So, pros and cons of replacing a Synology NAS with a server...

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.

meles meles

New Member
Jul 28, 2020
21
0
1
I have a small home network (5 computers), and use a Synology NAS to share files between them. I'm thinking of augmenting this NAS with a server, either a refurbished 'professional' unit or a DIY home built unit and am seeking advice on the pros and cons of such a system along with suggestions on a suitable route forward. My initial thoughts are to purchase a refurbished HP DL380e G8 P822 Server and populate it with 3.5" SATA hard drives (I have a few spares lying around), gradually increasing the number of hard drives over time as my needs increase. I accept that this alone won't give me much more than the Synology NAS already provides but, as my knowledge and experience increase, I'd be interested in learning and playing with virtualisation. For that, I think a server rather than a NAS is a better option. I'd appreciate comments on the general concept and suggestions as to suitable hardware - eg the server chassis itself, appropriate CPUs, how much RAM, a good operating system (I'm thinking FreeNAS or UBuntu, open to other ideas).

This will be my first server, and I'm new to the concept of servers, but eager to learn.
 

BoredSysadmin

Not affiliated with Maxell
Mar 2, 2019
1,050
437
83
If you are interested in running additional things at your home, possibly some media and/or home automation, I'd suggest you take a look at running Docker containers right on your Synology. DiskStation Manager - Knowledge Base | Synology Inc.
If you need to add more drives, I'd check if your home Synology model supports expansions. - Expansion Units | Synology Inc.

Getting into servers is usually expensive (in terms of electric usage) proposition and if your goal is to learn more about IT, then I highly recommend you to instead learn how to do IT on public clouds - this is where IT is going in few years anyhow, instead of learning a skillset which quickly becoming obsolete outside of datacenters (before anyone jumps in and accuses me of heresy, keep in mind that I'm in IT professionally for over 20 years)
 

meles meles

New Member
Jul 28, 2020
21
0
1
Unfortunately my NAS, a DS418Play, isn't capable of running docker or using an expansion unit, hence my thought about moving to 'proper' server. The learning is purely intended for my own benefit rather than any aspirations to a career in IT.
 

BoredSysadmin

Not affiliated with Maxell
Mar 2, 2019
1,050
437
83
You could still sideload docker to 418+ and use portainer to manage containers. The same tool I use to manage containers running from my ubuntu 18.04 LTS VM
https://www.reddit.com/r/synology/comments/a4upb5 Another option is to consider a newer/more powerful (expansion optional) Synology unit. Migration from one to another is stupidly simple (just move the drives and place them in the same order)
 
Last edited:

acquacow

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2017
784
439
63
42
Do what I did, build a hypervisor on a server, stand up a few VMs.

Install FreeNAS in a VM to play with it

Install Nextcloud in a VM to play with it

Try to get nextcloud working with your freenas VM as a storage target

Get frustrated

Wipe server, install FreeNAS directly on server

Install nextcloud in a jail on FreeNAS

Stand up a few VMs in FreeNAS =)
 

BoredSysadmin

Not affiliated with Maxell
Mar 2, 2019
1,050
437
83
Install nextcloud in a jail on FreeNAS
Stand up a few VMs in FreeNAS =)
Let me continue this line of thought,:
  • Upgrade FreeNAS several times of the years. See inconsistent approach of iXsystems to Jails/plugs which on occasion lag drastically behind their original software releases. Or simply abandon them altogether for new and sexier method.
  • Realize that over long term FreeNAS (TrueNAS Core) is best served to do only core storage (block and shares)
  • Look for a platform where don't need to worry about updating software and it would easy to add and manage (portainer, watchtower, traefik)
  • Start using containers on a platform of your choosing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bob_dvb

bob_dvb

Active Member
Sep 7, 2018
214
116
43
Not quite London
www.orbit.me.uk
Let me continue this line of thought,:
  • Upgrade FreeNAS several times of the years. See inconsistent approach of iXsystems to Jains/plugs which on occasion drastically behind their original software releases. Or simply abandon them altogether for new and sexier method.
  • Realize that over long term FreeNAS (TrueNAS Core) is best served to do only core storage (block and shares)
  • Look for a platform where don't need to worry about updating software and it would easy to add and manage (portainer, watchtower, traefik)
  • Start using containers on a platform of your choosing.
That was kind of my experience.

