Windows Server 2025 can run Windows and Hyper-V containers. The former share resources like the kernel with the host OS and have process-level isolation, while the latter run in virtual machines. To enable communication between containers and with physical systems, you must configure the network accordingly.

Source

Une attaque nommée Golden dMSA et liée aux comptes dMSA de Windows Server 2025 menace l'Active Directory : un accès persistant est promis à l'attaquant.

The post L’attaque Golden dMSA menace l’Active Directory : un accès persistant illimité à la clé ! first appeared on IT-Connect.

The Synology DS925+ versus QNAP TS-464 – Buy NEW or Buy QNAP?

Every so often in the NAS market, a new model arrives that challenges not just its predecessors but also its closest competitors. With the 2025 release of the Synology DS925+, buyers now face an interesting dilemma: go with Synology’s latest compact powerhouse, or choose QNAP’s TS-464—a device that has already proven itself since its release in 2022/2023 and offers a wide array of features at a competitive price. The DS925+ brings notable upgrades to CPU architecture, system memory scalability, and integration within Synology’s tightly controlled ecosystem. Meanwhile, the TS-464 has spent years benefiting from firmware maturity, PCIe expandability, and a more open hardware approach that appeals to power users and tinkerers alike. But which device is ultimately the better buy in 2025? Should you embrace Synology’s ecosystem with its newer, high-performance release, or does QNAP’s more versatile and budget-friendly offering still hold strong in the face of newer competition? Let’s dive into the details to help you decide which NAS deserves your next investment.

Synology DS925+ vs QNAP TS-464 – Hardware Specifications

When placing the 2025 Synology DS925+ alongside the 2022/2023 QNAP TS-464, one might expect the newer model to clearly dominate in every area. But hardware comparisons in the NAS market are rarely so simple. While both units are aimed at tech-savvy home users and small businesses looking for reliable, always-on storage solutions, their approaches to hardware—and the user needs they prioritize—are noticeably different. The DS925+ emphasizes streamlined performance, reduced noise, and integration within Synology’s tightly managed ecosystem. The QNAP TS-464, meanwhile, leans into raw hardware flexibility, DIY expandability, and a more open feature set for power users. Below is a detailed hardware breakdown of both NAS devices, showing where each shines and where compromises were made.

The DS925+ delivers a refined hardware experience out of the box, with its newer AMD Embedded Ryzen V1500B 4 Core/ 8 thread processor, dual 2.5GbE ports for faster LAN connectivity, and modern I/O including USB-C. It features two M.2 NVMe slots (for cache only, unless you use the Synology SNV3400 drives from Synology), dual memory slots supporting up to 32GB of ECC DDR4 RAM, and a compact metal chassis designed for quiet, efficient operation. It also runs cooler and quieter than many of its rivals, making it an ideal fit for environments where noise levels matter—such as living rooms, home studios, or small offices. This makes the DS925+ a “plug-and-play” NAS with premium internal components and minimal need for user intervention.

By contrast, the QNAP TS-464 takes a more modular, expandable approach. Powered by the Intel Celeron N5105/N5095 CPU (a quad-core processor with integrated graphics, but only 4 threads), it offers HDMI 2.0 output, two M.2 PCIe Gen3 x1 slots (which can be used for either caching or storage pools), and a PCIe Gen3 x2 slot for optional 10GbE or more M.2s, USB expansion, or even GPU cards. QNAP also includes dual 2.5GbE ports, putting it on par with the DS925+ in terms of network speed, but it edges ahead in overall hardware adaptability. Want multimedia output via HDMI? QNAP has it. Want to add NVMe storage pools or real-time transcoding? QNAP supports that too. That said, the TS-464 is based on a slightly older CPU architecture, lacks ECC memory support, and typically generates more fan noise under load. Additionally, its OS and ecosystem are broader in scope but often require more manual setup. Ultimately, the DS925+ is purpose-built for those who prioritize a quiet, polished, and simplified experience with modern performance. The TS-464, on the other hand, remains an excellent choice for users who prefer control, multimedia support, and greater hardware flexibility. Choosing between them largely depends on whether you value Synology’s stability and turnkey design, or QNAP’s freedom and potential.

AMD V1500B vs Intel N5105 – CPU Specifications (Synology DS925+ vs QNAP TS-464)

In any NAS system, the processor plays a pivotal role in determining the scope of functionality—whether it’s managing multiple concurrent users, running virtual machines, powering AI-driven applications, or simply handling encrypted transfers and background tasks efficiently. The Synology DS925+ and the QNAP TS-464 take noticeably different approaches in this regard. The DS925+ features the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1500B, a server-grade SoC designed for sustained multi-threaded workloads. The TS-464, on the other hand, runs on the Intel Celeron N5105, a more consumer-oriented chip that prioritizes integrated multimedia support and power efficiency. While both CPUs are quad-core, their architecture, instruction set, and target use cases diverge sharply—affecting not only raw processing, but also the capabilities unlocked within DSM and QTS/QuTS, respectively.

In terms of raw specs, the V1500B offers 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 2.2GHz and support for ECC memory—a key advantage for mission-critical environments. This CPU is built for multitasking and thrives in scenarios involving virtual machines, container services, and intensive file indexing or backup operations. As a result, the DS925+ supports up to 8 concurrent virtual machines, 8 virtual DSM instances, and higher thresholds for connected users across Synology apps. It is better suited to offices or power users who rely on services like Synology Office, Drive, or Surveillance Station running in tandem. The system handles up to 150 Synology Chat users, 80 Office users, and 80 Drive users, offering excellent multitasking performance with low overhead.

The QNAP TS-464’s Intel N5105 is a 10nm Jasper Lake processor, also quad-core but without hyper-threading and with a slightly lower base clock (2.0GHz). However, it includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics, giving it one key advantage the DS925+ lacks: hardware-accelerated video transcoding via QNAP’s own QuMagie, Video Station, and especially Plex Media Server with support for on-the-fly 1080p and 4K decoding when paired with proper client-side licensing. This makes the TS-464 ideal for multimedia-heavy environments. Beyond media, the N5105 powers QTS and QuTS hero with access to QNAP’s broader and often more modular ecosystem. This includes Hybrid Backup Sync (HBS 3) for unified backup and disaster recovery, QuDedup for deduplicated snapshot replication, QVR Elite and QVR Pro for professional-grade surveillance (supporting multiple IP camera licenses natively), and AI Core features like face recognition and event detection when paired with the QuMagie or QVR Human apps. The TS-464 also supports Virtualization Station, enabling users to run lightweight Linux or Windows VMs with direct passthrough access to USB or PCIe devices, and Container Station, which offers both Docker and LXC container compatibility with GPU passthrough for NPU-based AI inference workloads. Thanks to the included PCIe Gen 3 x2 slot, the system supports optional upgrades like 10GbE NICs, QM2 expansion cards (for M.2 SSD or additional 2.5GbE/10GbE ports), or even Wi-Fi 6 cards, something entirely absent in the DS925+. Additionally, QNAP allows direct output to an external display via HDMI 2.0, enabling standalone use of HD Station apps like Chrome, LibreOffice, Kodi, and even Linux desktop environments — a feature highly prized in HTPC and security NVR deployments. Users can leverage Linux Station to run full Ubuntu VMs locally, or install Ubuntu Core through the App Center for custom development or edge AI inference scenarios.

Taken together, the TS-464 may not support the same high virtual machine/user count as the DS925+, but it compensates with a broader set of integrated appliances catering to power users, home labs, edge AI, and media-heavy deployments. It’s a more “tinker-friendly” platform, favoring flexibility and breadth over centralized system control and vertical integration. If you need an appliance that works across entertainment, security, and hybrid cloud workflows, with room for add-on functionality via hardware or apps, the TS-464 is hard to beat for the price. That said, the Synology DS925+ ultimately offers greater headroom for enterprise workflows, heavier VM usage, and large-scale hybrid deployments. It sacrifices media transcoding and graphical acceleration, but gains a server-class CPU that ensures consistent performance under heavier load conditions. Meanwhile, the TS-464 excels in edge-case versatility, offering more multimedia flexibility and richer expansion potential via PCIe. If your priorities lie in business-class performance, ECC memory support, and robust multi-user capacity, the DS925+ is the clear winner. But for media streaming, home lab tinkering, and a wider hardware feature set, the TS-464 remains a very compelling alternative.

Synology DS925+ vs QNAP TS-464 – Software Specifications

When it comes to NAS platforms, hardware is only half the story—what truly determines a system’s long-term value is the strength, maturity, and flexibility of its software. Synology’s DSM (DiskStation Manager) and QNAP’s QTS/QuTS Hero are two of the most advanced NAS operating systems available today, offering extensive suites of services for backup, virtualization, hybrid cloud, media streaming, and AI-assisted surveillance. But while both OS platforms cover similar ground, their design philosophies, application depth, and supported workloads differ substantially. The Synology DS925+ and QNAP TS-464, though comparable in price and both aimed at prosumers and SMBs, unlock very different software experiences depending on the deployment goals—be it centralized IT infrastructure, media-rich home labs, or container-based edge computing.

With the DS925+, Synology leans into its strength in unified management and vertical integration. DSM 7.2 is optimized for reliability, simplicity, and scalability within Synology’s ecosystem. The DS925+ supports up to 8 virtual machines and 8 Virtual DSM instances through Virtual Machine Manager, offers extensive group and user quotas, and enables full integration with Synology’s cloud services (such as Synology C2 Backup, C2 Identity, and Hybrid Share). Its higher hardware ceiling allows for more active users: 150 on Synology Chat, 80 on Synology Drive and Office, and up to 8 simultaneous VPN connections. Backup capabilities are similarly robust, with a higher threshold of shared folder sync tasks and superior support for incremental snapshot replication. Surveillance Station on the DS925+ supports up to 40 IP cameras and benefits from reduced CPU overhead during continuous recording, even while handling concurrent backup or media indexing operations. DSM’s elegant UI, consistent updates, and tightly integrated packages make it ideal for organizations that value centralized IT administration and long-term platform stability.

On the other hand, the QNAP TS-464 running QTS 5 or QuTS Hero offers a more open and modular software ecosystem. While the Intel N5105 CPU imposes lower multitasking ceilings than the V1500B, QNAP compensates with a broader set of feature-specific applications and customization paths. The TS-464 supports virtualization through Virtualization Station (for VMs) and Container Station (for Docker + LXC), and unlike the DS925+, can output video directly via HDMI 2.0—allowing the NAS to act as a standalone Linux desktop, NVR, or HTPC via HybridDesk Station. QNAP also differentiates itself with Hybrid Backup Sync (HBS3), which enables multi-destination sync, deduplicated backup via QuDedup, and real-time disaster recovery tools not found in DSM. QVR Pro and QVR Elite offer an expansive surveillance suite with optional AI-powered analytics (e.g., face recognition, people counting) when paired with compatible QNAP AI apps. The inclusion of ZFS with QuTS Hero (an optional OS for the TS-464) enables inline compression, self-healing file systems, and block-level snapshots, which can be critical for data integrity in business scenarios.

QNAP also encourages expansion through its App Center, which includes over 150+ native and third-party apps, from Node.js and GitLab to Home Assistant, Ubuntu Station, and even Mattermost for self-hosted chat. While the system supports fewer concurrent users and VMs than the DS925+, its strength lies in feature breadth and system-level flexibility. Add-ons like 10GbE NICs, QM2 SSD accelerators, or Wi-Fi 6 cards via PCIe further extend its versatility, especially for hybrid edge workloads or multi-role deployments that evolve over time. In short, the Synology DS925+ is designed for administrative simplicity and long-term scaling, excelling in consistent performance across multi-user deployments with deep DSM integration. The QNAP TS-464, meanwhile, is a powerful sandbox for customization, offering greater freedom, multimedia functionality, and third-party integration—at the cost of some operational polish and software limits. Choosing between them depends on whether your priorities lie in predictable enterprise-grade execution or a more adaptable, feature-dense platform.

Synology DS925+ vs QNAP TS-464 – Hard Drive and SSD Compatibility

In 2025, Synology has taken its most aggressive step yet toward locking down hardware compatibility, and nowhere is this more evident than in the DS925+. Following years of gradual restrictions—starting with warnings for unverified drives and progressing to default white-listing only Synology-branded media—the DS925+ now represents a firm line in the sand. At the time of writing, this system will not allow DSM initialization if it detects hard drives or SSDs that are not officially listed on Synology’s compatibility list. This list includes exclusively Synology HAT5300/HAT3310 HDDs and SAT5200 SSDs, with no third-party Seagate, WD, Toshiba, Samsung, or Kingston media currently supported. Regardless of drive quality or performance, unsupported models will be outright blocked during system setup. While Synology claims this guarantees optimal reliability and performance within DSM 7.2, the move drastically reduces flexibility for users and integrators alike.

In stark contrast, the QNAP TS-464 embraces an open compatibility philosophy. It supports virtually all major consumer and enterprise drives—from Seagate IronWolf and Exos, to WD Red, Red Plus, and Ultrastar, as well as Toshiba N300/X300 and Samsung/Kingston SSDs—up to 24TB per drive (or higher as of late 2025). QNAP also maintains a regularly updated compatibility list, but crucially, this list is advisory rather than mandatory. Users can install any 3.5″ or 2.5″ SATA HDD/SSD, and as long as it meets the physical and electrical standards, the TS-464 will initialize without issue. This means integrators, home users, or small businesses can reuse existing drives or select from the most cost-effective options in their region—something that’s increasingly difficult to do on newer Synology units. Moreover, QNAP allows mixing and matching of drive brands and capacities within the same storage pool (especially under QuTS hero’s ZFS environment), giving users granular control over redundancy, performance tuning, and cache layering with non-proprietary M.2 NVMe SSDs. This openness also applies to QNAP expansion units, many of which continue to work even with completely mixed-brand storage configurations—something Synology’s newer expansion policies have started to restrict.

