5 Mistakes New NAS Buyers ALWAYS MAKE

If you are buying a NAS for the first time, it is very easy to focus on brand names, bay counts and discounts while overlooking practical issues that will shape your experience for the next 5 to 7 years. New buyers often underestimate noise in real rooms, forget to plan for future capacity growth, misjudge the usefulness of SSD cache, ignore long term power consumption, or assume that a couple of very large drives are always the best value. On top of that, many people treat a NAS like a simple external drive rather than a 24/7 network device that will sit near family members or co workers and quietly draw power every day. This article looks at 5 common mistakes that first time NAS owners make and explains how each one happens, what it looks like in normal home or small office use, and the straightforward checks you can perform before you spend any money so you do not end up with a noisy, inefficient or inflexible system.

Mistake #1: Underestimating NAS Noise in REAL-WORLD Use (IGNORE the official Specs Sheets)

A common mistake with a first NAS is to assume it will sound like a quiet router or a small external drive. In practice a NAS contains several moving parts that generate and transmit noise into the room, especially at night or in a small flat. Drive seek clicks, spindle hum, fan airflow and vibration passing into the furniture all add together. If the system ends up in a bedroom, living room or small home office, the constant whirr can lead to complaints from other people in the house and leave the owner wondering whether the device is faulty when it is simply behaving as designed. It is also easy to forget that scheduled tasks such as antivirus scans, backups and indexing will often push the CPU, fans and disks harder than normal file access, so a system that seems acceptable during light daytime use can become noticeably louder when these jobs run.

Noise levels are heavily influenced by physical design choices that new buyers rarely consider. Metal chassis units tend to amplify vibration compared with plastic enclosures, which means every drive click and fan change is more noticeable. Larger capacity HDDs, particularly above 8TB, usually contain more platters and a more active actuator assembly, which produces sharper clicks and a deeper background rumble than smaller disks. Fan design also matters. Rear mounted fans tend to push sound directly into the room, while models with downward facing or internal fans may spread the noise more evenly into the surface under the NAS. Even the desk or cabinet matters, since hard surfaces can resonate and make a quiet system sound louder. Simple changes such as placing the NAS on a foam pad, an anti vibration mat or thick rubber feet will reduce the amount of vibration transferred into the furniture and can make a noticeable difference to perceived noise without changing the hardware.

The practical way to avoid this problem is to plan acoustics at the same time as you choose capacity and CPU. If the NAS must live in an occupied room, it makes sense to look at lower noise HDD lines, to avoid the very largest capacities where possible, and to consider using SATA SSDs for the working volume if budget allows. Checking vendor spec sheets for noise ratings in dB is useful, but you should also think about where the NAS will physically sit and how air can flow around it, since putting a box in a sealed cupboard simply forces the fans to run harder. Most modern NAS systems allow fan speed profiles and drive hibernation, which can reduce noise during idle periods, and many also support power schedules so the unit can power down completely during hours when it is not needed. You can also move heavy jobs such as RAID scrubs, indexing and backup windows into predictable time slots, for example overnight if the NAS is in a separate room, so that short periods of higher noise are less disruptive while the system remains quiet for normal daytime access.

Mistake #2: Ignoring Future Capacity and Expansion (PLAN AHEAD!)

A second common mistake is to buy a NAS that only matches your current data footprint with no realistic allowance for growth. Many first time buyers look at their existing files, see that they use 2TB or 4TB, then choose a 2 bay unit and a pair of modest drives that cover today with a small buffer. Once the NAS is in use, however, new cameras, phones and laptops start backing up to it, family members begin storing photos and videos, and it often becomes the default place for downloads and shared work files. Within a year or 2, the system that once looked spacious can be near its usable limit, especially once you take RAID overhead and snapshots into account.

