exos drives of the same capacity. Always check between NAS and enterprise versions of a particular brand before choosing, though don’t go with standard NAS for WD because of SMR (which I’m sure will be covered at a later point in this video).

        I guess the main point is, when in doubt, look for enterprise versions of a drive first, then see if the NAS versions are cheaper. Then make sure those NAS versions don’t have some crippling drawback like SMR.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      59. Many smaller drives in raid config require a more expensive NAS with more HDD slots and also uses more power than a couple of big HDDs. You can even run single large HDD 24/7 with scheduled rsync tasks to avoid using the second drive too much and extend it’s lifetime. In most home NAS cases you don’t need 24/7 access to the NAS, as it’s mostly there to provide media streaming when you’re free after work. And for this specific use case a couple of larger disks in raid1 or noraid with rsync makes more sense and helps to reduce electricity bills.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      60. I have a Seagate EXOS X10, and it makes a repeating sound of three tiny clicks, like a head park (I think), but I don’t know if that’s an issue. Sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s on a desktop, and I just don’t know if it’s OK, or something to worry about. Anyone know if a quiet 3X click is normal for these? It tests good, and there are no SMART errors. It sounds like when the EXOS wss powered on in the video. I guess it’s the repeating rhythm that has me concerned.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      61. I’ve been researching NAS for a while, and when I build one, it will be big.

        For now, i have a single 20tb hdd, in a single bay enclosure.

        I only put 4k video of which I have a low res back up, and once I’m ready to build the nas, ill transfer everything over.

        I just have to cross my fingers between now and then 🙂
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      67. I think you got most of it, what you maybe have not talked about is that if you use RAID 6 can you buy different drives at different times from different brands and over time slowly switching drive out as you see fit, you do never have to put the system offline, and you do never have to copy one large drive to a new one. In short, just feed a new HDD once in a while and the system will never go down.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      69. The problem I have is the helium drive vibrating the external case which in turn vibrates the walls of my house. Perhaps a more realistic test would be the drive mounted in metal case on a table instead of on foam.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      71. I started with 6 6TB. Wish I got larger drives. Cheaper per TB and more efficient. That said, I got dual parity for my important files and now 24TB drives for media that I can simply redownload.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      72. i was just looking at gettig a second hand synology DS413 which has 3 2 tb disks in 3 of the 4 bays and i was considering taking the 4 tb sata drive out pf my old seagate personal cloud and installing it in the 4th bay. would that be possible and work?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      79. Virtualised NAS: 2 pools of 4Tb x3 with 60Gb RAM (read cache) + NVMe special device mirror (50Gb) for small blocks (<128k)
        Prioritised sound so they are 5900 vs 7200rpm with rubber tray mounts
        Checkout the Backblaze HDD failure rates (manufacturer, capacity) especially before believing the marketing for _Enterprise_ or _Pro_ drives
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      81. Do QNAP units support this sort of feature, I’m looking at investing in a simple 4bay unit for ‘learning’ purposes and looking on second hand sites for a sensible price; such as the TS-464 or similar; populating it with maybe 2 or 3 drives of a simialr size before replacing two of them with something larger when I’m ready to use the system more demandingly.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      82. Windows does something similar with storage spaces and can build a usb array of different size drives. I use a flexible tnas and windows and a traditional tnas raid 5 and there is definitely a big performance hit with flexible systems. That being said they are fine for 1gb nas boxes as the performance of a 1gb link is not great. The use of raid for any performance has to an extent been negated by pcie4 nvme drives which are cheap and very fast when built into workstations so nas boxes are less about performance and more for mirroring and sharing, so I think flexible storage should be added to all raid boxes so they can continue to be used as network storage as newer fast performance tech makes the traditional nas a little less relevant
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      83. Hybrid raid is my goto.. just cheap to upgrade 1 drive in stead of my entire array. I’m frustrated that there’s no software solution that does what terramaster/synology does (and drobo in the past). I like unraid and no real complaints, but yeh single drive performance is a pain often.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      84. The only proper solution is more hard drives that are bigger. I don’t want to put smaller hard drives because it just eats up space that a bigger hard drive can go into instead.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      88. A very informative video for sure.
        I’m at the point where I am slowly upgrading my offline nas… my nas is a repurposed PC. It is a repurposed PC with space for 10 spinning rusts (with 5in adapters) and 4 2.5in drives.
        And the kicker, is that it’s all sitting on windows storage spaces.

        My problem is, I can not move to something like truenas or w/e because all my stuff is on storage spaces already. I do not have enough free space to do a local copy, and I couldn’t figure out how I could download from a cloud provider from truenas so I was kind of screwd and had to revert back to windows =(
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      89. It would be nice if you also discussed mergerfs + snapraid as an approximation for unraid storage. OpenMediaVault has plugins that support these two features. Seems fairly popular among OMV users who want to take advantage of the mixed drive scenarios you described. Like unraid, you can spin down the individual drives not in use to save power. Also in an emergency, you can yank out individual drives to access the data from another system since each drive has an underlying filesystem. Not sure if unraid has this feature (never used it).
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      90. Why didn’t you give some numbers?
        Frankly, I only care if the reduced performance can still max out the 1Gbit/s connection. If that is the case, i have a good 5 years before its an issue, and i’ll replace the drives and the NAS system
        then.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      93. 20 bays in my Fractal Define 7 XL. I’m not populating all of that from day 1! First of all I don’t need that much on day 1 — they’d just be spun up and idling and wearing out. Second, TB/$ presumably goes down with time. Why buy 20x 16tb drives today when in 2 or 5 years time you could grab 20tb drives at or around the same price? Third, what if some SSD breakthrough tomorrow gives huge capacities at reasonable prices rendering spinning drives obsolete? I’d have a bunch of obsolete expensive drives when I’d rather have their SSD equivalent. In short, it’s silly to populate all at once when you don’t need the space yet. Software RAID that can’t handle variable drive sizes are no bueno !!
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      94. I’m pretty new to the NAS space, so I thought Synology’s SHR was the ONLY mixed-drive raid option. It’s good to know there are other choices.

        I’ve been thinking about it in the case you described at the start of the video: “what if I want to upgrade the size of my NAS drives LATER?”
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      95. One little clarification. You can add a single larger drive to your array, but it will only use the size of the next largest drive until you put a second drive in. If you have 2tb and 10tb drives in your system and swap a 2tb with a 20tb, you only get an additional 8tb.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      96. As a home user, a flexible solution has been my fallback. I do not know what i need 10 years from now and couldn’t afford it if I did. My first NAS started out as an eaght bay rack with some old drives that I had collected over the years. My last one was also an empty bay with drives from previous upgrades to other NAS. If you can’t afford to buy all of the drives at the same time, then it a good way to go.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      97. I’ve been using different size drives in my Dell R510 12 bay since I got it. Truenas with a single RAID6 vdev. I use 3 drive sizes, 4 of each. When I run low on space, I just need to replace 4 of the smallest drives so that they become the biggest size and my storage is increased. Is three wasted space? Yes but upgrading costs less since I need to buy 4 drives instead upgrading all 12.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      98. I love SHR and the flexibility that it offers me for my home network. SHR and its ilk may not be as stable, robust, or whatever you want to call it but it works for me. It reminds me of my office back in 1984. We had a DEC mini computer which huge removable hard drives and a DEC word processor which ran on 8 inch floppy drives. When I decided to switch to the then new PC based word processor, Word Perfect, the DEC experts said I was crazy because it wasn’t as stable, robust, etc at the DEC systems. I wonder how it would have turned out for us if we had just stayed with DEC all these years later… Far too many “experts” don’t realize that we don’t all live in their worlds and these more flexible systems are more than capable enough to handle many lesser demanding situations.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      100. Where I worked, back around 2010, we paid an EMC expert – to configure an EMC SAN; he did some voodoo, essentially breaking up drives into half ( all of them ) and then assigned half of the “half drives” to one storage controller and the other half to the other storage controller; let’s say that performance was extremely BAD ; think about it, in order for a controller to read or write to a particular chunk of a particular drive, it either owned the drive at the moment, or it had to wait for the other controller give up control of the drive. In short, the SAN had abysmal performance; and I ended up having to re-build the entire thing while still in production. So, I can certainly understand why certain brands want to limit their products to conventional storage types and methods; performance is something everyone wants, but if you buy a product, and it’s performance is handicapped by the drives that the end user selects, well, it tarnishes the manufacturer’s reputation. The more one spends on hardware/software, well, the more that person/business expects out of their investment.

        Now with today’s drives moving towards solid state, well, I can see where this might be less of an issue; but I can also see engineers arguing for absolute best performance.. Yes, I wish my NAS’s here at the house did allow for mixed drives; but reality is eventually I’ll end up finding a replacement for my aging NAS’s anyways. I’ll probably opt towards a full on NVME solution..
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      101. Mixing drives is like building a PC from used outdated components. Come on guys, your data deserves to be treated with respect. If it’s not valuable, whats the point in redundancy in the first place?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      103. isn’t this the same as having a double raid array on 1 drive ? i believe qnap had this if so , also this kinda unraid , the largest drive is parity and you can add many dif capacity drives if stay below the parity
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      107. Hybrid raid is…. Really bad. The way most vendors implement it, it’s at best slow and gives you a false sense of security, at worst, it’s negligent for it to be even present and you should stop paying companies to have the opportunity to obliterate your data.