For users in regions where Synology-branded media is expensive, hard to find, or simply not justified for non-critical applications, this policy shift on the DS925+ can be a deal-breaker. It positions the system closer to an appliance model, where Synology controls not only the hardware and software, but the storage medium itself. While that vertical integration may improve long-term reliability for some enterprise users, it’s difficult to reconcile with the broader DIY NAS community that values choice and modularity. Ultimately, this creates a philosophical divide: QNAP remains open, modular, and adaptable, trusting users to make informed decisions about their storage media. Synology, in contrast, is consolidating control, with the DS925+ exemplifying a move toward a closed ecosystem—potentially alienating users who previously praised DSM for its balance of simplicity and flexibility. Prospective buyers need to weigh not just performance and features, but how tightly they want to be tied to a single vendor’s hardware roadmap.

Synology DS925+ vs QNAP TS-464 NAS – Which Should You Buy?

The Synology DS925+ is a 2025 refresh designed with clear intent: push performance, tighten control, and streamline the out-of-box experience. In contrast, the QNAP TS-464—released in late 2022—is a Swiss Army knife of NAS flexibility, packed with customization options, open compatibility, and enough horsepower to meet the needs of both power users and small business deployments. Choosing between them ultimately comes down to what kind of NAS experience you’re after: a controlled, polished, and tightly integrated environment, or an open, adaptable, and hardware-friendly platform. On raw performance, the DS925+ has the edge. Its quad-core, 8-thread AMD V1500B CPU delivers higher throughput for multitasking, virtual machines, and heavier concurrent services, and DSM’s user/service thresholds are notably higher as a result. Add in dual 2.5GbE ports by default, and it’s clearly a step ahead of the DS923+ predecessor 1GbE-only base configuration, and you are looking at a healthy upgrade in several ways in this refresh. However, QNAP claws back ground with its PCIe Gen3 x2 slot, allowing 10GbE upgrades, Wi-Fi cards, and even GPU acceleration in select use cases—something Synology removed entirely from the DS925+. In QNAP’s favor is also its support for real-time hardware transcoding, HDMI 2.0 video output, and direct-attached monitor access—making it a better fit for media-centric environments where local playback, Plex, or Kodi usage matters.

Synology DS925+ NAS		QNAP TS-464 NAS
Check Amazon in Your Region for the Synology DS925+ NAS	Check B&H for the Synology DS925+ NAS	Check Amazon in Your Region for the QNAP TS-464 NAS	Check B&H for the QNAP TS-464 NAS

But perhaps the most significant dividing line is drive compatibility. The DS925+ will only initialize DSM with Synology-validated drives—locking out nearly all third-party HDDs and SSDs unless explicitly approved. This hardline stance means limited flexibility for users wanting to build using existing drives or regional market alternatives. Meanwhile, the TS-464 supports virtually all consumer and enterprise drives, from Seagate to Toshiba to Kingston, giving users total control over their storage budget and deployment roadmap. This open-ecosystem approach extends to M.2 NVMe usage too, where QNAP allows storage pool creation, caching, and tiering with off-the-shelf modules, while Synology restricts pool creation to only their branded NVMes. If you’re an IT administrator, content creator, or SMB looking for a polished, performance-forward NAS and you’re fully on board with Synology’s ecosystem—including its branded drives—then the DS925+ offers a streamlined, high-ceiling experience with excellent multitasking potential and cleaner UI/UX polish under DSM 7.2. But if you’re someone who values flexibility, upgrade paths, media support, or simply wants to control your storage choices without vendor lock-in, the QNAP TS-464 is an incredibly compelling alternative—offering strong performance for its price, an open architecture, and a deeper toolbox under QTS/QuTS Hero.

NAS Solutions	NAS Solutions
+ Better Software (In almost every respect!) + Much Better Global Support Presence + More business desirable + Larger Range of solutions – Compatibility restrictions on HDD and Upgrades More and more – Underwhelming hardware (comparatively)	+ Better Hardware for Price + Wider Variety of Solutions and Hardware Profiles + Supports ZFS and/or EXT4 (with ZFS platform now available on latest Intel Celeron Systems) + Wide accessory range and compatibility – Software can often feel inconsistent – Hit by Security Issues if the past
Check Amazon By Clicking Below:	Check Amazon By Clicking Below:

The Synology DS925+ is the better plug-and-play NAS for prosumers and SMBs who want a high-performance, low-maintenance experience—provided they’re comfortable buying into Synology’s tightly controlled ecosystem of software and storage hardware. On the other hand, the QNAP TS-464 remains the better choice for users who value flexibility, hardware freedom, and scalability—especially if media features, drive compatibility, or future upgrades are part of the plan. Ultimately, the DS925+ is the sharper tool, but the TS-464 is the more versatile one.

 

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

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. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   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

 

Microsoft confirme une panne avec WSUS empêchant la synchronisation avec Microsoft Update, et donc, le déploiement des nouvelles mises à jour Windows.

The post Une panne mondiale pour WSUS qui refuse de se synchroniser avec les serveurs de Microsoft ! first appeared on IT-Connect.

If Not Synology? Which Other NAS Brand Should You Choose?

It’s an odd question, but with Synology arguably making some rather higher business and enterprise decisions in recent years, there have been increasing queries about who would fill the void if they moved onwards and upwards. As Synology holds such a powerful position in the NAS market, their absence would certainly lead to quite the battle of strength from other players. The obvious answer would be QNAP, a brand that has a similar history to Synology (over two decades in the business, Taiwan-based, in-house OS, numerous 1st-party tools, home and business solutions, etc.), but in 2025, the reality is nowhere near as clear-cut. Younger established brands that have jockeyed for 3rd position, such as Asustor and Terramaster, have been challenged by several startups (ZimaCube and Zimaboard 2, Orico’s Cyberdata Vault, to name just two) entering the fray, as well as established brands like UGREEN, which are expanding their business into the NAS sector. If Synology, for whatever reason, ceased to occupy this important user class of private turnkey server ownership, who would be best placed to occupy it?

How, Where and Why Has Synology Changed?

Synology’s rapid change in business stance to be more enterprise/hyperscale-focused comes at the same time as their frequency of more entry-level, small business, prosumer, and enthusiast solutions has dropped. The regularity of smaller 2-Bay and 4-Bay solutions has noticeably decreased, and the hardware they feature has changed to accommodate more business-type use. This by no means suggests that the brand is making moves to exit these user groups (indeed, support of DSM and the latest revision DSM 7.2.2 extends to all existing users up to many systems released in the late 2010s). However, there has been plenty of user outcry from existing users and potential customers on the architecture of both DSM and the recent releases that exacerbate users to move away from the brand and spend their allocated budgets elsewhere. Synology still comfortably sits ahead of its competitors in terms of software, features, and the UX of their platform, but many changes in policy and support mentioned below have started this trend:

• Changes in 3rd-party HDD compatibility on systems above the 8-Bay scale, prioritizing their own 1st-party labeled HDDs and SSDs, as well as reducing the presentation and compatibility listings on their site significantly.
• Changes in the choice of internal hardware featured in their systems to be more focused on business file processes and less on multimedia use.
• Comparatively smaller increases in base hardware between refreshes of individual series (e.g., J4125 and V1500B CPUs in 2024 launch devices, despite first appearing in 2019/2020).
• Considerable increased focus on software enhancements over hardware (not a bad thing, but an undeniable fact).
• Increased proprietary hardware support over 3rd-party (e.g., Synology-only Memory modules, custom 10GbE adapters like the E10G22-T1, Synology-only M.2 SSDs for Pool Use).
• An increasing number of cloud subscription services getting newer features, while local services remain secure and stable but static.
• New product focus shifting towards newer larger-scale solutions like the evolving GridStation series, Active Protect subscription system, and C2 innovations.
• The predicted elimination of the J entry-level series in favor of the pre-populated and software-streamlined BeeStation.

All of the above are small factors in themselves, but add them all up, and you see small but important stepping stones toward a gear shift in Synology’s target demographic. So, if Synology were to intentionally or inadvertently begin to move outside of these user groups of home, small business, and enthusiast, who stands to fill this space and grow?

---

QNAP vs Synology?

As mentioned earlier, QNAP stands to be the most likely contender to fill this space. With over 20 years of history, a larger range of hardware solutions than Synology, and software that does pretty much everything Synology’s does, they have been consistent competitors. However, inconsistencies in user experience, conflicting UIs, and a tendency to try to do “too much” have resulted in their losing ground to Synology in terms of software. Add to this the negative brand impact of security incidents in 2020-2022, which tarnished their reputation around security and safety, requiring serious improvement. To the brand’s credit, they have made considerable internal culture changes on this subject, adding bounty programs, tightening system defaults, increasing pen testing, introducing several system security scanning tools, disabling things like SSH and admin super user accounts as standard, and more.

Value Series	Best All Rounder	Prosumer NAS
TS-233 2-Bay NAS	TS-464 4-Bay NAS	TVS-h874 8-Bay NAS
$189 on Amazon (Check Here)	$549 on Amazon (Check Here)	$2499 on Amazon (Check Here)

In terms of hardware, they have mostly stuck to what works, refreshing existing product families at the same rate of 2.5-3 years for desktop small-medium scale, and 3-5 years for larger scale. They have also introduced significantly more recent CPUs from both Intel and AMD, as well as 2.5GbE as standard on their solutions at the same price point as 1GbE. If it weren’t for the damaging brand harm caused by the Deadbolt/QSnatch/Qlocker ransomware attacks, I think Synology would have been significantly challenged by QNAP in the last 2-3 years across all fronts. However, the setback to QNAP’s reputation reduced this growth potential significantly, and in the last two years, we have seen an increasing number of new names pop up in NAS that have also harmed QNAP’s appeal to users in terms of hardware value, the thing they could always be relied upon to beat Synology on. QNAP would still stand to become the ‘top dog’ in the event of a Synology exit (Synexit?) from the low-to-medium tiers of NAS storage, but many new players have entered the field, such as…

---

UGREEN vs QNAP?

Largely known for their power adapters and PC accessories, a year ago UGREEN had practically no real presence in the world of NAS. They had a smaller scale and more entry-level range of solutions that were limited to the East, but aside from that, they were complete outsiders. Fast forward to now, and following a successful and well-marketed Kickstarter campaign that raised millions of dollars, they are now a provider of genuinely impressive turnkey NAS solutions—the NASync series. The key word there is “turnkey”, as in they are providing both the hardware and the software. They could have just rolled out their hardware and made it OS-free (i.e., “Here’s a ready-built server, now go install UnRAID or TrueNAS”), but instead, they opted to produce and include an impressively responsive NAS OS in UGOS. Genuinely challenging the feature set of the likes of Asustor and Terramaster, as well as the design of Synology and the hardware level of QNAP, UGREEN has made a rapidly growing name for itself in the small-to-medium NAS sector.

Value Series	Best All Rounder	Prosumer NAS
DXP2800 2-Bay NAS	DXP4800 PLUS 4-Bay NAS	DXP8800 PLUS 8-Bay NAS
$399 on Amazon (Check Here)	$699 on Amazon (Check Here)	$1499 on Amazon (Check Here)

They definitely lack the range of solutions that those other brands offer, with only 6 solutions currently available (the DXP2800, DXP4800/PLUS, DXP6680, DXP8800, and DXP480T), and no rackmount solutions yet, but it’s a solid start. Equally, their software, although fluid and responsive in nailing down the NAS fundamentals, lacks many of the more impressive AAA+ solutions that are offered by the bigger brands. Lastly, although they raised a considerable sum during the crowdfunding, they do not have the global support, offices, or availability of their long-running NAS competitors—with solutions only being available in two regions, the US and Germany. All of these factors add up to a brand that is poised to make even bigger splashes in the years to come but is perhaps not quite ready to replace the big dog, Synology, just yet!

---

ASUSTOR vs Synology?

Always the bridesmaid, but never the bride, Asustor is a brand that has been around in the world of NAS in one shape or form for quite a few years. They are one of the mainstream Taiwanese brands in NAS that has always ‘been there’, but it is only in the last 4-5 years that they have been making sizable moves to take on both Synology and QNAP. One of the main ways in which they pursued this is by developing numerous features in both hardware and software that are available from their competitors individually. So features such as M.2 NVMe-focused storage systems, BTRFS support, WORM locking, 2.5GbE/5GbE support, HDMI output via a dedicated GUI, and more are features available on Synology and QNAP to some extent, but only Asustor rolls them under one brand umbrella. So, how poised are they to fill a void if Synology moved out of this space?

Well, from a hardware standpoint, Asustor is in a very good position. Them being Taiwan-based will certainly soothe concerns that have grown around Chinese companies and data storage solutions. Equally, their hardware has evolved rapidly in their last two generations to feature some genuinely unique solutions that are either specific to the platform or priced at a level that makes them genuinely competitive against DIY and BYO solutions. Systems such as the Flashstor series, Lockerstor series, and even value offerings like the Drivestor are surprisingly well equipped. They are not quite on the same level of hardware as QNAP (who have a significantly more diverse hardware portfolio), but they are fleshing it out very well.