The physical bay count and the way you populate those bays on day 1 has a direct impact on how easy it will be to grow later. A 2 bay NAS that starts fully populated leaves you with only a couple of options when you run out of room. You either replace both drives with larger ones, which is expensive and involves a full rebuild, or you bolt on an external expansion chassis if the vendor offers one. A 4 bay unit that initially uses only 2 drives gives you a much smoother path. You can add extra disks one at a time, or take advantage of flexible RAID schemes from some brands that allow mixing different drive sizes over time, which is far more forgiving when budgets are tight or upgrade windows are short.

Avoiding this mistake means planning capacity as a multi year decision rather than a single purchase. It is usually better to buy a slightly larger chassis with more bays than you think you need, then start with a sensible number of mid sized drives that offer a good cost per TB. This gives you headroom to add disks later without reorganising everything and lets the array performance improve as you add more spindles. It also leaves space for other changes such as introducing SSD volumes or cache in the future without having to retire the entire unit. In short, it is safer to overspec the enclosure a little and understuff it at the start than to buy the smallest possible model and discover that you have run out of practical expansion options far sooner than expected.

Mistake #3: Assuming SSD Cache and RAM Upgrades are a Magic Performance Fix (SAVE YOUR MONEY!)

New NAS owners often treat SSD cache and RAM upgrades as a universal answer to “my NAS feels slow”, without checking whether the underlying workload or hardware actually benefits. It is common to see a 2 or 4 bay system with a modest CPU and a couple of M.2 slots promoted heavily as “cache ready”, which encourages buyers to add SSDs and memory on day 1. In reality, if the processor is already running close to 100 percent under load, extra RAM will mostly sit idle and cache will only accelerate specific types of access. For simple sequential workloads such as bulk media streaming or large backup jobs, disk performance and network limits usually matter more than having faster cache in front of the array, so the investment does not translate into a noticeable improvement.

SSD cache in particular is often misunderstood. Write cache temporarily lands incoming data on SSDs and then flushes it to HDDs later, which can smooth out bursty writes but does not change the final speed of the array. Read cache keeps copies of frequently accessed “hot” data on SSDs, but in most NAS use this tends to be small random IO, metadata and thumbnails rather than entire large media files. Some platforms allow you to tune cache block size and policy, which can help in database or VM heavy environments, but for simple file sharing the benefit is limited. If a NAS mainly serves big video files to a handful of clients, using SSD cache rarely justifies the cost. In many cases, placing the NAS operating system, app data and indexes on an SSD volume, or using SSDs as a small primary pool for truly performance sensitive shares, delivers more predictable advantages than a generic cache layer.

The same caution applies to memory upgrades. More RAM allows the NAS to keep more filesystem cache and run more services concurrently, but it does not compensate for an underpowered CPU or a saturated network link. A basic check of CPU and memory utilisation under your typical workload is essential before buying additional modules. If CPU usage is consistently low while memory is pegged, extra RAM may help. If the processor is the bottleneck, adding memory or cache will not change the response time of apps and shares. For most first time buyers, it is more sensible to size CPU, network and base storage correctly first, then consider SSD based OS volumes, manual or automated tiering, and targeted RAM upgrades later if monitoring shows clear evidence that these changes will address a real bottleneck rather than an assumed one.

Note – If you are a QNAP NAS owner, you CAN use an alternative to ‘SSD Cache’, but using QTier – this MOVES (not copy) to data from slower HDDs and onto faster SSDs, as data is frequently accessed.

Mistake #4: Treating Power Consumption as an Afterthought (You Have CONTROL)

Many new NAS buyers focus on purchase price and capacity, then only think about power consumption after the first full month of electricity bills. A NAS is designed to be available around the clock, which means that even modest differences in idle draw add up over a year. Larger HDDs with more platters, multiple bays running full time, and older or less efficient CPUs all contribute to a steady baseline load, even when no one is actively using the system. In small flats or home offices this continuous draw can be a surprise, particularly for users coming from purely cloud based workflows where the power cost is hidden in the subscription fee.