        The way Unraid specifically is engineered is egregiously terrible, and almost every single thing I’ve ever seen from people with any reasonably sized unraid installs have ended with them losing all their data.

        A bunch of filesystems, loop mounted and combined with FUSE – the way unraid is, is disgustingly bad.

        The real answer to which you should use and trust, is none of them.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      110. Unraid is quite the compelling option for running a Plex media server with mixed drive sizes. The ability to spin down drives when not in use is also a nice power saving feature.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      111. The performance hit is a big deal. If you need slower bulk storage it’s not a bad option. My tertiary storage solution will use Greyhole and mostly asleep.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      113. I feel like when you buy a NAS you should populate every bay with the largest drive you can afford (at least unless you’re getting something bigger than 8 bays, in which case 8 is a good start), so I only really see this being useful if you want to slowly upgrade your drives to a bigger size every time one dies. But really, the better way to go about it if you can swing a backup NAS is to just backup all your data to that one, then upgrade your drives all at once and reinitialize the RAID array, then copy stuff over. Too much performance and capacity lost in a flexible array like this.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      116. I never found it appealing as drives are cheap these days and when something goes into production I want it all new. The speed hit when you mix drives isnt worth it, its a novelty…
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      117. I can understand it would be appealing as a “solution” for some scenarios and users.
        For some the pro’s will outweigh the con’s.
        I see it as a rather “handy to have” in case of an urgent need. (e.g. drives have failed and you have no other replacements on short-term then a bunch of smaller capacity disks)
        But in best practices should be avoided, if possible.
        So, I deemed it as nice-to-have but not really needed.
        I rather fill-up all my slots and go for the maximum capacity of a NAS.
        Also thinking about the performance- and capacity-loss in such a flexible RAID environments.
        When using a NAS, you will need to plan ahead, plan also for some future. (expansion, replacement, updates and upgrades)
        And that would include, I personally believe, planning perhaps for some (cold) spare drives.
        In such scenarios a flexible RAID wouldn’t be needed IMHO.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      121. Lots of good points for both sides but you didn’t answer the question:”Which is better?” Please make a video with the conclusion and thus the answer. If you don’t have an answer it is just clickbait and you should have chosen a different title.
        That being said I liked thevideo.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      124. Another point to consider is when the inevitable drive failure happens…
        How long does it take to rebuild the array?

        My 12TB RAID5 array takes ~23 hours to parity check or rebuild a failed disk.

        The bigger the disks, the longer the rebuild. If your bought a batch of disks from the same retailer at the same time (common thing to do)… will a 2nd disk fail during the rebuild?

        So another tip – buy your disks from different retailers (2 from here, 2 from there kind of strategy)… hopefully you will get disks from different manufacturing lines or at least different batches to reduce the likelihood of simultaneous failures.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      129. Another specific advantage, related to the advantage of simultaneous reads & writes on multiple disks, is that you can tune a RDBMS so it purposely spreads data across multiple drives and even platters to optimize access, especially for searches.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      130. Sadly I’m seeing this a year late. Anyway, I don’t think you hit reliability as might relate to density. I’ve wondered if an ultra-high-density drive can really and consistently have as few errors as lower-density drives, and if it is much more sensitive to movement and shock.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      131. Dude your pool of teeth is degraded. You still have some redundancy but you need to add new teeth and resilver ASAP or you won’t be able to chew anymore.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      133. Great video. One tip from lil ol me. First nas I ever used I bought 4 identical drives same make, model, style type. Unintended consequence was……. Same mtf. All the drives started failing close to each other. Next nas I made sure had a mix of different brands, different styles, mix of new and used. That should spread out the failures to different times
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      134. More drives is always better. If you have one disk drive, failure of that one drive and you could loose everything. With more drives, you can run a raid array. With options for mirrors drives. Options to strip across drives for incredible speed. Or data protection using a drive for bit checking to ensure data stays intact. Just swap out the bad drive. And then the ultimate, use them all together. Speed, reliability. So many options. More is always better.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      135. Also remember: an active raid is not a permanent backup solution, it’s a stop-gap. You should always do regular backups to an offline media as well. I suggest a raid 5/6 for active use and backups then a mirrored external for offline. backups.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      137. The “not all eggs in one basket” is a bad figure for RAID5. Speaking from probability of losing your data, using LESS drives is better. Let’s say the drive failure rate is 3% per year.

        – 2×6 TB RAID1: probability of losing ALL data (2 drives fail same year) = 0.03 * 0.03 = 0.09% per year
        – 4×2 TB RAID5: probability of losing ALL data (2 drives failure plus 3 drives failure plus 4 drives) = 0.518 % per year

        so the RAID1 is A LOT safer BECAUSE it’s using a double safe basket instead of multiple baskets that are connected and ALL fail if 2+ fail
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      141. I prefer drives under 4TB as I find them to be more bulletproof. Bigger video and game files as well as AI models have caused me to now need large capacity drives. I been on a computer since DOS. My first PC had a 100MB IDE drive. I used that drive till IDE was fazed out and SATA became the standard. It never died nor slowed down. But it did sound like the Predator from the movie. I stopped using it cause IDE was just too slow. I am 40 years old and I have drives that I had when I was a teenager that still work fine today. The one that runs my pfSense is a 2.5 inch that has been in a laptop for about 6 years till it went in my Desktop for extra storage for about another 5 years and now runs my firewall. Its the only old drive I have that clicks. Been clicking for years now but will not die. But every singe 4TB or larger drive I get will need to be replaced at some point cause they are sensitive like lil girls.

        Vibration or noise or impact or temps or looking at it too long will break it. I have spare large drives just in my closet. No small drives cause they just won’t stop. That 2.5 120GB has been in bumpy cars, dropped 100’s of times, bumped into, ran sitting upright, ran upside down, sideways, slanted, its older than some peoples children, and still clicks along. Its seen soo many video drivers, windows updates and PornHub. But 4TB and up…a loud noise might startle the thing and make it slap its forehead with the back of its hand as it faints. You gotta wake it back up in the controller. Shaking a grown man and he will most likely survive. Don’t do that with a baby. But HDD’s is different. You can shake the baby HDD’s but if you shake the big grown HDD’s they are dead dead dead. We are at a age now where files are big now so I am building out a server rack using large HDD’s not because I need a server rack but because the server rack needs a safe place to even be a server or NAS like Hollywood. PC’s are built different. They will save mkv’s and load steam in the streets of Brooklyn even after being dropped violently because a bee flew in your face and swatting at it and missing the bee made you smack the PC on to the ground. Them small capacity drives are built like 50 Cent
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      142. I’m thinking of buying Exos or Ironwolf pro both 14tb. The Exos is $20 cheaper but I’m worried of the noise. I’m currently running 4tb Ironwolf.
        Any suggestions?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      143. IME, few motherboards have more than 8 sata ports, and most around 4. It’s definitely a better idea to use the largest drives available. Also, I don’t trust these NAS. I take something with ECC RAM and put linux on it, currently btrfs raid-1 with triple redundancy. So it can lose up to 3 drives and not lose data. I trust the code and security updates from Debian way over those a NAS gets.
        I play with datasets for AI, and have accumulated over 72 TB of data, half of which is probably not essential, but makes reproducibility easier.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      146. Gr9 vid man! Appreciate you going thru all of the various different perspectives and angles of all of this info! My plan is 6 drives, raid 6, at least 2 systems, 1 system as backup, 1 system live, large format drives, not going to be cheap, but want the redundancy of raid and mirror, allowing up to 2 drive failures at one time. Most likely just Truenas scale at this point. Subbed and liked! Keep up the great work!
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      147. Things are even more interesting when looking at CEPH instead of a single NAS. Off course you need at least 3 servers and fast and dedicated network
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      149. I Have 3 Of The 12TB EXOS 16 Drives And 3 Of The EXOS 16 14TB Drives! I Have Never Been Able To Get 250MB/Second But Since i Am Using A USB3 Enclosure I Dont Think I Ever Will!! I Use These To Back Up All of My DVR’ed TV Shows That I Have Been Collecting Since I Built My 1st PC Back In 2005! That # Is In The 10’s Of Thousands Now! Since I Bought These Drives Refurbished I Expect 1 To Fail Anyday! But They Have Not! The Oldest drive Being In My Possession For 2+ Years!
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      151. Is it possible to set up my NAS to copy over from a HDD to SSD and paste back on shutdown? Or just work in parallel with the SSD as a main refference and buffer stack any writes that the HDD can’t keep up. I preordered myself a 6bay + 2 m.2 Ugreen NAS. I worry that the biggest size SSDs are 8TB, but I could add two and have 16TB, somehow copy that to a HDD. And any less important data on normal HDDS
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      152. He’s math aint mathing you used 3 6TB’s when you need 4, 2 6TBs for 12TBs and need 2 6TBs for the extra 12TBs for redundancy.