Value Series	Best All Rounder	Prosumer NAS
Nimbustor Gen 2 2-Bay NAS	Flashstor Gen 1 12-Bay NAS	Lockerstor Gen 3 8/10-Bay NAS
$369 on Amazon (Check Here)	$449-749 on Amazon (Check Here)	$1999 on Amazon (Check Here)

However, it is the software of Asustor (ADM) that is unfortunately where the brand is a little more timid. They have a NAS OS, numerous client tools for Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android—and they nail down the bulk of the application fundamentals for storage management, multi-site backup handling, multimedia playback, containers, and more. But the platform lacks a few of the more AAA/desirable services, such as AI-powered photo recognition, a 1st-party VM tool, ZFS support, and ultimately is a little more reliant on 3rd-party applications to fill the gaps. They have recently countered this by officially detailing that they support users who buy Asustor hardware to go ahead and install 3rd-party NAS software like TrueNAS or UnRAID without it harming your warranty—so they know they are not leading the pack in terms of their own ADM NAS software but do make noticeable user concessions. With new hardware on the horizon in the Lockerstor Gen3 and Flashstor Gen2 (both of which see a significant bump in hardware profiles), we might see some impressive moves from Asustor in 2025. I just think they still have some ways to go before they can fill any potential void that Synology might leave.

---

TERRAMASTER vs Synology?

Terramaster has been jockeying for the NAS 3rd place spot with Asustor for well over a decade at this point, and much like their opponent, they have been good at integrating individual features from both QNAP and Synology into their own NAS hardware and TOS platform, but to a larger degree than Asustor. For example, their OS provides largely everything that Asustor ADM does (including TrueNAS/UnRAID support without voiding your warranty) but adds to this with an AI photo recognition platform, their own VM tool, and an impressive Isolation Mode that can sever the system at the click of a button from remote access, 3rd-party PHP, and any external requests (necessitating a restart to disable). However, as this brand is a Chinese brand, there will always be question marks raised by users about how this system compares with Taiwanese-based systems. This is a little unfair, given that Terramaster, Asustor, and QNAP were all successfully hit by the same ransomware attack (Deadbolt) a few years back, so there was plenty of ‘vulnerability’ to spread around!

In terms of hardware, Terramaster has been making some impressive and aggressive strides in this area—with the recent launch of their 3-part F4-424 Intel NAS series (Standard, Pro, and MAX), the release of two 8-bay M.2 NVMe 10GbE equipped systems (the F8 PLUS and F8 SSD PLUS), and new desktop and rackmounts hot on their heels. They have also scaled up the design to better improve cooling, efficiency, and just general visual appeal.

Value Series	Best All Rounder	Prosumer NAS
F2-424 2-Bay NAS	F4-424 Max 4-Bay NAS	T9-500 Pro 9-Bay NAS
$369 on Amazon (Check Here)	$819 on Amazon (Check Here)	$1499 on Amazon (Check Here)

However, much like Asustor, their software is just not able to challenge the standard that Synology has set. For buyers looking for smooth and easy utilization like Synology, Terramaster’s TOS has the danger of feeling a little clunky. Their latest release, TOS6, brings new features, software standards, and design to the mix, but it lacks the range of mobile applications, desktop client tools, and consistent UX/presentation that Synology seems to do so well. Terramaster is a fantastic value-for-money choice, and I would argue they have significantly scaled up the level of hardware and software utility they provide year on year. But they still have a way to go before they can hit the same notes as Synology DSM yet.

---

WD / Netgear vs Synology?

This is a pretty short one! The answer is no! Both WD and Netgear have regularly reduced their hardware ranges and the frequency of software updates these last few years, and although there are a decent range of business file server systems still being released, the general home/enthusiast/prosumer level of hardware is pretty poor and uninteresting compared to everyone else on this list so far. I cannot help but get the feeling that, aside from some basic backup NAS systems that are still listed at the majority of retailers, the bulk of their range has been in circulation for 5-6 years now without any refresh in sight. For basic target file/folder storage, these systems still provide some limited modern NAS utility, but overall, they are a fairly weak alternative to Synology’s offerings in 2025.

---

A UniFi NAS?

With increased mentions and leaks online towards a potential NAS in the works from UniFi, this could be a very credible alternative to Synology in terms of software UX and presentation. UniFi, and its incredibly user-friendly UX featured on their Switch, Router, NVR, and Dream Machine combination systems, is where UniFi shines. No doubt any UniFi NAS solution would need to similarly blend into their ecosystem to the same degree. That said, if they were to launch a system, all their experience in the fields of network management, router security, and surveillance systems might not necessarily translate into a similar pedigree in network-attached storage. It’s hard to discuss how or if UniFi could fill any market space that a potential Synology absence would create, as they do not have any systems out in the market to make an informed decision. This is for the “To Be Continued…” pile!

---

Drobo vs Synology?

No…just…no. See Video Below:

---

IceWhale / ZimaCube

This is a very interesting one. 2023 and 2024 saw several companies arrive in the turnkey NAS space via the crowdfunding route (we already discussed UGREEN as the biggest example), wanting to break into the market. However, IceWhale benefits from having already launched two previous successfully fulfilled campaigns and is just completing their third one with the ZimaCube NAS system. Arriving with the lightweight containerized platform Zima OS (a modified version of their existing Casa OS), this new series is pretty impressive for its scale and price point at launch. Add to that the significantly unique design, impressive use of 10GbE and Thunderbolt over IP, and a 6x HDD / 4x NVMe system in a compact case, and you can see why they have made a fairly significant splash for a brand that is comparatively unheard of compared to Synology, QNAP, etc.

However, as robust as their range of solutions is (ZimaBoard, ZimaBlade, and ZimaCube), the software is still very rudimentary compared to the bulk of other browser GUI and more “operating system”-stylized UX. There are virtually no client applications, except for their own system search and connection client tools. An eventual successor to Synology, if they moved upwards toward bigger and more business-oriented solutions, would need to hit the software functionality and user experience exceedingly early and exceedingly well.

Mini PC Brands – Lincplus, Aoostar, etc.

This is an odd one. There have been a large number of solutions appearing on sites such as AliExpress that arrive as “OS-Free” services, allowing a user to get a pre-built NAS hardware solution (i.e., no need to build one yourself, which takes longer and requires a degree of technical understanding). The end user can then choose to install popular and well-established solutions like TrueNAS, UnRAID, OpenMediaVault, and more.

Value Option	Best All Rounder	SSD Focused NAS
Aoostar WTR Pro 4-Bay NAS	Minsiforum MS-01 3/6-Bay NAS	Lincplus Lincstation N1 6-Bay NAS
$399-799 on Amazon (Check Here)	$399 on Amazon (Check Here)	$399 on Amazon (Check Here)

This serves as an impressively economical solution and has significantly grown in popularity in 2023/2024, but these 3rd-party software platforms lack a lot of the ease of use and quality of life client tools for modern devices that Synology features. Indeed, despite efforts like UnRAID 7 making its day-to-day use much easier, and TrueNAS working with HexOS for a more user-friendly output, these still pale in comparison to DSM and will also require a greater degree of technical user input in the long term to maintain stability, versus Synology’s rather more “it takes care of itself” design.

---

Synology vs EVERYONE ELSE – Conclusion and Verdict

If Synology were to leave the home/enthusiast/prosumer/small business tier very soon, I do think QNAP would stand to reoccupy this ground. However, give it 2-3 years, and I do think players like Terramaster, Asustor, and yes—even UGREEN—are poised to give QNAP some serious consumer competition. No doubt Synology is still keeping an eye on their competition (big and small) and would not willingly or easily give up this sector without a fight. However, there is no denying that the turnkey NAS industry is no longer the 2-3 horse race it was just five years ago!

---

---

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

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. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   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

 

Synology VS Terramaster NAS Drives in 2025 – Which One Deserves Your Data?

Synology and TerraMaster are two well-established brands in the network-attached storage (NAS) industry, each targeting a range of users from home enthusiasts to small and medium-sized businesses. Synology, a Taiwanese company with over two decades in the field, is widely recognized for its DSM (DiskStation Manager) software, which emphasizes stability, security, and integration within a tightly controlled ecosystem. TerraMaster, while newer to the market, has steadily gained ground by offering hardware-focused, cost-effective solutions with increasing software support via its TOS (TerraMaster Operating System) platform.

I want to provide a side-by-side comparison between Synology and TerraMaster as they stand in 2025, focusing on the real-world differences in hardware, storage, software, and security. The goal is to outline the practical strengths and weaknesses of each brand without leaning heavily toward subjective preferences or historical bias. This is especially relevant for users reevaluating Synology due to recent policy shifts, or for those considering TerraMaster as a flexible and affordable alternative.

 TerraMaster’s TOS (TerraMaster Operating System), currently in version 5.1 with version 6 available on select systems, has seen rapid growth in capabilities and usability over the last few years. While it doesn’t yet match DSM’s polish, it has made significant strides in offering equivalent functionality. TOS supports Btrfs-based snapshots, Rsync and CloudSync for cloud backup, Docker container deployment, and VirtualBox-based virtualization. While the latter is less tightly integrated than Synology’s VMM, it does allow for third-party VM deployment in a usable way.

TerraMaster has also developed TerraSync, a synchronization tool designed to rival Synology Drive, and supports both media management and AI-enhanced photo sorting with apps like Terra Photos. However, many of TOS’s functions rely more heavily on community-driven or open-source third-party applications, resulting in a slightly less unified experience overall.

In terms of application ecosystems, Synology’s App Center clearly offers the broader and deeper catalog, particularly for business users. First-party applications such as Synology Office, Chat, MailPlus, and Note Station deliver a productivity-focused alternative to cloud services, and their Surveillance Station software stands out as one of the most powerful NVR platforms in the NAS market.

TerraMaster’s App Center includes essential tools but lacks the same level of first-party development. However, it makes up for this in openness: TerraMaster supports a wide array of third-party and open-source platforms more freely, including Jellyfin and Unraid. Moreover, TerraMaster allows alternative operating systems like TrueNAS to be installed without voiding the warranty, which adds considerable flexibility for tech-savvy users. Overall, Synology delivers a more unified and polished software experience, while TerraMaster emphasizes adaptability, freedom, and cost

Synology vs Terramaster NAS – Security and Safety

Synology has long maintained a strong reputation in the NAS sector for prioritizing system security, and this is evident in how thoroughly security is integrated throughout DSM. Synology’s Security Advisor provides active scanning for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and password weaknesses, while its firewall, account protection, and IP auto-blocking features offer practical layers of defense against unauthorized access. Synology also supports comprehensive SSL certificate management via Let’s Encrypt and offers two-factor authentication (2FA) with TOTP and hardware key support. From a business continuity perspective, DSM includes native WORM (Write Once Read Many) capabilities and encrypted shared folders to protect sensitive data from tampering or deletion. Perhaps most critically, Synology operates a dedicated PSIRT (Product Security Incident Response Team), frequently publishes security advisories, and participates in high-profile vulnerability testing events like Pwn2Own—demonstrating a serious commitment to vulnerability discovery and remediation.

TerraMaster’s security offering has become more robust over recent years, particularly with the development of Isolation Mode—a unique feature allowing users to instantly sever all external access and remote services with a single click. This acts as a kill switch in the event of a suspected breach or malware event. TOS also includes a system-level security scanner that checks for basic vulnerabilities and enables 2FA, SSH restrictions, and SSL certificate deployment. While TerraMaster’s platform does not offer as many granular policy tools as DSM, it supports core protocols like OpenVPN and L2TP for secure remote access and regularly issues firmware updates in response to new threats. The company also now provides greater transparency regarding CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), though its advisory frequency and scope remain smaller than Synology’s.

---

Despite these advancements, TerraMaster’s security record has faced scrutiny in the past due to incidents like the Deadbolt ransomware attacks. These incidents, which also affected other NAS vendors, prompted significant user backlash and a push for more proactive security updates and faster patching. TerraMaster has since responded by improving software integrity and introducing layered protection features, but the lingering perception remains that Synology maintains a stronger and more proactive security posture overall.

This perception is reinforced by Synology’s investment in ongoing vulnerability research, bug bounty programs, and a broader portfolio of security-focused tools. As it stands in 2025, Synology continues to lead in NAS security maturity, while TerraMaster has made meaningful progress—especially with unique features like Isolation Mode—but still has ground to cover in enterprise-level protections and threat response.

Synology vs Terramaster NAS – Conclusion and Verdict

Comparing Synology and TerraMaster in 2025 ultimately highlights a clear philosophical divide between the two NAS brands. Synology continues to build upon a long-standing focus on refined software, tight integration, and enterprise-grade security. Its DSM platform remains one of the most polished and feature-rich operating systems in the NAS space, offering a wide selection of first-party tools for backup, surveillance, virtualization, and secure access. However, this ecosystem is increasingly closed, with stricter hardware compatibility requirements and limited support for third-party drives, SSDs, and expansions. For users who prioritize reliability, ease of use, and support from a mature software ecosystem, Synology remains a compelling—if sometimes restrictive—option.

Synology NAS– 5 Strengths vs TerraMaster in 2025 Superior software polish: DSM offers a more consistent, responsive, and user-friendly interface, ideal for beginners and pros alike. Better security infrastructure: Features like a dedicated PSIRT, frequent vulnerability disclosures, and a bug bounty program give Synology the edge in system safety. Mature first-party apps: Key tools like Active Backup for Business, Surveillance Station, and Synology Drive are more refined and feature-rich than their TOS counterparts. Streamlined management: Built-in tools for snapshots, monitoring, and backup offer a more centralized and automated experience. Longer ecosystem stability: Greater long-term support for software versions and consistent patch cycles provide peace of mind for business use. Cons: Strict hardware compatibility: Recent models (e.g., DS925+) restrict use of non-Synology drives and SSDs, frustrating users seeking flexibility. Less hardware value per dollar: Generally more expensive for equivalent CPU, RAM, and port configurations.