Hardware choices have a direct impact on how much power a NAS will use at idle and under load. High capacity HDDs tend to have higher idle consumption because the mechanics must be ready to spin and seek immediately. A system with fewer, larger disks may draw more power at rest than a similar capacity built from several smaller drives, although this is not a strict rule and depends on the specific models. CPU generation and class matter as well. Modern low power x86 chips such as Intel N series parts can idle in the single digit watt range but still turbo high enough for typical home workloads, while older desktop class processors often draw more even when idle. Buyers who only look at drive capacity and bay count without checking HDD datasheets and CPU TDP figures can easily end up with a system that runs hotter and more power hungry than necessary for basic file serving and backups.

Software features and configuration also play a major role, yet many first time owners never touch these options after initial setup. Enabling HDD hibernation for lightly used volumes can drop disk consumption from around 8 to 12 W per drive to well under 1 W when idle, multiplied across several bays. Most NAS platforms support scheduled power on and power off, which allows you to shut the system down completely during hours when it is not needed and wake it automatically for work periods or backup windows. Moving heavy jobs such as backups, RAID scrubs and indexing into specific time slots also helps, since the system can stay in a lower power state for more of the day. Simple measures like these, applied on top of sensible hardware selection, make the difference between a NAS that quietly adds a manageable cost to your electricity bill and one that runs at full power far more often than your usage requires.

Mistake #5: Assuming Fewer Large Drives are Better (Often the REVERSE is Better)

A frequent assumption among new NAS buyers is that the best approach is to purchase the largest individual HDDs they can afford, fit a pair into a small enclosure and rely on that pair for both capacity and protection. On paper this looks simple and neat. Two 30TB drives in a 2 bay unit appear to offer an easy route to 30TB of usable space with RAID protection. However, this approach often produces a poor price per TB compared with building the same or greater capacity from several mid sized disks, and it concentrates a lot of risk and cost into each individual drive. When one of these large disks fails or needs replacing, the financial hit is substantial and rebuilds can be lengthy.

In most cases, the price per terabyte on both sides will remain largely consistent at each capacity. HOWEVER, when you start putting these drives into a NAS/DAS enclosure and acting in the RAID configuration, it soon becomes apparent that the ben efits in Drive #s in a RAID 1 vs a RAID 5 immediately show a saving in almost every single capacity the smaller you go! Below are two examples of achieving 12TB in a NAS enclosure using RAID 1 vs using RAID 5 (so, still maintaining 1 disk drive failure protection and having 12TB of storage to use):

12TB Storage in a RAID 1 MIRROR	12TB Storage in a RAID 5

Looking at retail pricing makes the problem clear. Large capacity HDDs carry a significant premium that is not always reflected in proportional capacity gains. At the same time that a 30TB drive might cost 500 to 600 in local currency, 10TB or 12TB drives can often be found for less than 200 each. Four 12TB drives in RAID 5 or similar single disk fault tolerant layouts can deliver 36TB of usable space for less money than a pair of 30TB disks that only provide 30TB usable, while also offering more spindles for better aggregate performance. The trade off is higher drive count, which brings extra power use, more noise and additional points of failure, but in purely cost per TB terms the multi-drive configuration is often more efficient.

The practical lesson is that drive selection for a first NAS should consider more than headline capacity. New buyers should compare price per TB across several HDD sizes, factor in the desired RAID level and protection scheme, and understand how many drives their chassis can support now and in future. In many cases it is more effective to choose a slightly larger enclosure and populate it with several mid sized disks that offer a good value point, rather than filling a small unit with the largest drives available. This gives better flexibility for future expansion, more options if a disk fails, and a storage layout that balances cost, capacity and performance instead of relying entirely on a small number of very large and expensive disks.

