Friday, June 19th 2020

Synology Announces DS220+, DS420+, DS720+, and DS920+ NAS

Synology Inc. today launched a new generation of two and four bay Plus Series NAS, designed as a centralized data management solution for both home and business environments. "Plus series is one of our most popular and versatile product lines," said Hewitt Lee, Director of Synology Product Management Group."The series offers an ideal mix of processing power and advanced capabilities such as containers and virtualization support, in compact and quiet desktop form factors. It is also the starting point for our advanced data protection solutions, enabling small businesses to cost-effectively deploy solutions that can protect their entire IT infrastructure."

Up to 133% faster in website responsiveness and over 15% improvement in compute-tasks, the new Plus series enables you to get things done faster and more efficiently. Two M.2 NVMe slots2 enable accelerated I/O performance, especially in multi-user environments. Synology storage solutions are not only designed to fulfill data management requirements, but centralize backups for Microsoft Windows PCs and Servers, VMware vSphere and Microsoft Hyper-V VMs, and Microsoft 365 and G Suite accounts using our Active Backup suite.
Build your own private cloud
Access your data without boundaries, but only if you allow it. Granular access rights and customizable password and expiration policies for file sharing puts you in control of your data. Easily synchronize with remote sites for distributed work and set up data encryption for your most sensitive files.
Available today

All four devices are available for purchase today from Synology resellers and partners, with availability in additional regions following shortly.
Add your own comment

21 Comments on Synology Announces DS220+, DS420+, DS720+, and DS920+ NAS

#2
stimpy88
1Gb Ethernet, even on the 920+ and an 8GB limit on the RAM is a complete joke in mid 2020.
Posted on Reply
#3
sifu
its foolish to expose/port forward the NAS or security cameras directly to the internet, the only open port that should be open is the VPN port 1194.

the units with 2 LAN's can be bonded/aggregated
Posted on Reply
#4
bug
stimpy88
1Gb Ethernet, even on the 920+ and an 8GB limit on the RAM is a complete joke in mid 2020.
Tbh, 2.5Gbps routers aren't that widespread or cheap either. But since the units aren't cheap and you're not upgrading them every year, Synology could have done better.
8GB RAM I don't have a problem with.
Posted on Reply
#5
stimpy88
sifu
the units with 2 LAN's can be bonded/aggregated
Don't care. I don't want to run more cables just for a slower solution than a single poxy 2.5Gb port.
bug
Tbh, 2.5Gbps routers aren't that widespread or cheap either. But since the units aren't cheap and you're not upgrading them every year, Synology could have done better.
8GB RAM I don't have a problem with.
Running multiple VMs, Apps and server software, as well as the NAS's OS eats 8GB pretty quickly.

This NAS (920+) also costs nearly $1000CAD, and also comes with a crap Celeron dual core non-hyperthreadding CPU, as well as a GPU which cannot accelerate transcoding of 4K 10Bit. (HDR)

This $1000 NAS comes with about $100 worth of outdated (for 2020-2022) hardware.
sifu
ah well, go spend more on the DS1819+ with a 10gbe pci-e addon card, then you can stroke your ego.
The troll totally misses the point... I'm sorry you cannot afford a modern motherboard/router/switch, and have slow Internet to boot, but to insult people who do have these things, and actually like the idea that a brand new $1000 NAS that they were looking forward to the release of, should be able to transfer multi gigabyte files faster than 112MBs without re-wiring their house's ethernet, is simply childish.
Posted on Reply
#6
bug
stimpy88
Running multiple VMs, Apps and server software, as well as the NAS's OS eats 8GB pretty quickly.
You'll need a proper server for that, not a NAS.
Posted on Reply
#7
zlobby
bug
Tbh, 2.5Gbps routers aren't that widespread or cheap either. But since the units aren't cheap and you're not upgrading them every year, Synology could have done better.
8GB RAM I don't have a problem with.
New QNAP have SFP+ 10Gbps cages, 2.5Gbps and 1Gbps ports.
Posted on Reply
#8
bug
zlobby
New QNAP have SFP+ 10Gbps cages, 2.5Gbps and 1Gbps ports.
They also seem to be targeted more often by hackers. Pick your poison :P
Posted on Reply
#9
Octavean
zlobby
New QNAP have SFP+ 10Gbps cages, 2.5Gbps and 1Gbps ports.
QNAP tends to have better hardware for the money.
stimpy88
1Gb Ethernet, even on the 920+ and an 8GB limit on the RAM is a complete joke in mid 2020.
I agree that a 1GB hard limit is less then ideal and it is a hard limit if there is no PCIe expansion. However, the 8GB limit is likely a soft limit. Synology has an odd policy in that the removal of the included OEM Synology RAM voids your warranty and is unsupported so that is likely what they are referring to. In all likelihood the RAM can go well beyond 8GB probably by at lest a factor of 2. So 16GB is very likely,...
Posted on Reply
#10
PerfectWave
stimpy88
Don't care. I don't want to run more cables just for a slower solution than a single poxy 2.5Gb port.