        So here’s the math you mess up on 1 6TB=158 1 12TB=258 right so 4 6TB=632 and 2 12TB=516 so you are spending 116$ more and I guess you didn’t see you have 1 lass drive when you’re doing this or YOU are trying to miss lead people on what you are doing here.

        People double extra check you’re math when you are calculating.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      153. This isn’t strictly relevant to this specific video but I’m asking advice I’ve been given the task of assembling a moderately large NAS for a small company.
        I’ve decided I am going to include cache but it’s the type to get I’m confused by.
        It happens to be a Synology NAS I’ve gone for, and I noticed that specific types of M.2 Sara or nvme are recommended. It basically narrowed it down to WD Red, FireCuda 520 and Synolgy’s own 400 or 800Gb Nvme.
        My initial reflex was that it was probably a good idea to go for Synology as it’s the same make as the enclosure but 400Gb of Synology SNV3410 Cache is about twice as expensive as 1Tb of WD Red nvme.
        Why is this and is there anything that justifies this price difference?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      154. This is sort of a strange take imo… it isolates an issue that cannot really be isolated like that in reality. There are too many variables to take every factor in a generalistic way and have it be useful.
        So in a way you have to establish a sort of brake point – above X cost the value of data isn’t enough to justify the cost of keeping it. What I mean is that in principle you should have a NAS by a different vendor using different drives in a different location, to your primary. Realistically most peoples data is not “worth” that kind of solution run privately. So the most important thing really is to determine what data is worth enough effort to really make sure it isn’t lost. Back that up across several solutions. Like USB sticks etc. The rest? Yolo 😉
        If you want to mess with this stuff as a hobby, all the power to you, but do back the important stuff up some other way too. Preferably “off site” however you prefer to do that.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      156. Bigger drives are better. But if the data is important to you, the cheapest way (if it is not for professional needs), get the biggest drive vs price you need, and have an extra one as backup you dont use except for backup. Keep that backup away from power in some storage shelves or so. Hdd you dont use last very long. Had a drive from 10 years ago that I almost never used and put it in ‘cold’ storage, so unplugged in a shelves, and worked like a Sharm.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      157. I’ll put this out there for anyone to answer – I contacted MSI to ask them and the reply was basically “No Idea – let us know how you get on”. I have an MSI Tomahawk Max II Mobo, running a 5600X and 32GB DDR4 3200mhz. Because I have a 4x Nvme 2TB boot, I only have 4 SATA drives available (I don’t bother with a DVD). I have added a 7 port USB 3.2 card. So I’m running about 72-76TB of drives. I want to expand that a lot. The internals are only 500GB – I want to take them to 18TB. Will my chipset support that? Even MSI said “Meh – Dunno”. Has anyone here done it? Its a very expensive experiment if it fails….
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      160. too long, waste of time and doesn’t answer the question
        what is it better? 2 units of ssd 2T or 1 unit of SSD 4T?
        of course when it comes to performance
        and of course same brand and type, like sandisk ultra 3D
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      161. I realize that bigger ‘pro’ drive would be more reliable, NAS class/designed to be better, that’s why their also more expensive to the identical desktop version… BUT to make these lager capacity cheaper, one way *would* be to make them in desktop class and loose that extra reliability you only pay on ‘pro’

        Plus, to limit higher capacity to RED drives etc, manufactures get more money, and users don;t have a choice if its not there.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      162. Per gig is cheap now-a-days. However, i don’t think i should admit i still use Barracuda desktop drives in my NAS…

        Their cheap, compared to RED drives and IronWolf.. Besides,from past experiences, they ‘whine’ allot in idle mode… Could of just been bad drive, but i doubt. These were 4TB drives

        Also, power-saving can make up the difference between buying big drives… The presumption your making is NAS’s are designed to be on all the time and active all the time, which is not always true. There is always going sections of ‘idle’, time, (particularly after midnight),. If you have Scheduled backups going on a QNAP, your gonna allow a few hour either way before the next starts to prevent possible increased failure. In that time space, the dives will spin down after 30 mins (usually) thus saving power. If you work that over a given year, that’s still a bit of energy saved right there.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      163. Its truly impressive how the Seagate Exos 7E8 seem more silent than even a Western Digital Red Plus when it comes to pure writing operations. The only problem soundwise seem to be happening once its reading & writing at the same time. It seems the only noise problems you will have when using this one PS4/PS5 system woul be on spinup. As idont think its made to read / write simontaneously? But correct me if im wrong here..? ????
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      164. When I first got a NAS for mass storage I got a 4 bay NAS and filled it with 4TB drives, it was nearly full after 4 years and I upgraded the drives inside it with 4 10TB drives.
        I back up the most important data off on the NAS over the movies.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      165. Honestly I just have a bunch of 4tb red drives (every seagate I have ever bought failed within a year.. all of them..) My reasoning is its easier to replace a 4tb drive than an 18tb drive. Both in cost and in time. If I fail on a rebuild then I only loose 4tb of data. (I use unraid) I only backup what I can’t get back (pictures, home movies, etc. I can always re rip my dvds and such. 3-2-1 can get expensive otherwise. Especially with larger drives.

        The little nas boxes seem pretty neat but frankly an old pc with an hba card is all you need. Buy unraid once (or use truenas, openmediavault, linux, whatever you prefer) works. I prefer unraid because of the way it works. Even if you fail on a rebuild you only loose whats on the failed drive. With raid you loose the whole pool. With nas boxes your upgrade path is kinda expensive. With other options you can just use your old pc when you upgrade.

        My 2 cents worth. A lot of options. Depends on risk, time, and finances. Everyone’s mileage will vary.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      167. I enjoyed this video very much! Very informative!!! What I would have like to see is a graph that shows where the flipping point is to decide on more or larger drives, including the NAS itself.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      168. Well, if you follow technology you would know that ceramic glass memory has been proven to be a much smaller, cooler and vastly larger in size capability that the current SSD and HDDs. The Ceramic Memory Drives will be integrating over the next 5-10 years and the HDD will be as useless as the VHS and 8track tapes. So… no need to currently buy anything bigger than 200% of your needs, as you will be replacing them before you fill them.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      172. you start with saying smaller drives are cheaper, and while they are cheaper as singles, if I were to buy a skyhawk 4tb its 21.5 per tb, a 20tb is 17.2 per tb.
        an exos is bigger disparity, in favor of larger drives.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      173. The answer is simple: the best is to have lots of big drives!
        Crib the storage perspective, of course, not the noise/power consumption.
        Of course, with larger drives one should be very sure of the backups. And preferably use 2-disk redundancy to boot. It may be also result in higher ram usage.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      175. Select drives based on workload and never mix workloads.

        If you’re recording surveillance 24/7 don’t mix that with other data. The surveillance activity is going to wear out drives faster. Putting other data into that mix is putting that data a risk.

        So you might need bigger drives for surveillance and maybe smaller drives for your other stuff. Create separate arrays to separate the workloads and buy drives that make sense for each workload.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      177. You talk about the possible more possible points of failure.. but you miss the big point with Raid 5 vs Raid 1… raid 1, if one drive dies.. you take it out.. order a new one.. re-raid it when you get it.. with raid 5.. when one fails.. you have to get another drive and rebuild it.. b ut while that is going on.. the entire raid is OFFLINE.. so I normally recommend.. if you RAID 5.. order a spare to minimize the downtime…
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      179. Here is how I do it: get the price divided by total capacity to get $/TB. That is the true cost of your storage. Then you can compare apple to apple on all of your drive options and pick the cheapest one.

        Just note that there is a trade off. The more drives you have, the more power it is going to draw and the more points of failures there are in your system.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      180. I wait for special CPU with lots of PCIe lanes and very little CPU power consumption. They would need a verys special design, so i guess i will have to wait forever before i can get a Raspberry Pie like system with 128 PCIe lanes (remember, they don’t need to be active all at once, but you can’t reconnect them dynamically as they are point to point, not a bus).
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      184. I feel like power consumption… isn’t a factor. You’re going to consume more power. You should expect that.

        Also noise… isn’t a factor. HDDs make noise. If you don’t want noise, don’t get HDDs.

        Here are my take-aways:

        1. Don’t just get 2 drives. Because you’ll end up using one for parity only and waste the space you could use.

        2. Get 4-5 smaller drives at once so you can benefit from the performance boost. This also ensures you can have more useable space over all.

        Unless you have the cash to fill out 4-5 18TB drives in your NAS, just get smaller drives. Then you can have better performance and more redundancy.

        If you didn’t want high power consumption and lots of noise, you shouldn’t be buying a NAS and filling it full of HDDs.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      186. I’d always lean towards getting a bigger NAS and smaller drives rather than bigger drives and smaller NAS. There’s more options in terms of backup and space options.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      190. You know what, I have been researching to having a solution for iCloud and Google One Drive because I am really struggling saving my image RAW files and videos. Then all on a sudden a photographer Tony Northrup brought the light of a NAS! I did not know what NAS is until couple of weeks ago! Then I started to do my own research and found you. I know you dont have smooth voice and attraction catching vocal gestures, but I find myself in you, I would want to express my research so that people can decide what’s best for them. I have found the same agony in you. You are like a tech big brother who wants to advice whats best for us instead biased brand marketing. I like your videos. Just wanted to pay my gratitude because I know, a small wish can boost up the moral energy a lot cause you have done so much research, night and day sleepless time. I know for the video but I know it’s for the people whom you want to help so desperately. Thank you so so much.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      191. More bays: allows expansion, means you can postphone an upgrade. Clarifying your data increase is also important. Duplicate finder is alao a good way to save money here.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      195. compared my 4TB WD black desktop drive, it’s not bad and honestly my WD black seems louder, although I prefer the deeper, crunchy sounds of the WD black compared to these higher pitched ticks
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      196. hdd hum is something that drives me mad, I can stand the ticking etc but the hum goes right through me and i can hear it from one end of the house to the other.
        So for now I’m just doing manual backups and using local storage, no networking.( I really dont trust networking much when it comes to viruses etc ).
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      197. Cheaper more drives but what about power consumption? More watts consumed or is the same? Let’s say will last 6 years and had to pay more electricity ⚡️ during those 6 years that also impact
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      199. Would it be a good idea to have the redundancy drive twice as big as the primary drive so that when the primary drive fills up, the redundancy drive can become the primary drive and then get another redundancy drive twice as big as the new primarry drive and the original primary drive can be put in another location for storage?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      201. Having not watched the video… both have their benefits and drawbacks.

        Benefits:
        More means higher throughput can be achieved and higher levels of redundancy can be gained making the setup more resilient when it comes to disk failure.
        Bigger means less power draw, less vibrations and less potential heat, less physical space used and more capacity.

        Drawbacks:
        More disks is more power draw, more vibrations more heat production and more physical space used. With the added redundancy comes less capacity as the redundancy means disks are there just to cover the situation where one or potentially more disks fail protecting you from data loss in those cases.
        Bigger disks means less options for redundancy as you have less individual disks, less theoretical throughput and often higher cost because even though the cost per GB drops the amount of GB’s per disk is significantly higher.

        In the end it does not matter much which one you pick as long as you first take some time and think about what your goal is with the setup maximum redundancy and not to concerned about max capacity well more disks is better. Maximum capacity and not to concerned about the data’s longevity less big disks is the best option. If your chosen NAS enclosure allows for more disks than you are currently using then less but bigger might also be a good option as it will allow you to grow the storage capacity over time.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      203. OK Typed up a long post and then lost it all… So here is a short version.

        Check the manufacturers HCL (hardware compatibility list) before buying drives. And if you don’t find a drive of the capacity you want then consider if it’s worth the risk. RAID controllers can be real finicky about drives.

        You may feel SATA and SAS is mature tech and there should be no compatibility problems, but there are and there will be more. I’ve worked with (from memory) Adaptec, Areca, Raidcore, 3Ware and LSI. Sometimes the compatibility problems are blatantly obvious, but sometimes they are a creeping problem that takes time to develop, and they don’t get better with time. Sometimes a firmware upgrade of the drives or the controller can help, but there’s no guarantee that either is coming if you start out with incompatible hardware.

        Also stress test the arrays before your start using them. Run every storage test you can think of on them, and then try some more. Check the RAID logs and take note of any warnings. You don’t want warnings! Not even the non critical kind. Make sure there’s as little vibrations as possible. Vibrations can play havoc with RAID arrays even if they are not strong enough to cause a head crash.

        Also don’t use Shingled magnetic hard drives. They are a pain when used for RAID.

        Temperature! A interesting paper published by a storage company probably a decade ago showed that the ideal running temp for HDD’s seems to be between 35 and 45 °C. Higher or lower temperatures showed increased failure rate. But don’t take this as gospel. However we do know that high temperatures are bad in general, and 40°C is a quite easy target for HDD’s.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      204. I have been looking at a bunch of drives and the exos are the cheapest by far price per tb wise. But the reviews are 50/50 going from “so loud you can hear it through walls” to “I can put my ear up to it without hearing much”
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      205. I don’t have that much data, so I end up just refreshing 2.5″ hdd every few years, and use the surviving older one as redundancy backup. as time goes on, newer drive will be cheaper with more tb, so if I don’t need those 16tb at once right now, I can just buy 4, 5, 5, 6 over the years whenever I need one. Currently have 500gb, 750gb, 1tb (dead), 2tb, 4tb, 4tb, 5tb, 1tb sata ssd, 2tb nvme

        Sure multiple points of failure, but at the same time it’s not all eggs in one basket. I did once have 1tb hdd when it was huge in 2009, backup all my files, then trip on the power cable, making the drive dead, with all the 1tb data I just sorted. So nowI list down list of file I have in an excel sheet in gdrive. so if one broke down, I know exactly what data it stored. Especially if I have 1 hdd for 1 tipe of stuff. that one is for x, this one for y, this one for z. so I won’t need to find z in x.

        Personal use 20tb should be more than suffice. which is probably 4x5tb or 5×4 tb. 450-500 usd probably. All my photos from 2010 is only around 400gb jpg. and since current hdds are 4-5tb or so, yea I can manage to save more copies in more drives.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      206. Hi I’m using the same exact sabrent dock you have and exos x20 20tb. But its not showing on my laptop legion 7 6th gen. What could be the problem or do I have to do something to make it show?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      208. If you have seriously important data don’t use a NAS use a SAN, lots of drives only generally gives a performance increase only for reading not writing, RAID on NAS devices usually has some restrictions based on implementation of the standards of the supplier vs on board raid provided by server manufacturers. NAS providers are great at vendor lock-in. Also make sure you buy drives compatible with the NAS as they don’t cover warranty issues otherwise. Generally pro series drives offer 5year warranty non pro are 2-3 years
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      209. huge enterprise drives can go 300mb/s sequential while a 4 or 6tb drive usually cant even hit 200mb/s especially if they’re 5400rpm so fewer disks can be as fast depending on the size difference. Also, the power use is substantial when using more disks. disk power usage can be more than the rest of the entire system combined when talking about 10+ disks
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      210. More mechanical parts are wearing down using smaller drives vs few less drives same as a car with three small gas engines vs one larger most likely one of three water pumps will fail before warranty
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      212. clip starts after 1 minute intro. In 1 minute I explain the easy facts 😉
        More drives: good for raid level 5 or higher. Where raid5 needs at least 3 disks. In case you need a specific raid level, you need the least amount of disks.
        More drives: eventually more cache if you use drive cache. Depends on drives.
        More drives: more performance if your controller is still not on its limit.
        More drives: can increase performance, if the blocks you need are on different drives.
        More TB: less power consumption compared to the same storage with more drives.
        More TB: higher density = faster access (compared 1 disk with 1 disk, not the raid in summary)
        More TB: overall costs could decrease (smaller NAS, maybe more TB per $$)
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      213. I use 8 x 8tb as standard in my 8 bay nas’s, JBOD. Reason is, I use a 2nd and 3rd nas as backups, and if a drive fails I just copy the data onto its replacement, that way I just keep 1 nas running, otherwise 2 would be on all the time, I do a backup using goodsync once or twice a month, I tried synolgys drive sync, too automatic. I like the control of goodsync.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      214. Very short version… go for more drives. More smaller drives usually work faster AND they make less noise. My advise would be never to buy drive bigger than 8TB, larger drives come with a big drawback of noise. Also using more smaller drives and a drive failes its cheaper to replace and faster to rebuild.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      216. To what extent can you mix and match drives in something like a Synology, QNAP or Asustor system? I have only WD Reds because my original NAS was a WD. I was wondering whether I can use Seagates if one fails. I was also wondering a switch to a bigger drive would work. Say I have four 8TB drives and I replace one with a 12 or a 14. Does that work? What impact is it likely to have on performance?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      217. I had a slightly different experience from what is expressed here, though I’m not casting any doubt on the validity of the information. I have a Nimbustor 4, populated with 4x8TB, for 24TB of storage.

        I went for 8TB because, at the time, it represented the best bang-for-buck and gave me a total capacity (24TB in RAID 5) that I was unlikely to exceed for quite a while.

        The NAS itself represented the best box I could justify. Being four bay, it also gave me the opportunity to spread my expenses over a longer period.

        When I originally set it up, it had two drives in it. It was kind of noisy but no more than I expected. When I added a third drive, the noise and amount of disc access was much greater than it had been.

        Recently I upgraded to 8GB of RAM and added a fourth drive. The first thing I noticed was that the overall noise is far less than it was with three drives and almost certainly lower than it was with two drives. In fact, it’s got to the point where I rarely hear it.