Larger NAS/DAS systems are always more expensive, as they need to have more physical space, resource use in production and power/PSU sizes to run the larger enclosure. Add to this, thanks to memory shortages right now, that smaller scale NAS systems are starting to arrive with more memory by default (as 2-4GB is becoming less cost-effective to produce with chip shortages) and often with little/no increase in the base price. For example, below is the TS-264 and TS-464 NAS. Same CPU, design and ports – however the 2-Bay system has 8GB memory by default AND IS STILL $134 cheaper! So, this can often mean that you can save money on smaller quantities of larger capacity HDDs becuase the enclosure they are going in is cheaper over all.

Conclusion – PLAN AHEAD!

New NAS buyers rarely set out to make poor choices. The problems described above usually arise because a NAS is treated like a simple storage box rather than a device that will run all day, sit in shared spaces and gradually absorb more roles over several years. Noise, expansion, SSD cache, power consumption and drive sizing are all easy to overlook when you are comparing spec sheets or promotional bundles, yet each one has a direct and practical impact on how comfortable and economical the system will be to live with. The safest approach is to treat the first NAS purchase as a medium term infrastructure decision rather than a one off gadget. That means thinking realistically about where the box will sit, how many people will rely on it, how much data is likely to arrive over time and how much power draw and running cost is acceptable. A slightly quieter chassis, a few more bays, a balanced drive choice and sensible use of features like hibernation and scheduling will matter more in day to day use than chasing the biggest individual drives or adding SSD cache on day 1. By addressing these 5 areas before you buy, you reduce the risk of needing early upgrades or workarounds and increase the chance that the NAS you choose will remain suitable for several years without constant attention.

5 affordable Turnkey 10GbE NAS Solutions (Between $499 and $699)

For years, 10GbE networking has been seen as a premium feature reserved for high-end or enterprise-grade NAS devices, often pushing total system costs well beyond the reach of home users and small businesses. However, as controller prices have dropped and demand for faster data transfers has grown, a new wave of affordable NAS solutions has started to appear with built-in 10GbE. These systems no longer require expensive proprietary upgrade cards or third-party NICs, and many sit comfortably below the $699 / £599 price point. They cover a range of use cases, from compact SSD-based NAS devices to rackmount storage appliances and versatile desktop units. Below is a selection of some of the most notable options currently available, each offering a balance of performance, connectivity, and affordability for users who want to move beyond 1GbE or 2.5GbE without breaking the bank.

UniFi UNAS Pro (7-Bay, Rackmount)

I keep coming back to two words for the UniFi UNAS Pro—fundamentals and consistency. UniFi has clearly focused on making this system a strong addition to their ecosystem, prioritizing the essential storage needs of a NAS. They’ve succeeded in this, but comparisons with long-established competitors are inevitable. While solid, reliable, and stable, the UniFi UNAS Pro will take time to be competitive on the software front. If you’re deeply invested in the UniFi ecosystem, you’ll appreciate its ease of use and integration. However, outside of a UniFi network, it may feel feature-light compared to alternatives. The pricing is competitive for a launch product at $499, and while it’s not the best NAS on the market, it’s the most user-friendly and UniFi-ready. It will likely satisfy many users’ needs. I can certainly see this being integrated into existing UniFi networks as a 2nd stage backup alongside their already existing 3rd party NAS solution, with the potential to graduating to their primary storage as Ubiquiti continue to evolve this platform above and beyond the fundamentals their have nailed down in the UNAS Pro system.

• Approx. Price: $499 / £400

• Specs: ARM Cortex-A57 quad-core CPU, 8 GB RAM, seven 2.5″/3.5″ SATA bays, 1×10GbE SFP+ and 1×1GbE.

• Why It Stands Out: Exceptional price-to-performance for pure storage needs. Lacks advanced multimedia or container apps but ideal for high-speed backups in a rackmount setup.