Running multiple VMs, Apps and server software, as well as the NAS's OS eats 8GB pretty quickly.

This NAS (920+) also costs nearly $1000CAD, and also comes with a crap Celeron dual core non-hyperthreadding CPU, as well as a GPU which cannot accelerate transcoding of 4K 10Bit. (HDR)

This $1000 NAS comes with about $100 worth of outdated (for 2020-2022) hardware.


The troll totally misses the point... I'm sorry you cannot afford a modern motherboard/router/switch, and have slow Internet to boot, but to insult people who do have these things, and actually like the idea that a brand new $1000 NAS that they were looking forward to the release of, should be able to transfer multi gigabyte files faster than 112MBs without re-wiring their house's ethernet, is simply childish.
it is so simple synology does small upgrade every year so they can lunch new products evety year! next year you will see ds422+ LOL. It is called marketing ...
Posted on Reply
#11
TheLostSwede
sifu
the units with 2 LAN's can be bonded/aggregated
Have you ever used aggregation? It sounds like a good idea in theory, but sadly it doesn't work in reality.
You need to access the NAS with multiple clients to get more than 1Gbps out of it and you never get 2Gbps.
Hence why a faster NIC would be preferred.
Posted on Reply
#12
bug
PerfectWave
it is so simple synology does small upgrade every year so they can lunch new products evety year! next year you will see ds422+ LOL. It is called marketing ...
It's not a problem if the same amount of $$$ buys you a little more capable hardware compared to last year, even if the changes are nothing to write home about.
Now, what really irks me about Synology is $500 (or more) only buys you plastic HDD trays. And we all know what happens to plastic in time.
Posted on Reply
#13
TheLostSwede
PerfectWave
it is so simple synology does small upgrade every year so they can lunch new products evety year! next year you will see ds422+ LOL. It is called marketing ...
DS421+
They only go up one digit every year and they seem to adhere to the year it is.
Posted on Reply
#14
Octavean
I have a Synology NAS and its been a reliable workhorse for years. when looking for a replacement / upgrade it is a bit discouraging giiven the feature set on offer for the given price. Therefore I bought a decommissioned Dell server with real enterprise level hardware for probably a third or a quarter of what I would have paid for a retail Synology, QNAP or ASUStor NAS.

The down side is that dual Xeon processors wont be as energy efficient and the server will simply cost more to run annually then an anemic Intel Atom or Celeron.

Still, at some point you have to stop playing with overpriced toys,.....

Edit:

It should be pointed out that there are 2.5GbE Ethernet USB options out there but what are the chances that Synology will allow them to work with their NAS units? I’d say slim to none but 10GbE is a better option anyway IMO.
Posted on Reply
#15
zlobby
bug
They also seem to be targeted more often by hackers. Pick your poison :p
More often? Should less often sound reassuring then?
QNAP have a decent backlog of CVEs but they tend to patch quickly.
Meanwhile, look at the 'security' design of Synology...
Octavean
QNAP tends to have better hardware for the money.
I prefer their software ecosystem better, too.
Posted on Reply
#16
Octavean
zlobby
I prefer their software ecosystem better, too.
I can respect that,...

To each his or her own,...

I prefer the Synology DSM OS and the Synology Software over that of what QNAP has on offer. I currently have a Synology DS1815+ and a QNAP TS-451+ In addition to the new Dell surplus server that has yet to be put into service. Both have their pro’s and con’s but I was looking for something more substantial. Perhaps something in the rack mount form factor although I rather liked the Asustor AS7110T which is a 10 bay Xeon 9th gen model with dual NVMe support as well as 10GbE and triple 2.5GbE.