TerraMaster, by contrast, leans into flexibility and hardware value. Its broad portfolio includes NAS units ranging from entry-level to high-performance multi-bay SSD systems, often at lower price points than Synology’s equivalents. TOS 5.1 and the newer TOS 6 have brought meaningful improvements in UI and functionality, while still maintaining a more open approach to compatibility and user customization. Features like native Jellyfin support, VirtualBox VM deployment, and the ability to install TrueNAS or Unraid without voiding warranty make TerraMaster a standout for DIY-leaning users or those with niche requirements. However, its software, while improving, does not yet match the polish or depth of Synology DSM, especially in areas like virtualization, surveillance, and enterprise security.

TerraMaster NAS – 5 Strengths vs Synology in 2025 Better hardware value: Offers more powerful CPUs, RAM, M.2 slots, and 10GbE in the same or lower price bracket. Flexible OS options: Users can install TrueNAS, Unraid, or other OSes without voiding the warranty, offering unmatched flexibility. Open storage support: No restrictions on drive brand or SSD use, supporting Seagate, WD, Toshiba, Samsung, and more. More aggressive expansion options: TOS systems often support more USB and hybrid expansion units across the portfolio. Integrated Jellyfin support: TerraMaster includes native Jellyfin installation without relying on Docker or community packages. Cons: Less mature software ecosystem: TOS apps are less polished and lack some advanced features found in DSM tools. Weaker track record on security: Past vulnerabilities (e.g. Deadbolt) and slower public patching place more responsibility on the user for hardening.

In the end, choosing between Synology and TerraMaster depends heavily on user needs and expectations. Synology suits users who want a highly stable, all-in-one solution with minimal configuration and long-term support. TerraMaster offers greater adaptability and value for power users who are comfortable managing third-party apps and want to stretch their hardware investment further. Neither approach is inherently better—each has its strengths and trade-offs. Buyers seeking a tightly controlled, secure environment may gravitate toward Synology, while those who value hardware scalability, open software choices, and affordability may find more freedom with TerraMaster.

Synology DS925+ NAS		Terramaster F4-424 / Max / Pro
Check Amazon in Your Region for the Synology NAS Solutions	Check B&H for the Synology NAS Solutions	Check Amazon in Your Region for the Terramaster NAS Solutions	Check B&H for the Terramaster NAS Solutions

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

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. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   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

 

Les dernières mises à jour de sécurité pour Windows Server publiée en juin 2025, dont la KB5060526, provoquent des problèmes avec le service DHCP.

The post Windows Server : les mises à jour de juin 2025 font planter les serveurs DHCP ! first appeared on IT-Connect.

Does the Orico Cyberdata Vault CF56 and CF56 Pro Deserve Your Data?

IMPORTANT – This is a review of two early prototypes of the Orico Cyberdata Vault NAS devices that will be launching on crowdfunding in July, and likely will see improvement and optimization as time and development continue. I provide this rolling/dynamic review as an indication of what the system is aiming fo ran a full and detailed review of the final product will arrive much closer to launch.

The Orico CyberData Vault CF56 and CF56 Pro NAS systems are part of a newly developed six-model lineup that will be launched via Kickstarter, aimed squarely at prosumers, media professionals, and small business environments in need of hybrid local storage with higher bandwidth connectivity and ZFS support. Both systems are built around the same chassis design but differ significantly in internal capabilities: the CF56 features an Intel Core i3-N305 processor (8-core, 8-thread), while the CF56 Pro steps up to an Intel Core i5-1240P (12-core, 16-thread). The units combine traditional 3.5-inch HDD storage (five bays) with six M.2 NVMe SSD slots for caching or tiered storage configurations, housed within a structure that offers magnetic access panels and multi-zone active cooling.

These models also introduce Orico’s new CyberData OS, a ZFS-based operating system featuring snapshots, real-time media indexing, and AI photo recognition—although in its current form it remains incomplete and in early development. With features such as dual 10GbE on the Pro model, USB4 connectivity, and flexible expansion via a GPU dock or RAID cabinet, these NAS systems reflect Orico’s shift from accessory brand to full-scale storage solution provider. While still prototype units, the CF56 and CF56 Pro demonstrate hardware ambition aligned with recent trends in semi-professional NAS design, echoing earlier moves from competitors like UGREEN, Aoostar, and Minisforum.

Orico Cyberdata Vault Review – Quick Conclusion

The Orico CF56 and CF56 Pro offer a promising blend of modern hardware, hybrid storage design, and ZFS-based data protection aimed at prosumers and small creative teams seeking high-speed, subscription-free private cloud solutions. With a total of five 3.5” HDD bays and six M.2 NVMe SSD slots, both units provide considerable flexibility for building tiered or cache-accelerated storage environments, while their use of efficient Intel processors—the N305 in the CF56 and the more powerful i5-1240P in the Pro—positions them for a wide range of workflows from basic file serving to heavier tasks like 8K transcoding, Docker hosting, and AI media indexing. The CF56 Pro, in particular, stands out with its dual 10GbE networking, USB4 ports, GPU dock support, and multi-zone cooling—placing it closer to workstation-class NAS territory. However, both models are currently limited by the early state of their CyberData OS software, which, while promising in features like snapshots, AI recognition, and mobile integration, suffers from missing essentials such as two-factor authentication, a complete app ecosystem, and consistent language localization. Performance results also reflect this unfinished software layer, with SMB transfer speeds and transcoding performance falling short of the hardware’s full potential. Concerns like elevated NVMe temperatures on the Pro model and the lack of ECC memory support—despite ZFS being the default file system—underscore the need for careful expectations among more advanced users. Nonetheless, as hardware platforms, the CF56 and CF56 Pro are well-designed and competitive, particularly if Orico can deliver on its planned optimizations and enhancements by the time of full release.

BUILD QUALITY - 8/10

HARDWARE - 8/10

PERFORMANCE - 7/10

PRICE - 8/10

VALUE - 8/10

7.8

PROS

Hybrid storage: 5x HDD + 6x M.2 NVMe SSD (flexible ZFS configurations)
Dual 10GbE on CF56 Pro for high-speed networking
Modern CPUs: Efficient N305 and powerful i5-1240P
Expandability via GPU dock (CF56 Pro only) and USB4 RAID cabinet
Up to 64GB DDR5 RAM with dual-channel (CF56 Pro)
Multi-zone active cooling and manual fan profiles
HDMI + DisplayPort output with 4K/8K support
Integrated AI media management and Docker support

CONS

No ECC memory support
USB4 ports lack network-over-USB functionality (Coming Later Apparently)
Early firmware lacks optimization (e.g. SMB transfer speeds)
CyberData OS lacks two-factor authentication and app store currently
Top NVMe region on CF56 Pro runs hot under load (80°C) on this protoype
Localization/UI inconsistencies in current OS build (still pre-launch) and Software still in development; not final at time of review
Crowdfunding is Not For Everyone

Orico Cyberdata Vault Review – Design

The exterior design of the CF56 and CF56 Pro is clearly built around practical serviceability and visual minimalism, with both devices using a shared chassis that prioritizes easy access to internal components. The most distinctive feature is the magnetic front panel, which is removable without tools and serves both an aesthetic and functional purpose. This panel provides ventilation along the sides and top edges, as well as system information through onboard LED indicators.

Behind it, the five 3.5-inch drive bays are arranged vertically on a dedicated SATA backplane, pre-wired for direct access to the internal storage controller. This layout streamlines maintenance and makes drive replacement relatively simple, although hot-swap capability has not been officially confirmed in the prototype documentation.

Above the HDD area, users will find four top-facing M.2 NVMe SSD slots located beneath a secondary magnetic lid, which includes a washable mesh dust filter. This dual-layered design gives quick tool-less access to the upper SSDs, and the system provides enough internal clearance to accommodate full-height heatsinks.

Underneath the chassis are two additional M.2 NVMe slots, accessed by removing the base plate, which is secured with standard screws. Combined, this provides a total of six M.2 bays, enabling hybrid storage setups where SSDs can be allocated for cache, metadata pools, or as part of a tiered ZFS configuration. While the layout appears consistent across both models, there are minor internal structural differences, especially in the power and thermals between the N305 and i5 variants.

Build quality varies slightly depending on perspective. The chassis exterior is predominantly plastic for reduced weight and cost, but the internal structure—such as drive cages, shielding, and board mounting points—is fully metal, contributing to better durability and heat dissipation.

Ventilation is managed by a single large rear fan, with the Pro variant including additional improvements in thermal zoning. Noise levels remained within reasonable limits during testing, with the CF56 model averaging 29–31 dBA in quiet mode and the CF56 Pro rising to 46–47 dBA under full load. This suggests that although the design is visually consistent, thermal demands increase substantially with the i5-1240P model under sustained workloads or dense NVMe configurations.

One notable design concern relates to the temperature observed in the upper M.2 bay region of the CF56 Pro. During extended stress testing, the top section of the chassis reached temperatures close to 80°C, prompting early correspondence with Orico about hardware revision plans. According to the brand, this issue has already led to a second- and third-generation PCB redesign, aiming to reduce thermal concentration around the CPU and top NVMe slots. It’s expected that the final retail revision of the CF56 Pro will include enhanced heat dissipation features in that area, potentially including better ventilation cutouts or redesigned passive cooling components on the board level.

Lastly, the system’s approach to internal power delivery differs subtly between models. Both the CF56 and CF56 Pro use an external PSU that connects via a barrel plug, but the wattage and thermal ceiling requirements are significantly higher on the Pro due to its 12-core CPU and expanded 10GbE networking. These differences also manifest in fan curve behavior and system-wide power consumption. Under light but active load (including live network activity and idle CPU), the CF56 consumed around 45–46W. In contrast, the CF56 Pro peaked at 79–81W during 8K transcoding and full NVMe/HDD population. This further emphasizes how both models share a common enclosure but diverge internally to meet their respective performance tiers.

Orico Cyberdata Vault Review – Internal Hardware

Internally, the CF56 and CF56 Pro share a similar board layout, but the differences in their processors define the target use case and overall capabilities of each unit. The CF56 is powered by the Intel Core i3-N305, an energy-efficient 8-core/8-thread processor based on the Gracemont architecture. This CPU is commonly used in fanless mini PCs and excels in multi-threaded workloads at low power consumption, making it suitable for light-to-moderate NAS tasks such as SMB file serving, local backups, Docker containers, and light Plex usage. Meanwhile, the CF56 Pro features the Intel Core i5-1240P, a significantly more powerful 12-core/16-thread processor with four performance cores and eight efficiency cores. This hybrid architecture provides greater burst throughput and a better foundation for AI-enhanced services, real-time media indexing, and virtualization tasks.

Both systems come with DDR5 memory pre-installed—16GB in the prototype units—but with different slot configurations. The CF56 includes a single DDR5 SO-DIMM slot, limiting it to a maximum of 32GB of memory and restricting dual-channel capability. In contrast, the CF56 Pro includes two SO-DIMM slots, supporting up to 64GB DDR5 and enabling dual-channel operation, which offers a notable performance uplift in workloads such as memory-intensive VMs or media databases. However, ECC memory is not supported on either model, due to both CPUs lacking ECC validation. This may concern users intending to rely on ZFS for mission-critical operations, as ECC is typically recommended in those scenarios to prevent silent data corruption.

Storage throughput is also heavily influenced by the PCIe lane allocation on each model. In the CF56, all six M.2 NVMe SSD slots operate on Gen 3 lanes, with those on the top four slots running at PCIe 3.0 x1 speeds and the bottom two reaching PCIe 3.0 x4. While this limits maximum per-slot bandwidth to around 1 GB/s on the upper four, it allows for cost-effective use of Gen 3 drives, which remain widely available and affordable. The CF56 Pro offers higher total bandwidth, with its top four M.2 slots upgraded to PCIe 3.0 x2, and the bottom two retaining PCIe 3.0 x4. Despite the i5-1240P supporting Gen 4 PCIe, Orico appears to have intentionally limited all M.2 slots to Gen 3 to manage thermals and ensure system stability under prolonged load.

An unexpected discovery during prototype testing revealed a possible seventh internal M.2 slot in the CF56 Pro, presumed to host the system boot drive or be reserved for future expansion. However, due to the lack of SSH access in the prototype firmware, further validation was not possible at the time of recording.

Regardless, the six main M.2 slots and five SATA drive bays offer ample storage configurability, especially when paired with the ZFS features of CyberData OS. System cooling, power delivery, and memory configuration all reflect Orico’s attempt to match their component selection with real-world use cases—balancing between hardware headroom, affordability, and the needs of semi-professional users handling mixed media workflows.

Orico Cyberdata Vault Review – Ports and Connections

The CF56 and CF56 Pro both offer a broad selection of ports, but the Pro model significantly extends external connectivity, particularly in terms of networking and high-speed data interfaces. On the CF56, the rear I/O includes a standard 2.5GbE LAN port alongside a single 10GbE RJ45 connection, suitable for most users looking to transfer large media files or operate light virtual environments. The CF56 Pro upgrades this to two dedicated 10GbE ports, allowing for simultaneous high-throughput tasks or link aggregation configurations. This networking setup makes the Pro variant especially attractive for multi-user environments, such as small studios, where heavy media file access and backups may occur concurrently across devices.

Both models include a similar array of USB ports on the rear and front panels. This consists of two USB 3.2 Gen 2 ports for high-speed peripheral or DAS connectivity, and two legacy USB 2.0 ports suitable for input devices or basic accessories. The CF56 Pro goes a step further by incorporating dual USB4 ports—though in testing, these were not available for direct network interface (as is possible on some modern NAS with Thunderbolt or USB-C network tunneling), but functioned as general-purpose USB interfaces. According to Orico, future firmware revisions may unlock additional functionality, but as of the current prototype, USB4 is primarily used for connecting high-speed external drives or expansion units.