        This probably won’t be most people’s experience but it seems to me that either by luck or design, I ended up in a sweet spot. I can’t explain it but I can hazard a guess that this is the kind of setup the designers envisioned…?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      222. I dont think we should only look at size vs number but also failure rate. I would rather go with a disk that doesn’t fail on me that often then the one i need to buy a new disk every few years and rebuild the RAID.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      224. You are much louder than the Seagate.
        Thx for the test, I think one way this can be more entertaining is that you compare your most silent hard drive (or a near contender) with the one in test, so can have some reference point.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      225. If you have two large capacity drives and one of them fails…that’s a HUGE SLOG to replace in one hit. If you have lots of small drives and one fails it’s not going to hit you as hard when you suddenly have to get the replacement.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      226. currently my Media collection is currently under 3TB so I do not need a very big set up yet. Currently using 3 2TB reds in a raid 5. About to upgrade to 3 3TB drives in a raid 5 Then have a single 10TB HDD as a Back up.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      229. I say buy bigger drives, but don’t fill up your NAS day one, then you can more easily grow by adding drives as they become more affordable
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      231. I just built my own NAS after going through a 2-bay NAS and then added a 4-bay NAS. I built one with 18 HDs and it is much more expandable. I am using UNRAID and it has been great so far. It is much faster and I have so much more capacity. When I need more, I will replace some of my 6 TB drives for 12 TB drives.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      232. one point , is when one of your drives will die , is easer and faster to recover one 4tb drive than a 12tb drive , and you don t lose all your data just lose a part of your data , and you can come up much easer with 70 euro than 300 when you get a surpize dive falure ,
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      236. Or, Dell T630 LFF server £350.
        Used 2GB cache RAID controller £110
        6x used 8TB HC520 drives, £70 each.

        Needed a server as well as a lot of storage, so leaving out CPU & SSD upgrades.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      237. As an Arch Linux user, I was torn between buying an expensive (new) tiny RAID machine with 4 x new HDD’s or using an old (but free) monstrous 12 bay Supermicro server with 12 (free) smaller HDD’s.

        Decided to go the Supermicro route. Have to admit, I’m way in above my head on this and have been dragging my feet for nearly two years now. In the end, I’ve decided that any form of RAID like setup is not for me. Don’t want to pay electricity (UK prices) on a server running 24/7. The beast can sit in the corner and be booted up once a week, whereupon I’ll do identical rsync (ext4) backups to two of the four nodes. Then following month do the same to the other two nodes. If I have a week when something of critical importance is created, I’ll rsync immediately. Also like the idea of each backup being completely isolated from the others.

        I know my PC HDD will one day fail. However, given a choice between losing a few days of data or paying 24/7 electricity for RAID… I’m prepared to accept the former.

        Thing is, I’ve never heard of anyone doing this with a four node machine, so maybe there’s a good reason not to. I like the idea of the sever being extremely heavy, as it’s less likely a drug addled thief would be able to move it, or even realize the drive bays are removable. Always thought those tiny RAID machines were too easy to tuck under your arm and walk away with. In fact, I might even bolt the thing down, as right now it sits on a table.

        Could’ve gone with 4 x HDD’s and backing up via USB. However, that’s back to the hassle of pulling them out from a hiding place and connecting all those wires up. Plus, I’d need to buy large expensive HDD’s. Yep, I just like having four sets of backups.

        Yes, fire/flood is a possibility, but still have a cloud backup for all essential documents. Like I said, I ain’t no expert or computer geek. Maybe it’s a daft thing to even consider doing…
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      238. In 2004 I had 9 Seagate hard drives fail in a 2 week period and they were sequential serial numbers. When I contacted them about a possible issue with that batch they spewed out the corporate boiler plate response saying that wasn’t the case and that their hard drives were of very high quality blah blah blah. I asked for new replacements rather than refurbished ones but they wouldn’t do that either. I’ve never sold another Seagate drive since. I doubt the few thousand drives I’ve sold over the years that weren’t Seagate are missed by them but I also never recommend Seagate because of their piss poor customer service.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      239. The time to rebuild an array with 1 of several smaller failed drives verses the time it takes to rebuild an array with 1 of two large drives is important to me as a home user.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      240. I’ve had 7X 4TB Hitachi Ultrastar drives for my NAS since 2015, and still haven’t had one go bad on me. I’ve run it in both a RAID 6 and RAID 10 with a hot spare, and in both hardware and software (WSS) RAID modes, and recently bought another drive to make it 8 and did away with the hot spare, making it the storage for my backups. Still pretty reliable, but I wanted to replace it with SSDs. I’m a believer in minimum 6 drive arrays for NAS, for both performance and redundancy.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      241. I built two TrueNAS (was FreeNAS) using six 4TB drives each (4+2 ZFS2), back in the days.
        I’ve been considering upgrading to six 8TB drives (4+2), but have also been thinking about four 16TB drives (2+2) instead.
        Both get me about the same usable space (~32TB). Note less than 2 parity drives is NOT an option.
        I’ve been thinking about it for a long time, but haven’t reached a conclusion. It’s a tough choice.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      244. IF I “HAVE TO” BUY A BRANDED NAS BOX, I’d spend my money on the biggest NAS with the max # of BAYS possible. Cuz you can always buy cheap smaller drives at first, but if you get a small NAS and used up all your bays from the begining it won’t grow more bays in the future and expanding more capacity means you have to discard your smaller drives, and that is a drive doing nothing loosing it’s value as redundancy.

        The question of more hdd or Bigger hdd its a wrong question. Why? because the purpose of a hdd is to hold data. So data security always comes first.
        Product like 2 bays NAS are pointless, you can achieve that with any old computer or laptop laying around your house, hook it up to you network and you have a raid 1 (minimum) NAS, the rest is just SOFTWARE, heck if you like Synology that much you can use XPenology which is a hacked version DSM 6.2 and the new DSM 7.0 that can be installed in any computer. And if you think well my old computer consume a lot of WATT to be an Always on NAS, then find out the socket of your motherboard and buy the most efficient CPU on ebay. Like, I have an old i7 90W cpu, then get an i5 35W chip for $20 and it will be almost as fast as the fastest Synology box.

        Then what is the appropiate rule to build a NAS. It’s pretty simple actually… you build it with the capacity you’ll need. A good rule of thumb is aggregate all your current storage cap in your house and multiply by 2 (chances are it took you years to fill them up). Most people without NAS, they won’t reach 14TB.
        And this is how data centers are built, they buy by capacity and not expandability.
        Second thing you’ll need to do is calculate how many disk you are willing to distribuite those “14TB”, always remember the more the better, cuz you will have more redundancy.
        In my case I would go for used SAS drives on ebay, for one they are all 100% enterprise drives, and are 1/2 the price of SATA drives with the same Capacity, but that also means you need to build your NAS with a SAS backplane and a SAS HBA in mind. ie I bought 3 Dells R730 XD with 24 2.5″ bays, 24 cores, 256Gb ram ECC and it includes 24x 2.5″ inch 600GB 10k rpm sas drives. For only $900 ea. I bet you can get waaaay lower price if you go for r620
        Now you can also get a r730 same specs but with 12x 3.5″ bays, there is one that comes with 12x 3TBs SAS drives a total of 36TB for $1400. Synology 12 bays costs $3000 and it doesn’t come with disks. Booooo
        If you go to ebay, you can see SAS 3TB goes for as low as $15 ea and buy in bulk I found a 5x 3TB for $30 total LOL. Oh! and it’s free return, couple years more 6TB will be at the same price point.
        And almost forgot, you can switch to SATA drive when you like. Cuz SAS hba with SAS backplane can take SAS drives AND Sata drives. Unlike most Synology NAS only accept SATA drives.

        Of course power consumption is a problem but it’s like $25/mo I would gladly pay (cancelled Netflix and Disney Plus LoL), cuz you are dealing with a real server not only you learn new skills, and all the parts are super cheap. And you can always expand your server capabilities. Synology is moving to 2.5Gb and 10Gb as PREMIUM stuff… heck I’ve been running 10Gb like a decade ago. I moved to 100Gbps, not long ago, that’s 10GB/s!!! The cards costs like $150 ea and the switch costs around $600 for 32x ports of 100Gps, yes 32 ports. I moved all my nvme to boost the server storage, and all my terminals are all diskless because booting from network is almost as fast as having a local Gen3 nvme, and not to mention all the VMs and Dockers you can run.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      245. Could you (or anyone) give any insight on how loud this drive would be compared to a WD Black HDD? I have a 3TB WD Black drive (from around 2015 or so) and its louder than any other hard drive that I’ve used (Some 1TB WD Blue’s, but mostly 2TB Barracudas), It’s not bothersome though, it’s not obscenely loud.