It’s still much cheaper to just buy a decommissioned enterprise level server though.
Posted on Reply
#17
Rexter
Hmm, not the product refresh I was hoping for. I have a DS918+ which I'm quite happy with. Disks are running in raid 10, nvme ssd cache and 16gb ram. Biggest downside is the celeron cpu but to be honest the software is very optimized so the CPU is used to it's fullest extent and rarely is the CPU bottlenecking. Well unless you are uploading photos to moments while two people are trying to stream videos and another is poking around DSM.
Anyway, I often hear people say "a NAS is not a server! Don't expose ports! buy a cheap decommissioned rack server!", well not everyone has space for a loud as hell old server, that uses a ton of power for just experimenting and having fun with some docker images, streaming, VM's and so on, I'm not trying to run a small business. And in regards to the ports, well yes you are right, but if you know what you are doing and take proper precautions you are more or less just as exposed to external threats as usual.

In regards to the DS920+, I had hoped they upgraded the NIC like their competitors have done, and also upgraded the CPU to at least one of the newer intel celerons with more than four cores and updated iGPU's. A ryzen derived CPU would be much better but that would require a newer mainboard and updated DSM.
Posted on Reply
#18
bug
Rexter
Anyway, I often hear people say "a NAS is not a server! Don't expose ports! buy a cheap decommissioned rack server!", well not everyone has space for a loud as hell old server, that uses a ton of power for just experimenting and having fun with some docker images, streaming, VM's and so on, I'm not trying to run a small business. And in regards to the ports, well yes you are right, but if you know what you are doing and take proper precautions you are more or less just as exposed to external threats as usual.
That warning does not mean "do not use it as a server", it's meant to be telling you that when you're using the NAS outside its scope, it's unfair to blame the manufacturer for the shortcomings. And that "if you know what you are doing" is opening a can of worms. For every guy that knows what they're doing (and bragging about it on the internet), there will be another 4-5 guys that only think they know what they're doing that will take a shot at it...
Posted on Reply
#19
Rexter
bug
That warning does not mean "do not use it as a server", it's meant to be telling you that when you're using the NAS outside its scope, it's unfair to blame the manufacturer for the shortcomings. And that "if you know what you are doing" is opening a can of worms. For every guy that knows what they're doing (and bragging about it on the internet), there will be another 4-5 guys that only think they know what they're doing that will take a shot at it...
Isn't that more or less what I said? Besides, if a NAS comes with the out-of-the-box ability to host web servers, emails and home video streaming to mobile devices, is it really out of scope to use it as such? It's marketed as a NAS but in honesty it's plainly a regular linux derived home server. And yes with that comes a whole new can of worms with security issues for the untrained user who buys one. So it's fine to say upfront "hey, don't expose your NAS anything outside your router, use a vpn if you need to", but if anyone wishes to use out-of-the-box features where exposing the NAS to the internet is a necessity, then let them; they were warned if something bad happens, but on the other hand, it gives them a chance to learn.
Posted on Reply
#20
Octavean
I suppose we left out building your own NAS and running something like FreeNAS as an option.

Anyway, the Asustor Lockerstor 10 Pro AS7110T has almost all the features I wanted in a NAS or server but it was in the ~$2400 USD price range assuming you could even find it in stock. Something like a Synology DS2419+ uses an Atom SoC which is OK for some tasks but given the price and performance level isn’t worth it to me. There may be a suitable Synology Rack Station but I had difficulty find one and a 12bay model would likely be in the same ~$2400+ price range.

As for an old server, there are some things that can be done to lower the power consumption and noise levels often aren’t an issue unless they are really being pushed. If there are 4 CPUs or 2 they can be reduced to 2 or 1. There may be lower power version of processors available. Fan curves can be set or fans can be replaced with lower RPM fans.
Posted on Reply
#21
bug
Octavean
I suppose we left out building your own NAS and running something like FreeNAS as an option.

Anyway, the Asustor Lockerstor 10 Pro AS7110T has almost all the features I wanted in a NAS or server but it was in the ~$2400 USD price range assuming you could even find it in stock. Something like a Synology DS2419+ uses an Atom SoC which is OK for some tasks but given the price and performance level isn’t worth it to me. There may be a suitable Synology Rack Station but I had difficulty find one and a 12bay model would likely be in the same ~$2400+ price range.

As for an old server, there are some things that can be done to lower the power consumption and noise levels often aren’t an issue unless they are really being pushed. If there are 4 CPUs or 2 they can be reduced to 2 or 1. There may be lower power version of processors available. Fan curves can be set or fans can be replaced with lower RPM fans.
DIY is obviously the more flexible and cheap way to go about it (as always), but in this case it comes with a drawback: you can't get as small a case as these prebuilt solutions. This can vary from a non-issue (if you have the space for a bigger case) to a deal-breaker (if your space is at a premium).
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment