4 ms·
They have way underpowered cpus compared to what you can get for the same money elsewhere. They're just a bad deal.
by Sammi 1y ago
They have way underpowered cpus compared to what you can get for the same money elsewhere. They're just a bad deal.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoI was just mentioning personal experience. It wasn't even an opinion. I would love to know what a "good deal" is. Seriously. It's about time for me to consider replacing them. Suggestions for a generic surveillance DVR would also be appreciated. Thanks!
- redditor98654 1y agoHi there, I was looking to get a NAS that I can just install and not have to worry about maintenance too much and senility was at the top of the list. If not synology what would you suggest?
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoIn my case, Synology has worked fine. Reliability is a big deal for non-backup RAID (not the same as "backup," but does the trick, 90% of the time). It's entirely possible that their newer units are crappier than the old workhorses I have. I don't use any of the fancier features that might require a beefier CPU. One of the units runs a surveillance station, and your choices for generic surveillance DVRs is fairly limited. Synology isn't perfect, but it works quite well, and isn't expensive. I have half a dozen types of cameras (I used to write ONVIF stuff). The Surveillance Station runs them all.
- nathan_douglas 1y agoSynology's fine - even ideal - for that use case. If you want to run Docker containers, run apps for video conversion like Plex, etc, then you'd likely want to consider something with a beefier CPU. For an appliance NAS, Synology's really pretty great.