A few weeks back, we had the launch of the DS1513+ 5-bay NAS from Synology. Today, we have the follow-up product in the 8-bay DS1813+. Similar to the DS1513+, we have four GbE ports in the new unit. The base platform remains the same (a 2.13 GHz Atom D2700 CPU and 2 GB of RAM, with the memory being upgradable to 3 GB 4 GB).

With all four links aggregated, Synology claims up to 350 MBps reads and 200 MBps writes. This is the same as what was claimed for the DS1513+. Other features available in the DS1513+ (such as Synology High Availability, screwless drive bays etc.) are also available in this new unit.

The total capacity can be extended from 8-bays to 18-bays using two DX513 expansion units. This unit is quite attractive to consumers looking for a 8-bay unit, with the only obvious issue being lackluster encryption performance (the Atom D2700 doesn't have the AES-NI feature to accelerate encrypted volume performance).

The unit is now shipping globally, though availability may vary by region. Going by what the DS1812+ was launched at, this unit can be expected to cost slightly north of $1000.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • glugglug - Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - link

    Can someone explain to me why you would use one of these NAS boxes over throwing together a cheap desktop box given the pricing?

    Is it just the convenience/plug-n-play nature of it?

    For businesses I could see it, saving time and having an obvious place to point to if things go wrong. But for home use ... if you have 1 system you could just throw some drives in something like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8... or if you have multiple systems you could just turn filesharing on on one of them with the external enclosure(s) attached.
  • Flunk - Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - link

    These devices are not designed for home use. It's a turnkey solution for businesses. Put this in and they don't need to spend much money setting it up and maintaining it.
  • Damek - Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - link

    One can save money on hardware, but for a well-put-together system, you need to make good hardware decisions, which requires knowing a fair amount about your hardware options, which change a lot over 2-5 years, which is how long one hopes a server solution lasts before requiring upgrade or replacement.

    Even if you're enough of a hobbyist or tech worker that you're familiar with hardware, you're going to spend a bit more to get a comparably power-efficient, quiet, compact system.

    I started speccing a tower PC to do this sort of work, but once I took power use into account, noise, space, etc, I just ended up getting a RAID enclosure to connect to an existing old Mac mini I had (those things are very power efficient). If I hadn't had that laying around, I would have gone with one of these NAS boxes.

    Yes, it's convenience, but not just "plug-n-play" in terms of software, it's also "don't need to be a hardware expert, don't need to design and build a hardware configuration that also takes energy use and noise into account," etc.
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - link

    "which change a lot over 2-5 years, which is how long one hopes a server solution lasts before requiring upgrade or replacement."
    I've read a few NAS forums and websites when I was building my own stuff and I would disagree with that. Many people there ran their server on old PIII hardware that gave them enough juice to stream HD content at 10MB/s. I bought a Quad Core AMD CPU and am saturating my GigE network. What more do I want? SATA will be around for many more years, so I don't need to upgrade because of changing connections. My CPU is fast enough to saturate my network, so I don't need to upgrade because of performance issues. The only reason to upgrade is if something breaks which happens to prebuilt stuff as well. Unless you start using your server for more than file hosting, you can live with something pretty old in terms of performance and still be happy as long as the HDDs still fit it (having an IDE-only system around now would be quite expensive).
    I'd even debate the power efficient, quiet and compact statement of yours. If you only run a few HDDs (sub-4), then that might be true. But as size increases, self-built stuff gets cheaper and the extra money can be easily spent on reducing noise and getting more frugal hardware (the new Kabini stuff looks great). :D
  • mavere - Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - link

    I'm someone who's currently in the market today for a 4-5 bay home NAS and who spent the last several days comparing Synology vs getting my own parts in terms of OS ease/capability and quietness/power usage/discreteness.

    Honestly, the benefits of a handbuilt NAS feels like the benefits of a 1999 desktop Linux system vs a present day Mac Mini. That can be good or bad depending on who you are, but the key point is that the best option is far from clear, even for one who's comfortable with tinkering his way around a computer.
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - link

    I understand when people want to have less than 4 drives for example. But if you get above that, I'd go with a discrete PC.
    My setup cost me 930€ and allows for 16 3.5" HDDs in RAID0/1/5 (software card, but enough performance to saturate GigE). It is a mid tower with 3x backplanes with 5 3.5" spaces in 3 5.25" slots, 2 8x RAID cards, AMD Quad Core x4 840 with 8GB ECC RAM. I could have saved money by increasing the footprint and decreasing density, but I like it that way. I haven't tweaked the loudness, because it is in another room. I could make it silent by spending another 50€ or so for better fans and heatsinks. I use Linux as an OS and even as a novice Linuxer I got it set up in a day, even though the RocketRaid card is quite temperamental. As long as you can build your own desktop, you can build your own NAS. And once you get to a certain size, it becomes much cheaper as well. Otherwise, those prebuilt things are okay for you parents or grandparents etc. :)
  • mooshroom - Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - link

    It's the large capacity, features, backup, and the point and click setup. All = convenience.
  • btb - Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - link

    Shame about the lackluster encrypted write performance(only 22MB/s). I'm looking forward to when they upgrade to processors with built-in encryption support.
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - link

    Their large business xs family uses more capable processors. Those ones have prices that make anything less than a SAN look cheap though.
  • Peroxyde - Thursday, May 30, 2013 - link

    May be it's too late but I hope my comment will help someone. I was about to buy a pre-built 4 bays NAS box for around $500. The price is pretty steep and I wanted to compare with a self built NAS Server. Here are the summary of my observations:

    1. In terms of quality build, a self-built NAS server will beat by far these Synology or QNAP boxes. Better in everything, CPU, case, silence, component quality.

    2. Using NAS4Free (the open source distro), ZFS has better quality and performance compared to physical RAID card.

    3. Unfortunately, you'll need to spend time to learn how to install, configure and maintain your NAS Server. The reward is that your NAS Server will beat these pre-built NAS boxes, even the pro version, on every factor: performance, quietness.

    4. CPU power is not the main criteria. Actually repurposing old hardware is a bad idea. Their inefficient power supply, energy sucking CPU will cost you in operating cost. For example, a P4 3 GHz running non stop for a year may cost you $100+ in electricity bill compared to a 17W CPU + Bronze PSU.

    Hope NAS gurus will agree with these observations.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now