Video output is supported across both systems, which include an HDMI 2.0 port and a DisplayPort 1.4 connection on the CF56, and upgraded HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs on the CF56 Pro. These allow users to output up to 8K display resolution, enabling the NAS to function as a lightweight desktop, digital signage server, or direct-play multimedia center. Integration with CyberData OS supports media playback and basic interface control over HDMI, though there are some limitations in UI optimization for direct screen navigation, especially in the current prototype firmware. Still, the availability of dual video outputs on both models reflects a growing trend in hybrid NAS/HTPC design.

Power input is provided via a barrel connector on both models, though the CF56 Pro uses a higher-wattage external PSU due to the increased demands of its CPU and dual 10GbE networking. Internal power distribution appears to be cleanly handled, and the systems remained electrically stable during tests. One area of future interest will be how Orico handles expandability. While Thunderbolt or USB4-based RAID cabinets are planned for the series, support was not fully implemented in the prototype stage. GPU dock support is also present only on the larger devices in the product family, leveraging the i5’s PCIe expansion capability for dedicated GPU tasks such as video rendering, AI inference, or VM acceleration.

Orico Cyberdata Vault Review – Performance, Heat and Power Tests

Initial performance evaluations of the CF56 and CF56 Pro revealed that while the underlying hardware is capable, real-world throughput is currently constrained by early-stage software optimization. During SMB file transfer testing over 10GbE, both models struggled to reach expected performance levels, with the CF56 averaging below 500 MB/s and the CF56 Pro rarely breaking 1 GB/s, even under favorable conditions. Orico acknowledged this limitation and confirmed that software-level optimization was ongoing. As such, these figures should be treated as provisional and not reflective of the final product performance. In both models, ZFS was used as the underlying file system, configured in a hybrid tiered setup with HDDs for capacity and NVMe for metadata and caching.

Transcoding tests were particularly revealing of the CPU differences between the models. The CF56 managed basic 1080p and some 4K H.265 transcodes via software decoding, but exhibited signs of strain under higher bitrates or simultaneous streams. In contrast, the CF56 Pro with its i5-1240P processor handled up to eight 8K transcodes concurrently during one benchmark, maintaining responsiveness while CPU usage hovered around 30%. Despite this impressive processing ability, peak system power draw climbed to 81W, highlighting the thermal and energy trade-offs required for sustained performance. Notably, neither system offers hardware transcoding via Intel Quick Sync, as support for it was not accessible in the current CyberData OS build.

Thermal management remained mostly acceptable, though not without concern on the CF56 Pro. Under stress, the top M.2 bay area reached 80°C, and while no thermal throttling occurred, prolonged exposure could reduce SSD lifespan or stability. Orico responded that this issue was already being addressed through a revised internal board layout and enhanced venting. The CF56 maintained lower temperatures during the same tests, remaining between 38–46°C under average usage. The difference is largely attributable to the lower TDP of the N305 CPU and reduced overall system throughput, which in turn generated less heat throughout the chassis.

Noise levels were measured in all three fan modes (Quiet, Standard, and Turbo) to assess usability in home or small office settings. In Quiet mode, the CF56 registered 29–31 dBA, making it suitable for desktop deployment or living room environments. The CF56 Pro remained silent under light use, but escalated to 46–47 dBA under Turbo mode, with fan noise becoming noticeably audible. Most of the ambient sound during low to moderate use came from HDD activity, rather than the cooling fans. The OS includes manual fan control and profile scheduling, allowing users to balance performance and acoustics based on workload and time of day.

Orico Cyberdata Vault Review – Software and Services

The desktop client software included with the Orico CF56 and CF56 Pro NAS systems is built on fnOS, a closed-source NAS operating system developed in China and increasingly licensed by various hardware brands. In its current state, the desktop interface provides access to all core storage functions, including RAID management, user permissions, snapshot control, and file operations, but it clearly reflects a system still undergoing development.

While the application is responsive and offers real-time monitoring of CPU, memory, and storage activity, it lacks polish in both design layout and localization. Several UI elements remain inconsistently translated, and some modules—such as the multimedia suite and AI functions—exhibit a mixture of English and untranslated Chinese text even when the system language is set to English.

Functionally, the OS supports the major protocols expected from a ZFS-based platform, including SMB, NFS, FTP, and Time Machine backup for macOS. File-level encryption, inline deduplication, and snapshot creation are all available within the storage management interface, with options for cache acceleration using the M.2 NVMe drives.

However, the absence of certain administrative features—most notably two-factor authentication, SSH access, and a dedicated app store—limits its appeal for security-conscious users or those looking to expand functionality via community-developed tools.

The system does include Docker support with a container manager interface, but VM deployment and third-party service integration (e.g., Plex, Jellyfin) are currently unavailable or not pre-installed.

The file management system in the desktop client is functional but basic, offering drag-and-drop file operations, preview support for common file types, and options for setting sharing permissions. Remote access features rely on a relay service provided by Orico, and while this worked reliably during testing, there was no visible option for configuring custom domain access, HTTPS certificates, or firewall profiles—features typically expected in more mature NAS operating systems.

Some of the advanced AI features, such as facial recognition and semantic photo tagging, are accessible through this desktop interface, but their functionality is inconsistent due to metadata scraping issues and interface reliability.

On the mobile side, the fnOS-derived application shows greater completeness. The Android client used during testing allowed for quick setup, user management, remote file access, and snapshot control. Photo and video libraries are indexed automatically and presented with timeline views, location tags, and album sorting. The app also supports real-time uploads, camera roll backups, and basic editing metadata tagging.

AI recognition features such as object detection and face grouping are available, although semantic search accuracy remains mixed.

Remote control of HDMI playback from the phone is supported, allowing content streaming directly to a connected display, but the controls remain basic and lack the refinement of dedicated media remote interfaces.

Overall, while the mobile app appears more polished and covers most core user needs, both desktop and mobile software clients reflect a platform that is not yet feature-complete. The reliance on fnOS gives Orico a functional foundation with native ZFS support and UI consistency across devices, but the closed nature of the system, combined with the lack of extensibility and incomplete localization, may limit its immediate appeal outside of its domestic market.

If Orico follows through on promised optimizations and expands the software stack with a proper app ecosystem and advanced security controls, the platform could become more viable in international NAS markets. Until then, the software should be considered a work-in-progress that supports basic NAS tasks but may fall short for more demanding or technical deployments.

Orico Cyberdata Vault Review – Verdict and Conclusion

The Orico CF56 and CF56 Pro represent a calculated step into the semi-professional NAS market by a brand historically known for accessories and external storage enclosures. By leveraging Intel’s N305 and i5-1240P processors, DDR5 memory, and a mix of HDD and NVMe storage options, Orico offers a compelling hardware platform on both models—especially in terms of expandability and bandwidth potential. The CF56 is well-suited for users who require reliable local storage with some containerization and light media usage, while the CF56 Pro pushes into territory typically occupied by entry-level rackmounts or high-end desktop NAS systems, thanks to its dual 10GbE ports, USB4 support, and improved thermal zoning. While the lack of ECC memory may deter more cautious enterprise buyers, most of the design trade-offs appear intentional and aligned with prosumer priorities.

That said, both units remain in a pre-release state at the time of writing, and their software platform—CyberData OS—is clearly still under development. While the ZFS integration, AI media indexing, and snapshot management show promise, issues such as language inconsistencies, incomplete feature sets, and missing essentials like two-factor authentication may limit early adoption. File transfer and multimedia performance also require further optimization, with current speeds falling short of the hardware’s capabilities. As prototypes, the CF56 and CF56 Pro demonstrate strong hardware foundations, and if the OS matures as expected by launch, these units could become legitimate alternatives to mainstream NAS systems in the increasingly crowded hybrid storage space.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

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. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   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

 

Activating the built-in Administrator account in Windows 11 can be essential for IT administrators in specific scenarios. This comprehensive guide explores the differences between the built-in Administrator and user-created administrator accounts, outlines secure methods to enable the account, and discusses best practices to mitigate potential security risks. Whether managing system recovery, configuring deployments, or troubleshooting complex issues, understanding how to activate and manage the Windows 11 Administrator account safely is crucial for maintaining a secure and efficient IT environment.

Source

Synology vs QNAP NAS – Which Should You Buy in 2025?

When choosing a NAS solution in 2025, two brands dominate the conversation: Synology and QNAP. These Taiwan-based companies have evolved their offerings significantly over the years, adapting to changing user needs in backup, multimedia, virtualization, and enterprise storage. Synology, with a strong emphasis on software polish and ecosystem integration, continues to appeal to users who prioritize stability and consistency. QNAP, by contrast, leans into offering higher-spec hardware, customization, and flexibility, targeting tech-savvy users who want granular control over their system. This article explores how the two compare across hardware, storage capabilities, software platforms, security, pricing, and overall value. Both Synology and QNAP share a lot of baseline features: multi-platform support across Windows, Mac, and Linux; mobile apps for Android and iOS; web-based GUIs; encryption; multi-user access; and strong community ecosystems. Yet important distinctions emerge as you look deeper. These differences often boil down to Synology delivering a more consistent, “appliance-like” experience, while QNAP offers broader hardware choices and wider compatibility. Neither brand is universally better, but each fits different user priorities. Let’s break down how Synology and QNAP stack up in detail for 2025.

Synology vs QNAP NAS – Hardware Comparison

In terms of hardware variety and specification, QNAP clearly maintains an advantage in 2025. QNAP offers a wider range of NAS models across every price tier, providing more options for users looking for features like 2.5GbE or 10GbE ports, Thunderbolt connectivity, PCIe expandability, and support for AI or GPU cards. Many QNAP systems at even mid-tier levels offer multi-core CPUs, 2.5GbE as a minimum, and M.2 NVMe slots for caching or storage pools. Synology, while offering a hardware range from ARM-based entry units to Xeon-powered enterprise models, typically emphasizes efficiency and stability over raw horsepower, often shipping systems with lower-core-count processors and 1GbE networking by default.

However, Synology’s hardware strategy is tightly coupled to its software-first philosophy. Devices are designed to maximize compatibility, power efficiency, and seamless operation with DSM. Some newer 2025 Synology models do offer improvements — such as M.2 NVMe storage pools and optional 10GbE upgrades — but their pace remains slower compared to QNAP’s frequent hardware refresh cycles. For users whose priority is high performance, customization, or bleeding-edge hardware, QNAP offers far more compelling options. For those seeking low-power, quiet, turnkey systems, Synology still provides highly reliable appliances.

Synology vs QNAP NAS – Storage Services and Scalability 

Storage capabilities represent a growing area of divergence. Synology’s storage ecosystem emphasizes stability and data integrity through Btrfs file systems, SHR (Synology Hybrid RAID), fast RAID rebuilds, and snapshot technology. However, Synology has dramatically tightened its drive compatibility rules from 2025 onwards, particularly in the Plus series and higher, limiting users to certified Synology drives for initialization. This hardline approach restricts flexibility, as users cannot freely install third-party HDDs or SSDs. Meanwhile, users still benefit from technologies like SHR, making mixed-drive RAID arrays easier to manage, though concerns remain about SHR’s future viability under Synology’s evolving drive policies.

	SERVICE	SYNOLOGY	QNAP	Notes
File Services	SMB, AFP, NFS			Cross-platform sharing
	WebDAV			Remote access
	FTP/FTPS			Standard protocols
	Rsync/Remote Sync			Sync across systems
RAID & Storage	Basic, JBOD, RAID 0/1/5/6/10			Core RAID support
	SHR (Hybrid RAID)			Synology-exclusive
	Qtier Auto-Tiering			QNAP-exclusive SSD/HDD tiering
	ZFS Support	(DSM 7.2+ select models)	(QuTS hero)	Synology uses Btrfs more widely
	Storage Pools			Pool-based management
	Thin Provisioning			On supported file systems
	Storage Snapshots	(Btrfs-based)	(ZFS/ext4-based)	Both support snapshot schedules
	Inline Deduplication	(Btrfs)	(ZFS)	Both support dedup, method differs
	SSD Cache (Read/Write)			Model-dependent
	Encryption (AES-256)			Volume/folder-level encryption
Backup & Sync	Hyper Backup / HBS3	(Hyper Backup)	(Hybrid Backup Sync 3)	Functionally equivalent
	Active Backup for Business			Enterprise-grade backup (free)
	Snapshot Replication			Data versioning support
	Cloud Sync			Multi-cloud sync integration

QNAP’s storage flexibility is far greater. Users can utilize almost any NAS-rated or server-class drive from vendors like Seagate, Toshiba, and WD, without vendor lock-in. Beyond standard RAID levels, QNAP offers Qtier for intelligent auto-tiering between SSDs and HDDs and supports ZFS through its QuTS hero operating system. ZFS integration introduces enterprise-grade features such as inline deduplication, compression, triple-parity RAID options, and even faster rebuilds. Expansion is another strong suit for QNAP, with broad support for external expansion enclosures over USB and PCIe, while Synology supports far fewer expansion units. In short, QNAP offers a more powerful, flexible storage environment but demands more technical knowledge to manage effectively.

Synology DSM vs QNAP QTS/QuTS  – Software Compared

Synology’s DSM (DiskStation Manager) remains the benchmark for NAS operating systems in terms of polish, consistency, and ease of use. Its streamlined UI, consistent app design, and stable system management tools make it highly user-friendly. DSM’s integration with Synology Drive, Hyper Backup, Active Backup for Business, and its Office suite provide turnkey productivity and backup solutions. However, Synology is moving increasingly toward a closed ecosystem, prioritizing first-party apps and services over broader third-party integration. Applications like Surveillance Station remain best-in-class, but recent trends — such as discontinuing Video Station — indicate Synology’s increasing control over its ecosystem.

QNAP’s QTS and QuTS hero systems offer greater flexibility and third-party support at the cost of consistency. Users can deploy a much wider range of apps, including those for AI recognition, media streaming, and backup tasks, often with deeper customization options. QNAP’s app ecosystem embraces both QNAP-native and third-party applications, with tools like HybridMount and Hybrid Backup Sync offering robust cloud and backup integrations.

However, design inconsistencies and a more complex setup process make QNAP platforms better suited to technically proficient users. QNAP systems offer more functionality out of the box but can feel less cohesive than Synology’s more curated environment.

Synology vs QNAP NAS – Security 

Synology continues to lead in NAS security in 2025. The company’s multi-layered approach — including an in-house Security Response Team, bug bounty programs, pen-testing partnerships, and rapid patching policies — maintains its reputation as one of the most secure NAS ecosystems. Security Advisor, SSL certificate management, encrypted folders, and proactive system audits are standard across DSM systems. Remote access via QuickConnect is tightly controlled to minimize exposure. This emphasis on hardening and responding quickly to vulnerabilities makes Synology a strong choice for users prioritizing security with minimal manual intervention.

	Service	Synology	QNAP	Notes
Security & Access	2FA (Two-Factor Authentication)			User-level protection
	VPN Server (OpenVPN, L2TP, PPTP)			Standard features
	Firewall + IP Blocking			Security policy management
	SSL Certificate Management			Let’s Encrypt, custom certs
	Security Advisor			Built-in vulnerability scanner

QNAP has made substantial strides in recent years to bolster its security posture, responding to earlier criticisms following ransomware incidents. The introduction of its own PSIRT team, participation in Pwn2Own, and improvements to myQNAPcloud services represent real progress. However, QNAP’s security tools, like Security Counselor, often need to be manually installed and configured. While they now offer multi-factor authentication and SSL options, the user experience around setting up and maintaining a secure environment still lags slightly behind Synology. Power users comfortable with managing network-level protections can achieve strong security on QNAP, but casual users may find Synology’s default setup safer out of the box.

Synology vs QNAP NAS – Price Point and Value 

QNAP consistently offers better raw hardware value for the price across its product range. A mid-tier QNAP NAS typically features higher-core CPUs, 2.5GbE or 10GbE networking, and expandability features like PCIe slots and multiple M.2 NVMe slots — features that, with Synology, are only available at much higher price points.

Additionally, QNAP’s lack of strict HDD compatibility listing (as currently the case for the Synology 2025 series, at the time of writing) and broader compatibility with storage and memory components can significantly reduce the total cost of ownership for DIY-minded users. Synology’s pricing, while generally higher, reflects its software development investment and the overall polish of its systems.

Buyers are paying for a more turnkey experience, better documentation, and consistent performance across the board. Moreover, Synology’s inclusion of powerful free tools like Active Backup for Business and Synology Drive adds enterprise-grade features without additional licensing costs, which in some cases offsets the hardware premium. Nonetheless, for users whose priority is maximum hardware performance and component freedom, QNAP usually offers a stronger return on investment.

Synology vs QNAP NAS – Conclusion and Verdict 

Choosing between Synology and QNAP in 2025 depends largely on user priorities. Synology remains the best choice for users seeking a polished, consistent, stable, and secure NAS experience. Its streamlined DSM platform, reliable first-party apps, and strong support infrastructure make it ideal for small businesses, prosumers, and general users who want a “set it and forget it” solution. However, Synology’s movement toward hardware and software lock-in may be off-putting to users who value flexibility or those unwilling to buy only Synology-branded components. QNAP, by contrast, excels in offering more powerful hardware, greater configuration freedom, and broader third-party app support. Users who want to customize, expand, virtualize, and maximize their system’s capabilities — and who are comfortable managing more complex setups — will find QNAP to be the more empowering platform. While its software consistency and security history lag slightly behind Synology, the gap has narrowed considerably. Ultimately, Synology is the stronger pick for users valuing simplicity and long-term stability, while QNAP offers more opportunities for those willing to trade simplicity for flexibility and raw performance.

NAS Solutions	NAS Solutions
+ Better Software (In almost every respect!) + Much Better Global Support Presence + More business desirable + Larger Range of solutions – Compatibility restrictions on HDD and Upgrades More and more – Underwhelming hardware (comparatively)	+ Better Hardware for Price + Wider Variety of Solutions and Hardware Profiles + Supports ZFS and/or EXT4 (with ZFS platform now available on latest Intel Celeron Systems) + Wide accessory range and compatibility – Software can often feel inconsistent – Hit by Security Issues if the past
Check Amazon By Clicking Below:	Check Amazon By Clicking Below:

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

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. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   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

 

Afin de corriger un bug qui affecte les VM Hyper-V sur certains environnements, Microsoft a publié une nouvelle mise à jour hors bande pour Windows Server !

The post Redémarrages intempestifs de VM Hyper-V : Microsoft publie une nouvelle mise à jour en urgence ! first appeared on IT-Connect.

Windows Server 2025 introduced several advancements that make containerized workloads more flexible, secure, and customizable. One notable feature is the addition of Features on Demand (FoD) in Nano Server containers. This feature allows you to customize Nano Server containers by adding only the necessary components while keeping your container images small and optimized. In this guide, we’ll explore how to enable and use Features on Demand within Nano Server containers, providing real-world use cases that demonstrate this feature's power. We will also examine how it impacts container image sizes.

Source

Windows Server 2025 introduces several new features and security improvements for Active Directory, including a new functional level and the Database 32k Pages feature. To take advantage of these features, you must first upgrade all domain controllers (DCs) and migrate Active Directory to Windows Server 2025. In this article, I'll guide you through the step-by-step migration process.

Source

Apprenez à superviser un serveur Windows avec SNMP et la solution Centreon, pour contrôler le CPU, la RAM, et d'autres métriques. Tutoriel pas à pas.

The post Centreon : comment superviser des serveurs Windows Server avec SNMP ? first appeared on IT-Connect.

Instead of walking through the entire wizard in Hyper-V Manager to create a virtual machine, you can speed up the process using Quick Create. By default, this tool uses virtual hard disks (VHDX) provided by Microsoft. Alternatively, you can set up a custom gallery and populate it with your own images.

Source

The Zimaboard 2 Single Board Server Review – The Best Yet?

In an increasingly saturated market of single-board computers and compact servers, the ZimaBoard 2 arrives with a clear goal: to offer an affordable, x86-powered, DIY-friendly alternative that bridges the gap between embedded systems and full-blown home servers. Developed by IceWhale, a brand that has already seen crowdfunding success with products like the original ZimaBoard, ZimaBlade, and ZimaCube, the ZimaBoard 2 aims to refine the company’s mission of delivering low-power, highly customizable devices for tinkerers, creators, and homelab enthusiasts. At its core, the ZimaBoard 2 is designed for users who want flexibility without complexity—whether that’s spinning up a lightweight virtualization platform, building a smart home hub, deploying a personal cloud, or running a local media server with minimal noise and energy consumption.

Unlike consumer-grade NAS systems or ARM-based boards, ZimaBoard 2 taps into the x86 ecosystem, offering broader OS compatibility and performance benefits while maintaining a compact, passively cooled footprint. This review explores the hardware, thermal and network performance, and software environment of the ZimaBoard 2, evaluating where it fits in the broader landscape of edge computing and personal infrastructure. As with previous IceWhale launches, this unit is being released initially through crowdfunding—a factor that calls for cautious optimism. Still, with a track record of fulfilling past campaigns, IceWhale appears confident in ZimaBoard 2’s readiness. Whether that confidence is justified, and whether the board truly earns its place in a crowded DIY server landscape, is what we’ll determine over the course of this review.

Zimaboard 2 Review – Quick Conclusion

The ZimaBoard 2 is a compact, x86-based single board server that strikes a balance between flexibility, efficiency, and affordability. It offers solid performance for its size, thanks to an Intel N150 processor, dual 2.5GbE ports, and a PCIe 3.0 x4 slot for meaningful expansion, making it suitable for tasks like media serving, light virtualization, and home automation. However, limitations such as non-upgradable 8GB RAM, slow onboard eMMC storage, and reliance on passive cooling require careful consideration for more demanding workloads. ZimaOS provides a user-friendly starting point with Docker support and basic file management, though advanced users may prefer to install alternative operating systems. Overall, the ZimaBoard 2 is a capable and well-engineered device for DIY server enthusiasts who understand its constraints and plan their use case accordingly

NOTE – You can visit the Zimaboard 2 Crowdfunding Page (live from 10:30AM ET 22nd April 2025) by clicking the banner below. The entry price for early backers is $169, but that will revert to $179 (and $239 for a scaled-up storage and memory version). I DO NOT receive any kind of affiliate commission or sponsorship for this review (and this review, like all reviews at NASCompares, was done without the brand in question’s interference or input). You can use the link HERE to see the campaign for yourself and/or click the banner below:

Zimaboard 2 Review – Design and Hardware

The physical build of the ZimaBoard 2 continues IceWhale’s trend of delivering thoughtfully designed hardware. The full aluminum enclosure gives the board a sturdy, premium feel, while also serving as its main cooling surface. Every port is clearly labeled, and the board layout is practical and accessible.

The PCIe slot includes a pre-cut section to accommodate longer cards, allowing for flexibility even in this small form factor. IceWhale also includes eco-friendly packaging, a detail that reflects both brand identity and attention to user experience. A cardboard insert allows users to hold the board upright alongside drives, useful for initial setup before a case is selected.

Optional accessories like a SATA adapter board with combined data/power connectors and third-party-compatible drive cages help complete the DIY experience. However, there are some practical limitations to consider: the soldered RAM means users must carefully plan for memory demands, and the internal storage, while functional, will not satisfy users looking for fast OS performance.

At the core of the ZimaBoard 2 is the Intel N150 processor, part of Intel’s Twin Lake architecture, offering four cores with a base clock that boosts up to 3.6GHz. This chip represents a significant step forward compared to the Celeron N3450 used in the original ZimaBoard, delivering better single-thread and multi-thread performance while maintaining a low 6W TDP.

Complementing the CPU is 8GB of LPDDR5x memory clocked at 4800MHz. While the use of fast memory is a welcome improvement, the limitation lies in its soldered nature—users cannot expand beyond this capacity.

This decision may be acceptable for light workloads such as running a Plex server, Docker containers, or Home Assistant, but it could become a bottleneck for users planning to run multiple VMs or resource-heavy services. The N150 CPU does support hardware virtualization and Intel AES-NI, which is essential for tasks like encrypted storage or virtual machine deployment.

In testing scenarios, the CPU delivered solid performance across typical tasks, and managed to keep up during multi-tasked environments with multiple services active. However, users with ambitions for more demanding applications will need to balance those expectations against the non-upgradable memory ceiling.

ZimaBoard 2 comes with 32GB of onboard eMMC storage, a choice that is both practical and limiting. This eMMC module is soldered to the board and is intended to house ZimaOS out of the box, giving users a ready-to-use system upon first boot. While this inclusion lowers the barrier to entry and simplifies setup for beginners, it presents performance limitations and a lack of flexibility. In testing, write speeds hovered around 35MB/s during mixed I/O operations, which is noticeably slow for tasks that involve frequent read/write cycles.

Moreover, should a user opt to install a different OS—such as TrueNAS SCALE, Proxmox, or Unraid—they would either overwrite the bundled ZimaOS or need to boot from an external USB or PCIe-based drive. Since the internal storage is neither M.2 nor socketed, it lacks the speed and modularity enthusiasts often seek in modern setups. As a result, users planning to use ZimaBoard 2 as a primary virtualization or storage server are better off supplementing it with faster storage via USB 3.1, SATA, or the PCIe slot for booting alternative OS environments. This caveat underscores a recurring theme with ZimaBoard 2: it’s well-positioned for entry-level use but requires external upgrades for more ambitious workflows.

One of the ZimaBoard 2’s most compelling features is its inclusion of two SATA 3.0 ports alongside a full PCIe 3.0 x4 slot. This greatly expands the device’s potential beyond typical SBCs, offering users a reliable way to build custom NAS setups, integrate high-speed NVMe storage, or even install networking and accelerator cards. During testing, a Synology combo card featuring two M.2 NVMe slots and a 10GbE Ethernet port was installed in the PCIe slot. The board successfully recognized all interfaces, demonstrating full PCIe compatibility and allowing throughput measurements to confirm the system could push high-bandwidth traffic.

With up to 4GB/s of bandwidth over PCIe, users can install expansion cards for fast storage, additional networking, or even compute offloading—although the small form factor means thermal and power considerations become important quickly. The SATA ports, while standard in speed, proved perfectly functional for connecting 2.5″ SSDs or traditional HDDs. IceWhale’s own accessories, like SATA power adapters and drive cages, help streamline this process, though third-party solutions work just as well.

For users aiming to transform this board into a flexible micro-server, this PCIe slot is a gateway to many possibilities and a key reason ZimaBoard 2 stands out in its category.

In terms of networking, the ZimaBoard 2 comes equipped with two 2.5GbE Ethernet ports, both powered by Intel chipsets—a choice that emphasizes reliability and driver compatibility across various operating systems. These ports are more than just a checkbox feature; they performed reliably under load and achieved full link saturation during file transfer tests and when used in conjunction with PCIe expansion.

In more advanced setups, users can configure bonding or load balancing to maximize throughput or redundancy. Additionally, there are two USB 3.1 ports for attaching external drives, peripherals, or USB-bootable OS images.