I had a two disk Synology, got some cash, built a DIY server using a C2550 Supermicro. Ran FreeNAS, realised it was written by people who expect you to have experience of FreeNAS before using FreeNAS. Wiped, installed Proxmox with Freenas as a guest. Then got a bit more cash and bought a newer Synology for expanded simple storage but kept Proxmox for Virt.
 

meles meles

New Member
Jul 28, 2020
21
0
1
Hmmm, so the sensible choice seems to be to stick with Synology or a similar dedicated NAS and forget about a server... ?
 

mmo

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
558
357
63
44
i think it's better to map out what you are really looking for first and put in the following consideration with "big" server.

1. Power Consumption
2. Physical Size
3. Noise

And then think about what you really need/want to do with upgrading.

1. Dedicating storage: if you only want to increase your storage pool majorly then consider upgrading the drives with your Synology and build a lightweight server for your VMs.
2. Couple VMs: if you only need couple VMs, always consider if containers/dockers will suite your needs first. They use a lot of less resources comparing to full OSs.
3. Handful VMs with heavy usages: if you need host quite some VMs for remoting, heavy workload, etc. Then you might want to think about the fullsize "big" server.

CPU and RAM could be worked out once you find out exactly what you need.
 

meles meles

New Member
Jul 28, 2020
21
0
1
The main interest was to see what's possible, and learn, rather than just to increase the available storage. I've succeeded already as I was unaware of Docker and containers prior to the post. :) I may still go ahead and build a server just to continue the fun !
 

pivot

New Member
Apr 18, 2016
14
2
3
48
Australia
You could also look at xpenology. I have xpenology running on a HP NL40, with 8GB RAM and 4 x 3TB drives. I have pihole running in a docker container and it works great. Xpenology is easy to navigate if you have had a Synology unit. The below is the docker info for pihole. It is light weight and obviously more intense apps will use more CPU and RAM.
docker.png
 

meles meles

New Member
Jul 28, 2020
21
0
1
Thanks for the information regarding xpenology, I hadn't heard of it but it seems well worth looking at.
 

zer0sum

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2013
849
473
63
Let me continue this line of thought,:
  • Upgrade FreeNAS several times of the years. See inconsistent approach of iXsystems to Jails/plugs which on occasion lag drastically behind their original software releases. Or simply abandon them altogether for new and sexier method.
  • Realize that over long term FreeNAS (TrueNAS Core) is best served to do only core storage (block and shares)
  • Look for a platform where don't need to worry about updating software and it would easy to add and manage (portainer, watchtower, traefik)
  • Start using containers on a platform of your choosing
  • Install a bare metal hypervisor like ESXi or Proxmox
  • Install Unraid and pass through a HBA and some nvme ssd's, and have native plugins, docker applications, and super flexible storage
  • Install whatever other virtual machines take your fancy :)
1596304421061.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Geran

Rand__

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
6,626
1,767
113
I would not recommend getting a full blown HP Server, but if you get a nice older system (e3 v3 level) or components, than neither initial nor running cost is that high.
Install a Hypervisor, or Linux + docker + zfs and use it to learn, have fun and when you're ready move over your data for good or not.
 

meles meles

New Member
Jul 28, 2020
21
0
1
I think I'll need to go and translate that into English.

I'm looking for a low power, quiet server that can host around half a dozen, maybe more, HDDs (mainly 3.5") that I have, managed through a relatively simple interface. Having seen this retro look brass pc
I'm tempted to try something similar but for use as a server. Maybe a mini-ITX motherboard with a low power embedded chip if suitable, and connected via wi-fi rather than a cable.
 

Rand__

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
6,626
1,767
113
low power quiet server and you were considering an old HP one? :eek:

I think you should try to reevaluate specify your use case and wishes/requirements better, as of now they don't seem to add up :)
 

meles meles

New Member
Jul 28, 2020
21
0
1
Until I started looking into servers, I didn't realise they were power hungry. I assumed they were a simple step up from a NAS, sitting quietly in the background until required to serve a file...
 

Rand__

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
6,626
1,767
113
yeah ... they are... for you and a couple of hundred other ppl usually;)

but there are the "step up from premade nas" types as well, just usually not in old enterprise gear
 

zer0sum

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2013
849
473
63
What are the "step up from pre-made NAS types" ?
Build your own box :D

Then you can choose any hardware you like and can have something much more powerful than an off the shelf NAS.

You can go with a mid tower and then use full ATX size components

Or go smaller and use mATX/ITX sized components
 
  • Like
Reactions: T_Minus