        I’ve been looking at either upgrading to a 8TB WD Blue, or one of these Seagate Exos X18 12TB drives because I can get them for a good price refurbished (refurbished doesn’t really concern me). But I see a good few people saying they’re loud, but my question is how loud, because it’s not like my WD Black is quiet. I looked up the rated acoustics for the Exos and my WD Black, and they’re supposedly in the same range, so at the moment I’m leaning towards the Exos.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      246. What’s the best HardDrive for HomeUsers (for Data, Video, and Surveilance)? …maby a Seagate Exos x16 (with 14TB) in a QNAP Turbo Station TS-464 8GB …….what do you think?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      249. Noise is really a bummer for me now. I went from 4x3TB red to 3x8TB iron wolf, and the noise is more than double, and far more annoying in character. Heat and power also way higher. For next upgrade I want 14TB plus disks, and they are all horribly loud. I want high capacity, but low noise, low speed, low energy, since I can have multi TB of NVMe cache.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      251. Very informative videos. You give info that is very relevant without beating around the bush. You make a good point about balancing out between the cost of NAS system and the actual storage. One option for anyone starting out could be to go for a smaller storage and then buy more/bigger HDD as the data grows and HDDs become more affordable in future, while investing in a NAS with more bays for future-proofing if really necessary. That also means hopefully sticking with the NAS with more bays for a longer time, given the initial cost.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      252. Thanks mate for the great info. I have a 5 yr. old TS-653A with 5 WD60EFRX and I’m stuck with 1gbps connectivity. I’d like to get at least 2.5gbps upgrade so I’m going to get another NAS with faster networking and use it as a staging NAS. I’ll add a 6th drive to my 653A and move it to my in-laws house and work out syncing between the 2 NAS.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      254. I think the mistake people make with NAS and especially raid5/6 is they think its a backup and its not. Any important data still needs a backup, RAID5/6 yes can increase read/write speeds but its really about redundancy (meaning uptime), businesses need to maintain uptime but not home PC users unless Home users are hosting web, file, plex servers for others offsite to access.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      255. I have adopted this rule now; Any HDD capacity less than 1.5x what you can get for $200 on the SSD side, is to be considered obsolete.

        Currently you can get 4TB SSDs for just north of $200, that means 6TB (1.5 x 4) drives are now the smallest HDD that is worth getting. 6TB HDDs are now $90, while 4TB HDDs are $60. Up to each and everyone to put their cutoffs though!
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      256. Still not clear which is best ????????, so I bought a QNAP TS-1232PXU-RP-4G 12bay ($1475) and put in 12 x 20TB drives (Ironwolf Pro $329 each). After RAID 6 have 185TB available ????????2 x 10gbe, 2 x 2.5gbe network connection. Bought 13 drives to have a spare. Total cost before tax: $5752.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      257. I don’t buy Seagate – ever – crooks they are, different drives sold with the same SKU – some are from a modern Thailand factory, others are pieces of shit from an ancient Chinese plant…

        Hitachi, Kioxia are decent companies, making excellent products

        WD, well, Seagate bought them out – your mileage may vary, depending whatever they actually bother to ship you…
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      258. 16, 18, 20, 22TB>>>>Talk about putting your eggs in 1 basket!!!
        Sad this guy doesn’t even talk about the difference from smaller drives vs larger drives platter technology and the difference in drive life expectancy and likelihood of drive crash.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      259. Smaller. Failed 2TB drive can take days to get the data back. Imagine the damage if you have to deal with big 12TB drive that failed. Don’t keep all your eggs in one basket. But if you can – get more and bigger drives. Spread the information around.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      265. Obviously, the solution is to run the cheapest, loudest, highest capacity enterprise HDD you can get your hands on … and run it externally in a 5 cm thick foam enclosure. 20TB, always ready, cheap as hell – and quiet as the day is long … from the outside. ????
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      266. he speed difference between more drives or not is one I have debater. I have an 1819+ and a newer 920+. The 920 CPU is about 50% faster, but the 1819+ had 6x HDDs, and i used the other 2 bays to run normal SATA SSDs as a RAID 0 cache, since the add on card for the 1819+ is really pricey for what it is. I ran PLEX on both and initially it felt like the 920+ was slower and stuttered more with larger files, however now there doesnt seem to be much of a difference. Hardly a scientific test but this is an interesting question. Not sure how to test it scientifically.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      267. I like this video but it never answered the question posted in the title. It laid out a lot of considerations, which is helpful, but never came to a conclusion. I still do not know if it is better to get a 2, 3 or 5-bay NAS. Near as I can tell it is a wash.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      268. You missed one point. Kinda. It falls in line with the performance aspect. the larger the drive the longer the rebuild takes on a failed drive. So a 4 or 6TB drive, depending on how full the prior drive was may take 3-8 hours depending on the speed of your system / controller. But a 20TB drive could very well take 24+ hours which in turn leaves your array in a vulnerable state for a second failure. BTW this is why NO ONE should be using RAID5 anymore. The happy medium for me is somewhere between 10TB-16TB drives. They offer larger storage, but with a reasonable rebuild time.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      271. Another option is 8TB SSD drives. They are much faster, silent, don’t vibrate, use little power and are very reliable.
        I’m not up on linux file systems or RAID wrt redundancy, but maybe 2 x 8TB and a 4 for error correcting, giving you 16? Just accept the risk given the greater reliability?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      273. Great information and I love the presentation. You are definitely not boring, even if some would say the subject isn’t the height of glamour. I bet you could be a stand up comedian too.

        A lot of the useful stuff I have learned about NAS technology is from your videos. Nice one, thanks!
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      275. I just bought WD Gold 20TB. Crazy fast Built-in NAND and transfer speed up to 500MB/s !!! and much less noise !! I always love larger drive than small one. Because you will save money to throw away small HDD.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      276. I’ve deceided to get a NAS for home use as a media server. I’m checking out a lot of your videos to make up my mind what I actualy want and need, your videos are great, very detailed and very good explanations of the usage and for whom that particular NAS would be of interest. Kepp it up….
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      277. You don’t touch on the fact more drives you are using less data per drive at any write or read.

        If you have 2 large mirrored drives, 100% of the data is processed through each of the drives. If you were to have the same capacity over 8 drives, the actual throughput is divided by 1/8th per drive. If you look at data loads of 300tb per year with an MTBF of 1,000,000 hours, the raid with 8 drives will last 8x longer.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      279. You should do a video on having multiple drives, vs bigger drives, and the energy costs overall, in difference.

        Energy costs factor alot into this too, especially today with electricity prices for people.

        Your right to do such a vid to point this stuff out, but you could of shown the energy differences also.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      280. Some more info for the rest of us:
        If you want silence: WD140EFGX & WD120EFBX.
        But stay away from the WD 8TB red version, It seems the same on paper, but is night and day difference….

        My criteria to select/find silent hard drives are:
        • ≤29dB in use
        • ≤20dB in idle
        • ≤6.5W in use
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      281. I’ve calculated how many GB you get per dollar and looks like the larger sizes give you a much better bang for your buck (14-18TB drives):

        SG IW:
        1TB – $35 – 29 GB/$
        2TB – $65 – 31 GB/$
        4TB – $105 – 38 GB/$
        6TB – $158 – 38 GB/$
        8TB – $177 – 45 GB/$
        10TB – $224 – 45 GB/$
        12TB – $258 – 47 GB/$
        14TB – $271 – 52 GB/$
        16TB – $309 – 52 GB/$
        18TB – $389 – 46 GB/$

        WD RED PRO:
        4TB – $140 – 29 GB/$
        6TB – $173 – 35 GB/$
        8TB – $215 – 37 GB/$
        10TB – $245 – 41 GB/$
        12TB – $253 – 47 GB/$
        14TB – $270 – 52 GB/$
        16TB – $298 – 54 GB/$
        18TB – $349 – 52 GB/$
        20TB – $419 – 48 GB/$
        22TB – $551 – 40 GB/$
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      282. I’ve been toying with getting an expansion unit for my 1019+ to get more drives or upgrading the current ones I have. 2 – 8 TB, 3 – 4 TB, 2 – 500 GB cache.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      283. Actually, I think in most case It depends on how many IO is on your motherboard
        such as, if you have 4 SATA ports and you used 2, then you will soon realize if you buy too many low-volume hard disks, you will soon be out of IO to let you upgrade in the future
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      284. I’ve got this idea recently.. In theory, what about using classic non-NAS type 2,5″ SATA SSD’s? For example four 2TB SSD’s in RAID 5? I know, it’s more expensive. But it’s silent, less power consumption and if I would have money for it? Just for home using, not really too much transfering data and important data will be backed up to external drive too. Is it there some statistics or something? What’s yours opinions guys? I have few data SSD’s in pc for long long time using by daily basis and they are immortal.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      286. Maybe I’m on drugs or something because no one else is commenting on this, but in regards to the first segement “More HDDs Can Be Cheaper…”, your math seems all wrong. If a 18TB costs $389 and 3 6TB cost $158 each the total is $474. The 1 18TB drive is substantially cheaper. It seems to always be cheaper to buy 1 large drive than it is to buy 2 or more smaller drives to reach the same capacity. The one exception seems to be the 22TB RED drive. While its true that the TB per dollar increases the smaller the drive is, it doesn’t do so nearly fast enough to make buying multiple smaller drives worth it.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      287. For most home users, bottom-line .. use RAID 1. What you’re not telling the people is the difficulties in rebuilding a failed multi-disk RAID e.g. 5,6,10.