The inclusion of a Mini DisplayPort 1.2 allows for 4K video output at 60Hz, which is useful for users who want to use the board as a lightweight desktop or for initial OS installation and diagnostics—though it does require an adapter to convert to standard HDMI. Notably absent is built-in Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, which aligns with its target audience of wired-first home labs and embedded installations. Overall, ZimaBoard 2 offers a well-rounded set of connectivity options that exceed expectations for its size, with the dual 2.5GbE ports making it particularly attractive for networking-focused use cases like firewalls, proxies, or containerized gateways.

Thermal management on the ZimaBoard 2 is entirely passive, with the aluminum enclosure doubling as a heatsink to dissipate heat away from the CPU and other key components. This fanless approach results in completely silent operation, which is ideal for home or office environments where noise is a concern.

However, the trade-off is that the board’s temperature will steadily rise over time, especially in enclosed cases or cabinets with poor airflow. During idle operation, with minimal system load and attached drives in standby, temperatures hovered around 50°C after an hour, increasing slightly to 52–54°C over a 24-hour window.

Under heavier usage—including Plex playback, VM activity, active networking, and full PCIe slot utilization—the system remained thermally stable but showed significant heat buildup. Power consumption in these high-usage scenarios peaked at approximately 39–40W, which is quite efficient given the workload.

Still, users planning to run the board continuously under load are strongly encouraged to introduce active airflow or leave the system in a well-ventilated space. The all-metal build is a clever and minimalist solution, but it has practical limitations that users need to plan for—especially if operating in warmer environments or planning to enclose the unit in a tight chassis.

When put through real-world workloads, the ZimaBoard 2 delivered performance that largely aligned with its specs and design goals. File transfers over the onboard 2.5GbE interfaces reached full saturation in controlled conditions, proving the CPU and I/O subsystems are capable of pushing maximum throughput without significant bottlenecks. PCIe expansion further unlocked performance potential—especially with the Synology combo card, where simultaneous NVMe and 10GbE performance were tested. While NVMe read speeds reached up to 1.6GB/s, write speeds hovered around 500–700MB/s depending on traffic from the 10GbE port.

These variances are expected, given shared PCIe lanes and bandwidth contention, but overall results were respectable. Multimedia performance was also acceptable, with Plex running smoothly and able to stream and scrape metadata while supporting light VM usage concurrently.

In these scenarios, RAM utilization climbed past 50% and CPU usage approached 100%, but the board remained operational and responsive. It’s clear that ZimaBoard 2 is well-suited to low-to-moderate workloads, and can punch above its weight with strategic expansion. However, pushing it into more demanding territory—like simultaneous virtualization, AI inferencing, or high-speed file serving across multiple interfaces—will begin to test its limits.

The lack of active cooling makes thermal planning essential for any serious workload. But overall, the ZimaBoard 2 feels polished and reliable, with a design philosophy that caters well to its core audience of DIY server builders and edge compute experimenters.

Zimaboard 2 Review – Software

ZimaBoard 2 ships with ZimaOS, a custom-built operating system from IceWhale that is based on CasaOS—a lightweight, open-source platform designed for simplicity and ease of deployment. ZimaOS retains the core principles of CasaOS but adds refinements tailored to the Zima ecosystem, particularly features that emerged during development of the more powerful ZimaCube. The out-of-the-box experience is beginner-friendly, offering an intuitive web dashboard called “LaunchPad,” which centralizes access to installed applications, system controls, and file management.

ZimaOS is pre-installed on the board’s eMMC storage, enabling immediate setup without requiring users to flash a drive or download additional software. Despite the modest resources of the ZimaBoard 2, the OS performs responsively, even with several services running in parallel. The interface is clean, albeit minimalistic, focusing on usability over deep customization.

For users who are new to home servers or Docker deployments, the learning curve is surprisingly gentle. Though it lacks some of the granularity of more established platforms like OpenMediaVault or TrueNAS, it’s clear that IceWhale has designed ZimaOS to get users up and running quickly without sacrificing key functionality.

One of the more distinctive features of ZimaOS is its integrated App Store, which acts as a curated hub for Docker-based applications. Unlike traditional NAS interfaces that require command-line Docker commands or extensive Portainer configuration, ZimaOS simplifies deployment through one-click installation and automated environment setups.

Popular applications like Plex, Jellyfin, Stable Diffusion, and more are available by default, with the option to add third-party sources for broader container variety. Behind the scenes, the system leverages containerization frameworks to handle resource isolation and volume mappings, but much of this complexity is hidden from the end user.

Application setup is further eased by pre-configured defaults such as port assignments, directory structures, and even PUID/PGID settings, reducing friction for non-technical users. For those with more experience, ZimaOS still allows you to tweak or override these settings manually. Notably, ZimaOS also includes a basic virtualization interface that supports downloading and running lightweight VMs using prebuilt images.

While this feature is better suited to the higher-specced ZimaCube due to memory and cooling constraints, its presence on the ZimaBoard 2 is still a nice touch and shows that the OS is aiming to grow into a more comprehensive platform. Overall, the application and container ecosystem here punches above its weight, especially considering the resource constraints of the board itself.

In terms of storage and file sharing, ZimaOS delivers a capable if somewhat minimal feature set that prioritizes simplicity over enterprise-style depth. Users can create RAID groups—a new feature compared to earlier CasaOS iterations—manage individual drives, and set up file-level sharing using standard protocols like SMB.

The file manager, accessible through the main dashboard, allows for browsing, copying, and sharing content in a familiar web-based interface. Integration with IceWhale’s own client tool enables a peer-to-peer feature called “peerdrop,” which links multiple Zima-based systems or client devices (like phones and laptops) for rapid syncing and data exchange.

This is especially useful for users who want an easy method to upload media, backup devices, or move files between multiple systems on a local network. Remote access can be enabled through a simple relay-based mechanism, which generates shareable links for specific files or folders, complete with read/write controls. While more advanced access control, encryption, or user quotas are not present in this build, the essentials for home or small office use are here and function as expected.

Cloud integration is also available, allowing the addition of third-party storage such as Google Drive or Dropbox for backup or syncing purposes. Though ZimaOS doesn’t try to replace full-fledged NAS operating systems in terms of depth, it successfully delivers the features most users will need, and its lightweight design ensures responsiveness even on modest hardware like the ZimaBoard 2.

Zimaboard 2 Review – Conclusion & Verdict

The ZimaBoard 2 is a competent and thoughtfully assembled single-board server that builds meaningfully on IceWhale’s earlier efforts, especially the original ZimaBoard and the ZimaBlade. Its design clearly targets users who want more flexibility and performance than traditional ARM-based boards can offer, but who also value power efficiency, silence, and a small footprint. The use of an Intel N150 CPU, 8GB of LPDDR5x memory, dual 2.5GbE ports, and a PCIe 3.0 x4 slot makes it viable for a variety of home server roles—from basic NAS and smart home coordination to lightweight container hosting and local media streaming. Features like onboard SATA, USB 3.1, and a DisplayPort connection further add to its utility. However, there are hardware limitations that may affect long-term suitability for advanced deployments. The soldered RAM cannot be upgraded, and the internal eMMC storage, while useful for initial setup, is too slow for OS-level responsiveness in more demanding use cases. Passive cooling, while appreciated for silence, also imposes some thermal limitations depending on the deployment environment.

On the software side, ZimaOS offers a decent out-of-the-box experience that caters to users with minimal technical background. It handles core tasks like application deployment, file sharing, and system monitoring without requiring advanced configuration, and its Docker-based App Store simplifies access to popular tools. For more experienced users, the system supports third-party OS installation, which is likely how many will ultimately use the ZimaBoard 2. Still, as a bundled solution, ZimaOS has matured significantly and now presents itself as a lightweight, capable, and non-intrusive platform for those who prefer to get started immediately. In the broader context of DIY server hardware, ZimaBoard 2 occupies a middle ground: more powerful and modular than Raspberry Pi-class systems, yet more constrained than full x86 mini PCs or enthusiast-grade NAS hardware. For those who understand and accept these trade-offs, and are willing to plan around its limitations, the ZimaBoard 2 offers a reliable and flexible foundation for compact, energy-efficient computing at the edge.

PROs of the Zimaboard 2

CONs of the Zimaboard 2

x86 Architecture – Compatible with a wide range of operating systems including ZimaOS, Unraid, TrueNAS SCALE, and Proxmox. Dual 2.5GbE LAN Ports – Offers strong networking capabilities for multi-service workloads and gateway setups. PCIe 3.0 x4 Slot – Enables high-speed expansion for 10GbE NICs, NVMe storage, or combo cards. Fanless, Silent Operation – Completely passively cooled, ideal for home or quiet office environments. Compact and Durable Build – Small footprint with an all-metal chassis that doubles as a heatsink. ZimaOS Included – User-friendly OS with a Docker-based App Store and basic VM tools, ready out of the box. Flexible Storage Options – Dual SATA ports plus USB 3.1 support for connecting SSDs, HDDs, or external drives. Low Power Consumption – Efficient 6W CPU with ~10W idle and ~40W max under heavy load scenarios.

Non-Upgradable RAM – 8GB of soldered LPDDR5x limits long-term scalability for memory-intensive tasks. Slow/Small Default Internal Storage – 32GB eMMC is convenient but underperforms for OS-level responsiveness or high I/O workloads. Thermal Headroom is Limited – Passive cooling alone may not be sufficient in closed environments or under sustained load without added airflow. Not launching on Traditional Retail, but instead on Crowdfunding.

NOTE – You can visit the Zimaboard 2 Crowdfunding Page (live from 10:30AM ET 22nd April 2025) by clicking the banner below. The entry price for early backers is $169, but that will revert to $179 (and $239 for a scaled-up storage and memory version). I DO NOT receive any kind of affiliate commission or sponsorship for this review (and this review, like all reviews at NASCompares, was done without the brand in question’s interference or input). You can use the link HERE to see the campaign for yourself and/or click the banner below:

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

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. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   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

 

Synology (FINALLY) has an NVMe Flash Server – The Synology PAS7700 System

Synology are seemingly going ‘all guns blazing’ at Computex 2025 this year, with a wide array of hardware and software solutions being revealed at the event. Many of these we already know about via official and unofficial reveals over the last 6 months or so, how the PAS NVMe flash storage system is one that was actually originally shown last year at the brand’s 2024 Solution Exhibition in Taipei, this was still an early prototype system and was built using an existing 2U chassis and was much more comparable to existing SAS storage systems from the brand. However, the PAS NVMe Flash system has seemingly (and RAPIDLY) evolved since it was first revealed as an early 12 bay prototype 2U rackmount last year into a dual active 4U Behemoth solution that is significantly more focused on leveraging the performance benefits of NVMe, alongside the scale-out, redundancy and failover of other enterprise tier Synology NAS solutions.

Synology already has an existing range of SSD Flash soltuons, in their Flashstation series, but this proposed PAS7700 system is a completely different class of system against those more classic DSM hardware systems. Synology has been somewhat behind the curve when it comes to NVMe flash systems in the last few years (both entry class m.2 NVMe systems at desktop, but also larger business and enterprise class NVMe over U.2/U.3 compared with competitors such as QNAP (and their FX/FU series), but the PAS is hoping to fill this gap in the brand’s portfolio at this higher tier of buyer. So, what do we know so far?

Synology PAS7700 Hardware Specifications

The Synology PAS7700 is a 4U rackmount dual-node NVMe flash storage system engineered for high-performance, mission-critical enterprise workloads. Designed with a non-disruptive architecture, it enables active-active operations across both nodes, ensuring continuous data availability and efficient load distribution without single points of failure. Each node occupies 2U of rack space and operates independently, yet cooperatively, allowing both to concurrently handle client requests and internal processes. This design eliminates the need for manual failover while maintaining performance even during node maintenance or partial outages.

At the heart of each node lies a 24-core AMD EPYC processor, optimized for dense, multi-threaded workloads such as data analytics, database transactions, and large-scale virtualization. These processors provide ample PCIe Gen4 lanes to support high-speed interconnects, storage interfaces, and compute operations. Each node is equipped with 64GB of DDR4 ECC memory out of the box, with upgrade support up to 1TB. This high memory ceiling is particularly beneficial for large-scale caching, deduplication, and inline compression tasks in high IOPS environments. Memory cache protection mechanisms are built in to preserve data integrity during unexpected power loss, using supercapacitors or battery-backed modules.

The storage backplane supports a total of 48 U.2 or U.3 NVMe SSDs across the chassis—24 per node—maximizing both performance and density. Drive control is split between the native AMD EPYC-integrated PCIe controllers and additional PCIe switching and management provided by ASMedia Technologies, likely to balance performance across multiple backplanes and mitigate PCIe bottlenecks. This configuration ensures that each SSD can be utilized to its full potential with minimal latency and optimal throughput. Network connectivity includes a dedicated 1GbE copper port per node for management, along with dual 10GbE NICs for data operations. These ports support link aggregation and failover, with options for expansion to higher-speed interfaces expected, though not yet confirmed. The PAS7700 likely supports several PCIe expansion slots internally, allowing future upgrade paths to 25/40/100GbE if required. This flexibility positions the unit for use in diverse network topologies and high-bandwidth enterprise infrastructures.