BUILD QUALITY - 10/10

HARDWARE - 7/10

PERFORMANCE - 7/10

PRICE - 9/10

VALUE - 8/10

8.2

PROS

Nails down the fundamentals of NAS Storage very well
Easy to use GUI and well suited in the UniFi Ecosystem/UX
Complete Offline Use is supported
Use of a UI account is NOT compulsory
Excellently deployed Snapshot Features
10GbE out-the-box
Open HDD Compatibility, but also 1st party options too
Backup and Restoration Options Nailed down perfectly
Very power efficient and CPU/, Memory utilization rarely high
Compact, Quite and well designed chassis
The LCD controls are completely \'different level\' compared to other brands in the market
Promised competitive pricing
FAST deployment (3-5mins tops)
Reactive Storage expandability and easy-to-understand storage failover options
Mobile app deployment is intuitive/fast
Feels stable, secure and reliable at all times
Performance is respectable (considering SATA Bay count and CPU) but also sustained performance is very good
Single screen dashboard is clear and intuitive
Ditto for the native file explorer

CONS

7 Bays is a bit unusual, plus feels like the existing UNVR with different firmware
Additional App installation (eg. \'Protect\') not currently supported. So no container support for 3rd party apps
Network Controls are limited
Works at it\'s best in an existing UniFi managed network, feels a little limited in \'standalone\'
Multiple storage pools not supported (nor is RAID 0)
Lack of Scheduled On/Off
Lack of redundant PSU
Only 1 10Gb port and 1x 1GbE, no USBs for expanded storage or an expansion

Asustor Flashstor 12 Gen 1 (Compact NVMe NAS)

The Asustor Flashstor Gen 2 12-Bay NAS is a robust and versatile solution for users with demanding storage needs. Its combination of high-performance hardware, extensive connectivity options, and compact design makes it a standout choice for content creators, small businesses, and enthusiasts. With dual 10GbE ports, USB 4.0 connectivity, and support for up to 12 M.2 NVMe drives, it offers exceptional speed and scalability. While the device has a few quirks, such as its mixed PCIe slot speeds and lack of M.2 heat sinks, these are manageable with proper planning and aftermarket solutions. The Flashstor Gen 2 excels in raw performance, handling intensive workflows with ease and maintaining low noise levels even under load. Its power efficiency and robust thermal management further enhance its appeal for 24/7 operation. For users prioritizing hardware capabilities and performance, the Flashstor Gen 2 delivers on its promises. While its complexity may deter less experienced users, those with the technical expertise to configure and optimize the system will find it a valuable addition to their workflow.

• Approx. Price: $750 / £600

• Specs: Intel Celeron N5105, 12×M.2 NVMe slots, single 10GbE port, compact form factor.

• Notable Traits: High-density SSD storage in a small desktop chassis. Excellent value for SSD-heavy builds.

SOFTWARE - 6/10

HARDWARE - 9/10

PERFORMANCE - 10/10

PRICE - 7/10

VALUE - 8/10

8.0

PROS

Exceptional Performance: Dual 10-Gigabit Ethernet ports and USB 4.0 connectivity deliver fast and reliable data transfer speeds, ideal for 4K editing and collaborative environments.
Extensive Storage Options: Supports up to 12 M.2 NVMe SSDs, allowing for large-scale, high-speed storage arrays.
ECC Memory Support: Includes 16GB of DDR5-4800 ECC memory (expandable to 64GB), ensuring data integrity for critical applications.
Compact Design: Small footprint makes it perfect for workspaces with limited room.
Quiet Operation: Dual-fan system keeps noise levels low, even under heavy loads.
Flexible Connectivity: Features two USB 4.0 Type-C ports and three USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-A ports for direct storage access and peripheral integration.
Power Efficiency: Low power consumption (32.2W idle, 56W under load) makes it economical to run, even for 24/7 operation.
Thermal Management Enhancements: Dual fans and copper heat pipes efficiently dissipate heat, ensuring stable performance.
Support for Third-Party Operating Systems: Compatible with platforms like TrueNAS and Unraid for advanced customization.

CONS

Mixed PCIe Slot Speeds: Inconsistent PCIe bandwidth across M.2 slots complicates unified RAID configurations.
Lack of M.2 Heat Sinks: NVMe slots do not include heat sinks, requiring aftermarket cooling solutions for intensive workloads.
No Integrated Graphics: The AMD Ryzen V3C14 processor lacks integrated graphics, limiting hardware transcoding and multimedia capabilities.
Steep Price: The 12-bay model’s cost ($1,300–$1,400) and the six-bay version’s lack of ECC memory make them expensive compared to alternatives.

UGREEN NASync DXP4800 Plus

BOTTOM LINE – The UGREEN NASYnc DXP4800 Plus does not feel ‘finished’ yet and still needs more time in the over, but UGREEN have been very clear with me that this product is not intended for release and fulfilment till summer 2024 and improvements, optimization and product completion is still in progress. Judging the UGREEN NAS systems, when what we have is a pre-release and pre-crowdfunding sample, was always going to be tough. The DXP4800 PLUS is a very well put-together NAS solution, arriving with a fantastic launching price point (arguably even at its RRP for the hardware on offer). UGREEN has clearly made efforts here to carve out their own style, adding their own aesthetic to the traditional 4-bay server box design that plagues NAS boxes at this scale. Equally, although they are not the first brand to consider Kickstarter/Crowdfunding for launching a new product in the NAS/personal-cloud sector, this is easily one of the most confident entries I have seen yet. The fact that this system arrives on the market primarily as a crowdfunded solution (though almost certainly, if successful, will roll out at traditional retail) is definitely going to give users some pause for thought. Equally, the UGREEN NAS software, still in beta at the time of writing, although very responsive and nailing down the basics, still feels like it needs more work to compete with the bigger boys at Synology and QNAP. Hardware architecture, scalability, and performance are all pretty impressive, though the performance of the Gen 4×4 M.2 NVMe slots didn’t seem to hit the numbers I was expecting. Perhaps a question of PCIe bottlenecking internally, or a need for further tweaking and optimization as the system continues development. Bottom line, with expected software updates to roll out closer to launch and fulfillment, such as an expanded App center and mobile client, the UGREEN DXP4800 Plus is definitely a device worth keeping an eye on in the growing Turnkey and semi-DIY NAS market. As an alternative to public cloud services, this is a no-brainer and worth the entry price point. As an alternative to established Turnkey NAS Solutions, we will hold off judgment till it is publicly released.

• Approx. Price: $595 / £475

• Specs: Intel Pentium Gold 8505 (6-thread), 8 GB DDR5, 4×SATA + 2×M.2 slots, 1×10GbE and 1×2.5GbE, plus HDMI, USB-C, USB-A, and SD reader.

• Why It’s Attractive: Well-rounded design with rich connectivity and media support, undercuts most rivals on price and features.

SOFTWARE - 6/10

HARDWARE - 9/10

PERFORMANCE - 6/10

PRICE - 9/10

VALUE - 8/10

7.6

PROS

Exceptional Hardware for the Price
4 HDDs + 2x Gen 4x4 M.2 in 1 box under $400
Good Balanced CPU choice in the Pentium Gold 8505
10GbE and 2.5GbE as standard
An SD Card Slot (wielrd rare!)
10/10 Build Quality
Great Scalability
Fantastic Mobile Application (even vs Synology and QNAP etc)
Desktop/Browser GUI shows promise
Established Brand entering the NAS Market
Not too noisy (comparatively)
Very Appealing retail package+accessories

CONS

10GbE Performance was underwhelming
Crowdfunding choice is confusing
Software (still in Beta) is still far from ready 22/3/24
non-UGREEN PSU is unexpected

TerraMaster F4-424 Max / F6-424 Max

The TerraMaster F4-424 Max is a robust 4-bay NAS system that offers a powerful mix of features and flexibility for a wide range of tasks. Powered by the Intel i5-1235U CPU with 10 cores and 12 threads, the F4-424 Max excels at resource-intensive applications such as Plex media streaming, 4K hardware transcoding, and virtual machine hosting. Its dual M.2 NVMe slots running at PCIe Gen 4 speeds significantly improve storage performance, especially when used for caching, while the two 10GbE ports offer high-speed networking environments, allowing for 20Gbps throughput via link aggregation.