        Multi-disk RAID 5,6,10,etc is when you need large storage capacities exceeding a single disk capacity. For example, large storage banks of video, photography, workgroups, etc.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      288. More drives is more performance is quicker to spin down is less power used. More competent nas can run server tasks or wake on lan or….using less power in total than a smaller nas can in your total setup.
        Large drives take to long to rebuild to be used in anything less then raid 6
        I rather have more points of failure then 2 drives that are the same type and age and then pray for 24 hours that the remaining drive works to rebuild the raid 1 set.
        And ofcourse raid isn’t backup, always make back ups because if it goes terrible wrong you can lose all your data no matter what setup you have. A fire or flood doesn’t care about your drive size.
        If you don’t put the nas in a place where noise isn’t a problem, use SSD if you use your nas constantly or time it so the drives sleep during the day.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      290. I too am a novice here, and found this incredibly helpful. Thanks so much for this from sunny Sheffield in the UK 🙂 I know you like QNAP, my Hi-Fi specialist suggest QNAP, but judging by security concerns from another of your videos QNAP v Synology, I had cancelled a 2 drive QNAP on Amazon, to rethink, and possibly have a 4 drive Synology. My Hi-fi specialist will only support if I bought a QNAP….. now that is very a difficult decision..!! Oh, and stop using big words.. lol.. ie, nebulous..!!
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      292. the wd red pro and iron wolf are not enterprise drives. they are consumer nas rated drives. Ultrastars are Wd enterprise drives used to be Gold and Exos Drives are Seagates Enterprise hdd
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      293. It would clearly help to get a better grip of this topic and your conclusions, if you would visualize e.g. the performance, power consumption etc. of the different SSDs., This way everyone could easyly see the sweetspot of the price and the number of drives. We humans are visually predisposed ????
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      294. I’m back to simpler is better. Always did Synology Hybrid raid with 4 (Usually 4TB) drives. With my new 4 bay I decided on two Toshiba MG08 Series 16TB. I like it better.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      299. It depends on what you need… More I/O – IOPS vs. need for more space. You can’t really get both… Great video! I have done a lot of videos on this very topic…
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      301. It is important to also consider rebuild and restore performance. With a larger number of drives running RAID 5 or 6 there is a significant difference in rebuild time compared to rebuilding a mirrored array. Also there is a difference yet again when you compare something like a RAID 10 to a pool of mirrors instead. In the case of RAID 5, 50, 6, 60 and 10 your backup will be of the entire array. In the event that data loss actually occurs and you must restore from backup you are talking about restoring the entire size of the array that was lost. However, when using pools instead you can elect to restore only the data from the underline RAID 1, 5 or 6 that you lost. These are all important factors to consider when selecting how you want to build out your storage array.

        Also I should mention that if you are going with a lot of drives it is also possible to hybrid nest the arrays in such a way as to maximize performance while also minimizing your restore from backup time and risk of inaccessible data. For example you could take two drives and place them in a RAID 0 then take two more drives and place them in a different RAID 0. Then you take those two RAID 0 arrays and Mirror them together. You create sets of 4 drives in this method that you then pool together. The obvious con to this is that you would ideally add sets of 4 drives at a time to your pool.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      304. The biggest point you’ve missed is that the best way to shop us to first identify your risk tolerance, and then identify the workload needs, and buy either the largest drives you can afford that give you more redundancy than you think you, need or the fastest drives you can afford that give you more iops than you think you need. Your video also completely neglected iops, focusing on sequential io and capacity. Even just adding a small nvme mirrored cache device can turn a large disk pool into a virtualization and game storage powerhouse. Imagine what you could do with all-flash
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      305. If you are into data and/or storage then you can never have enough space.
        Cheaper long term to buy the biggest NAS with biggest hdd’s, Otherwise you will run out of space and cost you more to replace all those smaller hdd’s or smaller NAS.
        Not really worth it to buy the expansion unit only to fill it with more smaller drives.
        Made that mistake with my first NAS, 5 bay and only filled it with 3x8TB (1 for redundancy) drives adding another 2 later on.
        Thought I was being smart and saving money, Filled it after 3 years, I regret not going for 16TB drives at the start and would have lasted twice the time 6 or more years.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      306. After an almost critical incident, hot spare makes more sense to me. If not go for dual drive fail safety in synology to stay safe. Avoid buying drives from the same batch, I went as far as buying drives from different stores and different months.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      307. I always tend towards the higher end of drive sizes but normally stay a step or 2 below largest capacity so I can have a better price per TB and just know that I can get bigger for cheaper in the future I prefer having expansion bays in my system open as my storage needs grow as that always have and will continue to
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      308. One idea to consider is the difference in power for say 4 big drives (say 14TB each with 1 parity) versus 12 small drives (say 4TB each with 2 parity).

        The comparison of a small size storage ( smaller than 20 TB ) I think was the focus of the video and not larger size storage (35+ TB storage sizes.

        Overall the video hit the points I think are important.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      310. Backing up 10 drives with several computers much faster. You also probably should not use 1 partition unless you want to wait 2 days to complete a back up.

        I have heard many never make backups, so imagine the panicked person thinking his hard drive is failing, then waiting two days to see if the new drive got it all?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      312. Thank you these great video’s, I highly appreciate them!
        If I may ask a request on a video. using QNAP NAS and running Qumagie. How do you backup meta data from Qumagie as they are stored in an Qumagie database and not in the photo or on a separate file.
        Ronny
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      313. The required amount of redundancy depends on how you plan to use the storage. If the NAS is the primary storage, then redundancy is very important. If the NAS is backing up primary storage on other computers, then RAID might be less critical for some people. The other consideration is point in time, or off-line, copies. If you have a fire or a ransomware attack, it might take out the whole NAS. Therefore, you need protected offline copies. That means maybe double or even more storage. How should we provide that? Does that remove the need for redundancy in the NAS?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      314. Really interesting video, thanks. Here are a couple of ideas on presentation of the numbers: 1. Produce a line graph of price against drive size. That would make it clear that the price per terabyte drops a lot from 1TB to 20TB drives – $35 from to $21 per TB on pros. 2. Compare prices for some sample configurations with the same amount of usable storage.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      315. Recently got an 8 bay QNAP, but getting disk combo nail is more challenging.
        Current stack of drives don’t give me what I’m ideal after
        3 x 3TB
        4 x 4TB
        2 x 12TB
        Will prob get rid of the 3 and 12TB drives for more 4TB
        The 12TB are HGST ultra star drives, as you say noisy too, but that’s not an issue.
        Got 2 X 32Gb for cache
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      316. Many overlook how the drives are being utilized. For example; 6x Exos x16 12TB drives in 3x mirrored pairs will yield different noise levels than those same 6x drives in Raidz2 or those same 6x drives in 2x striped Raidz1 vdevs.
        It’s refreshing to find a video that takes this in to account. Thanks for sharing, one year ago.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      319. This channel is so bad. Here in America I’m getting 12 TB Exos drives for $110 each, 6TB Hitachis are $45, and you can buy a motherboard, cpu, sas card, and a few drive cages for a lot less than the price of those pre-assembled and not expandable NAS cases
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      321. Appreciate your content but I do think you can benefit from shorter videos that get to the point a lot quicker. I find myself scanning and skipping through your videos a lot because I just don’t have half hour plus to dedicate to something, especially when I can Google and find an answer within 1 minute. Your content is mostly informational so getting to the point quicker is going to be much appreciated by everyone. Maybe start with the conclusion and then continue with the details as to how you reached your conclusion. ????
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      324. I think the bit you didn’t really focus on when comparing two 18TB drives vs 5 smaller drives was you dropped from a RAID Mirror to a RAID Array. That is often a big performance drop. Also replacing & rebuilding a RAID 1 mirror is faster. And if you lose both, and want to pay someone to do disk plater recovery, the probability of retrieving usage data, drops significantly when they need to reconstruct the data off multiple drives.
        When might you lose both RAID 1 drives simultaneously? Domestic: Voltage spike/lightning. Commercial: Some idiot unscrews the wrong thing & drops all disks on the floor.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      327. Why not “more bigger hard drives?” When I bought my NAS I got four of the biggest HDD I could at the time. Now they make drives that are almost twice as large, so I’m jonesing for an unneeded upgrade.

        The noise is a legitimate concern, but I think for most people the best solution is to try and have a wiring closet / server room type setup and put it in there where you won’t really hear it. Of course, the problem with that is that the house basically needs wired for ethernet with a patch panel. I wish I had that.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      328. Another excellent, and informative video! I actually looked to see if “Graham Malcolm…or whatever his name is”, entered a comment yet. He probably loves seagulls.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      329. There´s a interesting point to consider the multiple disk use. The SATA saturation (or other conector). If you are using the 10 Gb connector and/or VMs and docker applications.You can saturate the data bus with to much IO, exceding the SATA read/write capacity, and depending of biggest caches in SSD. And surprise, more probability of failure via hard/soft or energy. With multiple smaller disks more data can be read and write. The trick is what is the size of storage that you need and what size of NAS (slots) you have (including the extenders).
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      332. Quality content ,love it

        Currently got 8 PCS mg05 8TB which is super noisy when using in regular plastic Nas