That said, we should discuss the thorny subject of storage media. Synology has recently implemented a more stringent hardware compatibility policy, mandating the use of Synology-branded or certified storage media in its latest 2025 Plus Series NAS devices. This policy restricts full functionality and support to only those drives that have been validated by Synology, potentially limiting user flexibility and increasing costs due to reduced third-party options. Currently, Synology’s in-house SSD lineup includes SATA SSDs and M.2 NVMe SSDs, with capacities up to 800GB. This raises questions about their plans for higher-performance storage media suitable for systems like the PAS7700, which is designed for demanding enterprise workloads. As of now, Synology has not announced any U.2 or U.3 NVMe SSDs in their product range. Given the PAS7700’s reliance on high-speed NVMe storage, it’s unclear whether Synology will expand its SSD offerings to include higher-capacity and performance options or if they will certify third-party drives for use with this system. The company’s updated compatibility lists will be crucial for users to identify approved drives. Until more information is available, potential PAS7700 users may need to consider the implications of Synology’s hardware compatibility policies on their storage choices.

Synology PAS7700 Services and Flash Protocols

The Synology PAS7700 supports a diverse array of storage access protocols optimized for NVMe over Fabrics (NVMe-oF), ensuring compatibility with modern data center architectures and latency-sensitive applications. These protocols are tailored to support high-throughput and low-latency workloads across both local and remote environments, catering to sectors such as virtualized infrastructure, high-performance computing, and real-time analytics.

Among the supported technologies are NFS RDMA, NVMe-TCP, NVMe over Fibre Channel (NVMe-FC), and NVMe over RoCE (Remote Direct Memory Access over Converged Ethernet). These protocols differ in terms of performance characteristics, implementation complexity, and deployment environments, giving administrators flexibility in aligning the system’s networking stack with existing infrastructure and performance objectives. These include:

• NFS RDMA (Remote Direct Memory Access):

  • Enhances traditional NFS performance by bypassing the CPU for memory transfers.

  • Significantly reduces latency and CPU usage in environments using NFSv4.x.

  • Ideal for high-performance, low-latency use cases like virtual machines or scientific computing.

• NVMe-TCP (NVMe over TCP/IP):

  • Extends NVMe-oF across standard Ethernet networks without requiring specialized hardware.

  • Enables NVMe-level performance benefits using existing TCP infrastructure.

  • Easier to deploy in enterprise environments with mixed networking equipment.

• NVMe-FC (NVMe over Fibre Channel):

  • Combines the speed of NVMe with the reliability of Fibre Channel.

  • Suitable for enterprises already using Fibre Channel SANs.

  • Offers low-latency performance with high stability and established zoning capabilities.

• NVMe/RoCE (RDMA over Converged Ethernet):

  • Provides near-direct memory access over Ethernet without involving the CPU.

  • Achieves ultra-low latency for applications such as real-time trading or video rendering.

  • Requires a compatible network fabric with lossless Ethernet configuration.

We are still awaiting confirmation on whether this will be running on traditional DSM, a dual controller variation (such as found on the current UC3200 0 Active/Active system), a multinode management variation (as found in the GS/GridStation system, or a brand new splinter of DSM services (as found in the DP series with Active Protect).

Synology PAS7700 Failover and Redundancy

The Synology PAS7700 is designed with full-stack redundancy to eliminate single points of failure and minimize service disruption across hardware, software, and protocol layers. Its dual-node active-active design enables uninterrupted operations even during firmware updates, system maintenance, or unplanned hardware failures. This architecture ensures that both nodes can operate independently while maintaining synchronized data access and state, effectively enabling non-disruptive service continuity in multi-user enterprise environments. Each layer of the system—from networking to storage to memory—is fortified with specific failover mechanisms. Networking is protected via IP failover configurations, allowing services to automatically reroute through a secondary interface or node should a primary link fail. The system also supports Multipath I/O (MPIO) across iSCSI, Fibre Channel, and NVMe-oF protocols, ensuring high availability and load balancing across multiple paths. On the protocol level, persistent handle support in SMB and grace periods in NFS ensure that client sessions remain intact during failovers or server transitions.

Synology further implements failover at the component and data protection level. Memory modules are equipped with cache protection to safeguard in-flight data in the event of power loss, typically via battery backup or capacitor-based retention systems. On the storage layer, support for RAID-TP (triple parity) adds an extra layer of disk fault tolerance, protecting against up to three simultaneous drive failures. Additionally, enterprise-grade SSDs used in the PAS7700 are expected to include power loss protection (PLP), preserving cached writes during sudden shutdowns.

• Protocols:

  • SMB Persistent Handles: Maintains client file handles during failover events.

  • NFS Grace Periods: Allows NFS clients to re-establish sessions without data loss.

  • MPIO: Multipath I/O for load balancing and failover across multiple transport paths.

• Networking:

  • IP Failover: Automatically reroutes network services to a standby node or NIC if a primary fails.

• System-Level:

  • Hardware Failover: One node takes over if the other becomes non-functional.

  • Upgrade Failover: Supports live system or firmware updates without downtime.

• Memory:

  • Cache Protection: Retains volatile memory contents in the event of power loss using supercaps or batteries.

• Storage:

  • RAID-TP: Triple parity RAID support for enhanced data redundancy.

  • Power Loss Protection (PLP): SSDs preserve unwritten data during power failure.

Whether other specific SSD/Flash services that are currently available on devices like the Flashstation series (such as RAID F1 for controlled and predicted NAND wearing) will also be integrated here on scale are yet to be confirmed. While the full software environment and feature set of the Synology PAS7700 are yet to be confirmed, its hardware architecture and protocol support position it as a serious entry into the enterprise flash storage segment. With dual-node active-active operation, extensive NVMe protocol compatibility, and comprehensive failover mechanisms, the PAS7700 is clearly designed for organizations that require uncompromising uptime and performance. As more details emerge at Computex 2025, the PAS7700 is expected to clarify its role within Synology’s broader storage portfolio—particularly how it compares to the UC series and where it fits in demanding environments such as virtualized infrastructure, high-frequency transactional workloads, and critical business continuity deployments.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

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. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   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

 

 

A structured approach that covers technical steps and strategic planning can streamline the migration of a file server to Windows Server 2025. This article explores two main migration strategies—keeping or changing the file server’s hostname—and demonstrates how to transfer shared folders and data using a custom PowerShell script. By following these methods, you can ensure a smooth transition to the latest server OS while minimizing user disruption and preserving file access settings.

Source

UniFi UNAS Pro: 6 Months On — A Measured Look at Ubiquiti’s First NAS

Six months since its public release in October 2024, the UniFi UNAS Pro has matured modestly but meaningfully. Initially positioned as an affordable $499, 7-bay NAS with integrated 10GbE and 1GbE networking, its appeal centered largely around seamless integration into UniFi environments and simple turnkey deployment. The first three months revealed a system that delivered on core promises without overselling itself, providing reliable basic storage with intuitive setup, minimal friction during deployment, and straightforward SMB file sharing. However, its limitations in areas such as feature breadth, expandability, and advanced administrative control left some early adopters questioning whether the device was ready to serve as a primary NAS solution.

UniFi UNAS Pro 6 Months Later – The TL;DR

Ubiquiti’s UniFi UNAS Pro has seen steady but conservative development since its launch in October 2024. At $499, it’s an affordable 7-bay NAS with 10GbE that integrates well within UniFi environments, but it launched with limited features and notable gaps. Over six months, some user-requested improvements have been delivered—such as RAID 6 support, expanded cloud backup options (Dropbox, OneDrive), admin control over user backups, and improved file sharing responsiveness. However, key omissions remain: no iSCSI support, no UniFi Protect integration, no containerization, no fan or power schedule controls, and occasional performance or file handling issues. It’s best suited as a supplementary NAS for existing UniFi networks rather than a full-featured standalone solution. Ubiquiti appears focused on stability and foundational updates, but major feature enhancements or new models have yet to appear. HERE are the most notable changes that have happened in the last 6 Months:

• Added support for RAID 6, hot spare migration, and Time Machine backups via Shared Drives.

• Enabled OneDrive and Dropbox as new cloud backup destinations.

• Introduced File Activity tracking and a Task Center for monitoring ongoing operations.

• Console owners can now manage and back up other users’ drives.

• Added SIEM server integration, SNMP configuration, and support for .exe execution via SMB.

• Users can now toggle Link Sharing and configure release channels per app.

• Support file generation now available for diagnostics.

• Improved setup, storage initialization, drive transfers, and local admin creation flows.

• Enhanced system performance, search speed, and responsiveness across the UI.

• File browsing, sharing, and backup/restore processes made smoother and more reliable.

• Boosted storage mounting and format resiliency, RAID resync handling, and external storage support.

• Improved reporting for storage health, system logs, and overall stability—especially with SSDs and encryption.

• Better SFP speed detection and more stable SMB file operations.

• Resolved issues with folder renaming, failed downloads, backup restore login errors, infinite loading on drive.ui.com, toast notification bugs, and destination switching during backups.

---

One of the more frequently cited early limitations was the lack of support for advanced RAID configurations and flexible storage management. At launch, users were restricted to basic options like RAID 1, 5, and a variant of RAID 10, with no ability to create multiple independent storage pools. This particularly limited users who wanted to separate SSDs for high-speed cache or hot data from HDDs used for cold or archival storage.

Three months after launch, UniFi began rolling out RAID 6 support—a heavily requested feature—and its integration was further refined by the six-month mark. Notably, users who had initially set up a RAID 5 with a hot spare could now migrate more smoothly to RAID 6 without complete data loss, provided certain steps were followed. While the system still lacks support for custom pool creation or tiered storage strategies, the RAID 6 addition is a clear example of Ubiquiti incorporating community feedback into its development roadmap.

Early adopters also flagged the limited backup options as a major downside, especially for offsite or cloud-based protection. Initially, users were confined to backups via SMB or to another UNAS unit, with Google Drive being the only available cloud service. This created friction for users looking to consolidate cloud storage or use existing platforms.

By the six-month update, support had been added for Dropbox and Microsoft OneDrive, expanding options and bringing the system more in line with mainstream NAS offerings. While other major providers like Amazon S3 or Backblaze B2 remain unsupported, the progress demonstrates ongoing development—even if somewhat slower than expected.

Administrative oversight and user management were similarly underdeveloped at launch. The inability for a super admin to manage, view, or initiate backups on user-specific drives was seen as a major gap in functionality. This was especially problematic in small businesses or households where centralized management is essential. At the six-month mark, UniFi addressed this by enabling admins to directly control user backup routines, offering a more appropriate level of oversight. Though expected in any multi-user NAS environment, this feature only arrived after considerable community pressure, reflecting a reactive—rather than proactive—development pattern.

Performance concerns also became more visible in real-world use. While general file transfers over SMB were stable for most users, large-volume or high-frequency data movements revealed issues. Users reported memory leaks, skipped files, permission errors, and signs of system instability during multi-terabyte migrations. One user described persistent problems during direct NAS-to-NAS SMB transfers, citing missing files and log entries showing out-of-memory warnings. While UniFi has issued multiple patches in response, these issues underline the system’s current limits as a high-performance data mover. Paired with its ARM-based CPU and fixed RAM, the UNAS Pro may not be ideal for workflows involving large file sets or deep nested directories with complex characters.

Quality-of-life improvements have also slowly emerged. File and folder sharing via the GUI is now more responsive, addressing early complaints that changes wouldn’t reflect until refreshing the browser or navigating away. A newly added file activity monitor provides more transparency by displaying changes and access logs on a folder-by-folder basis—a helpful addition for environments that require audit trails. Time Machine support has also been added for macOS users, allowing backups over SMB directly to the device. Additionally, executable files (.exe) now correctly run from network shares, resolving an earlier issue where files appeared to launch but did not actually execute on the system.

Despite hardware parity with UniFi’s UNVR line, the UNAS Pro still does not support UniFi Protect, Ubiquiti’s NVR platform. Although this was never advertised, its omission has disappointed users who hoped to consolidate storage and surveillance into a single device. Likewise, containerization remains absent. Users cannot deploy Docker or LXC-based services directly on the NAS. While the system is positioned more as a basic storage server than a full-featured app platform like Synology or QNAP, even lightweight container support would help bridge the gap in hybrid setups, reducing dependency on external devices for running supplemental services.

Several other features considered standard in competing NAS platforms are still missing. These include iSCSI target support, which allows for block-level storage mapping—a commonly requested enterprise feature that remains unaddressed despite repeated user requests. Scheduled power controls and Ethernet port management are also absent, limiting users’ ability to implement air-gapped operation cycles or optimize network behavior during off-hours.

Additionally, fan control settings are locked, leaving users with no way to adjust thermal behavior. System temperatures frequently hover in the 60–70°C range even during idle states, which some consider concerning. Whether due to poor fan curve logic or unreliable sensor reporting, the lack of manual override remains a drawback.

Another issue affecting a minority of users involves file download errors on mobile devices, particularly iPhones using Safari. Files would only partially download—such as halved images or incomplete audio/video files. The problem was isolated to Safari and resolved by switching to Chrome, but it exposed weaknesses in browser compatibility. Additionally, several systems erroneously report uptime durations exceeding 20,000 days—an obvious bug that, while harmless, illustrates rough edges still present in the software’s reporting logic.

As of April 2025, no additional NAS models have been added to the UniFi lineup. There is still only a single variant of the UNAS Pro, and no indications of rackmount, multi-unit, or lower-tier models have been announced. This suggests Ubiquiti is still treating this device as a pilot platform. The pace of development has been steady, with multiple small improvements and responses to community feedback, but foundational gaps remain. For users who need secure, reliable bulk storage within an existing UniFi network, the UNAS Pro is increasingly serviceable.

However, for broader use cases, it still lacks the depth, flexibility, and robustness of more established NAS vendors. Defintely a device with a long term plan, but it is not in a big hurry to stretch it’s muscles quite yet – but at $499, it has an exceptionally low bar for entry price wise for what you are getting!

 

---

 

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

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. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   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