        Moved into a node 804 they are way less noisy on ticking .
        Red 4TB non SMR is just fine, they are way silent compare to the mg05
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      333. Agree head spinning. (5400?) My current problem is ripped blu rays will not stream via Plex over my network to fire TV. Having to convert down hard. Is it my network speed? (How do I test) is it my internet speed? (Max 33mbs).
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      336. As a novice, this makes my head spin. I’m thinking about a NAS to put all my video, music, and photos in one place, with backup, and if I can afford it, allow it to be cloud storage for my kids. I have 25TB of external drives, and while it’s good for storage (I’m afraid of disk failure and data loss). I’m totally lost as what to do.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      337. Having just replaced or added HDD’s to both my 4 bay Synology and my 4 bay QNAP, my next NAS purchase to replace one of these will be an 8 bay. And I’ll install 3 larger HDD’s in RAID 5 or Synology Hybrid RAID and add new and larger drives as the need arises and prices fall. The worst thing about smaller NAS is the cost of pulling out perfect good, decent sized HDD’s because you need to replace them with larger drives. This is especially problematic with QNAP as you need to have all drives be the same size. With Synology’s SHR, drive sizes can be mixed ( although even that is not perfect). The extra cost of an 8 bay vs a 4 bay is easily saved by the ability to continue to use my older, smaller HDD’s. Don’t be deterred by up front costs; look at longer term use and future purchases and redundancies.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      338. If a drive in a RAID configuration fails, it takes longer to restore a large driver than a smallere. Thus it takes longer time before the redundancy is restored.
        We are talking time in the order of days. During that period another disk failure leads to full data loss
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      340. I would have divided the presentation between Consumer needs/suggestions and business needs/suggestions:
        in case of business you need IOPs and you do not care about noise because you have a datacenter (for small that it can be), so smaller disks in higher number give you better performance anche noise means Enterprse disks which have higher number of TB/year. at the same time as enterprise, for small that you can be, you should implement the 3-2-1 backup rules or at least having a backup site. the additional point is having a redundant power supply on your NAS.
        for the remaining part, what you said is perfect for a consumer site.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      341. Thank you for the thorough video! Perhaps one other aspect to consider is the best way to increase space with a 4-bay NAS that has expansion capability. I have a 918+ with 4x4TB. Shall I replace the drives with 4x8TB drives, or shall I daisy-chain a second 4-bay NAS with another array of 4x4TB?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      343. I’ve mentioned this before, but if you are shopping for Pro drives, the only way to go is enterprise (Exos, Ultrastar). Depending on region they are much cheaper and also better.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      344. I have an 8 bay DS1821 with 4x 8TB. The rationalisation was that as my data needs grew I could either add more 8TB or on the basis that over time costs would come down start adding say 12TBs and through SHR move to an all 12TB RAID.
        So far so good.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      345. Thanks Man! I know you since the days of my first NAS, a trusty old QNAP TS-269 Pro which is really a long time ago. And you are still passionate like day one about all things NAS and beyond, how is this even possible? Always great info, always on Top. Just Wow, yeah, just WOW and thanks for all the Seaguls. I would consider a video from you without “i hate seaguls” as beeing not authentic. yeah, i love this. ????All the best for 2023 and beyond! — Bernd
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      348. Can I use RAID at a software level (TrueNAS) with sata pcie expansion cards that are not RAID capable at a hardware level?

        I’m building my very first NAS with a PC I’m retiring in a couple of months, and my motherboard does not have enough sata for the number of HDDs I want, there are a lot of sata pcie expansion cards on amazon but many of them say they are non RAID cards, so I’m not sure if I should buy them, if TrueNAS will be able to set the HDDs connected through that card in a RAID configuration.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      349. Appreciate the mention that if you buy a number of the same drive from the same vendor you are likely to get drives from the same lot which if that lot has a problem means your risk for trouble is increased.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      350. In general, would it be better to go with a 2 Bay NAS with two 14TB WD Red Plus drives (larger capacity but still on the quieter side), or a 4 Bay with smaller drives? This is just for home use for storage and streaming videos.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      351. It would be really interesting to me if you could make videos at regular intervals for things like When will the price of hard drive come down and when will we see bigger capacities in the small classes.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      352. Nice video!
        I always calculate the price per TB. 😉
        As that way there is often a HD-size (and above) that the price per TB is higher than the smaller/previous-size one. (price per TB)
        We often opt for a wee bit smaller but more drives. As we always have 2x cold standby HD’s (thus unused!) near the NAS.
        But more drives also means more power-use as you already indicated and also more heat. (more cooling might be needed)
        Business-wide you should replace your HD’s every 3 years (5 years, max) but for the average user at home, you replace when really needed. (or after 10 years?)
        To reduce risks, we also opt for multiple NAS. As a NAS may fail (power-supply, firmware-upgrade, bricking)
        With larger drives the rebuilding of the RAID also may take longer., when something does go wrong.
        BTW, also worth noting, the weight of the NAS might become significantly higher when you are using more drives (noticeable after 8x drives IMHO)
        Generally speaking, the 6TB and lower are robusts as rocks (longevity), 8TB to 10TB are often the sweet-spot for pricing in my experiences.
        Word of advice: buy as many drives as can fit in your NAS as down the line by the time you want to buy additional drives, the manufacturer may have moved-on to newer models..
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      354. Factoring in that I had a stack of unused drives already, my first Synology was a 12 bay. I filled it with 1tb-6tb drives and was golden since that meant I didn’t need to buy drives until I needed more space(which happened, again and again ????)
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      355. I think it really depends where you are and what you can get. In some countries, it’s cheaper to get bigger drives and a two bay NAS, where other places, smaller hard drives and a four bay NAS ended up being the better option. I’ve always tackled it as a your-mileage-may-vary scenario.

        Although if you want maximum capacity, a bigger NAS is the way to go.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      361. I have one along 3WD Blue 6tb smr drives in a meshy gaming case. The smr drives didn’t really add any extra perceivable noise but this one… I was seriously concerned that it’s already about to kick the bucket.
        Seems like I’m going to build a nas soon that is out of earshot…
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      363. I came here simply to hear how the HDD sounds, but so long and so much talking and on those places there is silence to hear the HDD it is gained so low that I can not hear it…
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      364. I have a 5 bay Synology that I plan to install in a bedroom closet. If I filled up all 5 bays with EXOS and kept the closet door closed would it be loud enough to hear?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      367. I just got a EXOS into my personal computer (mistake) and I hear a very noticable clicking noise coming from inside the enclosure. Don’t notice this in your review, but others have pointed out the same clicking noise. Although may be fine in a data center, definitely annoying in a PC, so will be returning.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      369. call me old or nostalgic, but i love the noise of a good hard drive.
        I do love the speed in gaming of an ssd, but big hard drives are still magical to me, thats why i still have an optical drive in my new desktop…it is a blueray drive though.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      373. I would appreciate a table with noise measurements, and comparison to other drives. Without the comparison it doesn’t make sense.
        I do have 10 Exos X14s and they are REALLY noisy, while on your test they don’t produce any noise.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      375. I tried the same but with the 18tb exos drive… When I put it in my powered HDD enclosure I hear a beeping sound in a stable timing. Is it the power that is too low? If yes, what external enclosure do you use?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      380. Thanks for posting up this video. I was curious about the EXOS because their price is really fantastic but am unsure because of the spin up/down as well as noise. My supermicro platform IS in my basement storage area but I would worry that if we moved and that was not an option that the server would become fairly unusable because of said noise.

        As of this posting(3/23/22) exos 14tb on Amazon are $237 whereas 12tb wd red plus are $239. I may sacrifice the 2tb for the lower noise and 2yr less warranty considering.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      382. I just replaced two 4TB Seagate IronWolf drives with 2 16TB Exos drives in a DS220+ and wow these are WAY louder. I could barely hear the IronWolf’s, but when these are working there’s much more audible “clicking” and “thunking” noises going on. I’m guessing it’s due to the drastic size and platter differences on the drives.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      384. Enterprise drives like Exos are significantly cheaper than the home/NAS drives, where I am, in Norway. For instance, the price of the Exos X18 16TB, is slightly lower (US$409) than the cheapest large “NAS” drive I can find, WD Red Plus NAS 14 TB (which is on sale for 24% off). I’m very sensitive to noise (and limited placement options), so I’m afraid I have to go with the Red Plus anyway. The Exos supports something called PowerBalance, which I think is likely to reduce the seek noise at the cost of performance. There’s a command to enable/disable it in SeaChest tools. Doesn’t say what the default is, I suspect it’s probably “ON”. @NASCompares, any idea about that?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      385. Since it’s a nas compares topic I’d actually appreciate the comparison: sata vs sas, exos vs wolf and so on. It’s sometimes said that sas runs as a server room itself
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      386. Well, it will be interesting how the exos 16TB will do in my synology until summer when i’m gonna get a 18TB or 2 for a nas i will build myself with unraid 🙂

        Also, which program did you use to share the screen of your phone?
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      388. Thanks for the video, I was thinking that my drive is broken because of all that noises but it’s seems is just normal. I like how you are so knowledgeable about hard drives, there are a lot of information on your videos in general.
        You deserve more subscribers, keep up the good work.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      389. This is a great video, HDD noise is very often overlooked by reviews, and it’s a shame, because noise is very important for desktop computers, especially for quiet/silent builds.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE

      391. I just tried out 4 drives, Seagate Barracuda, Seagate Exos 7E2, Exos 782, and WD Gold (all 2TB for home PC drive replacement). The fastest and most quiet was the newer Seagate Exos 7E8 (up to 250MBs), the regular Barracuda was also quiet but tested speed was 212MBs. The WD Gold and Exos 7E2 were the loudest.
        REPLY ON YOUTUBE