In terms of software, TOS 6 brings notable improvements, although it still lags behind the more polished ecosystems of Synology DSM and QNAP QTS. That said, TerraMaster’s continuous software evolution with each new version of TOS ensures that users have access to more robust tools and security features. For its price point of $899.99, the F4-424 Max is a compelling option for those seeking high-performance NAS solutions with scalability in mind. While the Pro model offers competitive performance, the Max takes it a step further with advanced networking, making it ideal for environments where speed is a priority.

• Approx. Price: $675 / £550 (F4-424 Max, during sale) – $899 / £700 (F6-424 Max, regular)

• Specs: Intel Core i5-1235U (10-core), 8 GB RAM, dual 10GbE ports, dual M.2, with 4 or 6 SATA bays depending on model.

• Why It Helps: The F4-424 Max frequently drops below the $800 mark in promotions, offering unusually strong CPU performance and dual 10GbE at a mid-range price point.

SOFTWARE - 6/10

HARDWARE - 9/10

PERFORMANCE - 9/10

PRICE - 9/10

VALUE - 8/10

8.2

PROS

Powerful Hardware: Intel i5-1235U with 10 cores and 12 threads for resource-heavy tasks.
Dual 10GbE Ports: High-speed networking capabilities with link aggregation for up to 20Gbps, ideal for large file transfers.
PCIe Gen 4 NVMe Support: Two M.2 NVMe slots offering exceptional performance for caching or additional high-speed storage.
Efficient Cooling: The large 120mm fan ensures quiet and effective cooling, making it suitable for home and office environments.
Improved TOS 6 Software: Enhancements in GUI, backup tools, and overall security bring TOS closer to its competitors.

CONS

Higher Price Tag: At $899.99, it’s more expensive than TerraMaster’s other models, which may deter budget-conscious buyers.
No PCIe Expansion: Lack of a PCIe slot limits potential for future upgrades, such as adding 10GbE cards or more M.2 drives.
Presentation: The software has improved a lot, but still feels inconsistent in places compared with alternatives from brands such as Synology and QNAP.

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

Who Are IceWhale, Is ZimaOS a Legitimate NAS Software Player, and Are They Ready? An Interview with Lauren Pan, IceWhale CEO

IceWhale is one of the youngest companies in the self-hosting space, yet its operating system, ZimaOS, has rapidly become one of the most discussed alternatives to established NAS platforms. Built on an immutable Linux foundation with a strong emphasis on user experience, ZimaOS aims to combine the approachability of turnkey systems with the flexibility of DIY hardware. Behind that vision is Lauren Pan, the founder and CEO of IceWhale, whose team previously created CasaOS and later shifted focus to a more scalable and controlled platform in ZimaOS. Now that the brand has begun it’s roll out of it’s $29 lifetime license, it has now become apparent that this plucky start up needs to be taken alot more seriously, as well as be weighed critically in the same way other long-established NAS software platforms are.

So, during a recent visit to Shenzhen, I sat down with Lauren for an extended conversation about the origins of ZimaOS, the challenges of building a modern NAS operating system, the company’s rapid growth, and how the wider NAS industry is being reshaped by new players, security expectations, and AI-driven workloads. This interview captures his perspective on product design, community involvement, security, the evolution of the market, and IceWhale’s long-term ambition to bring personal servers into everyday households.

When you began building the operating system back in 2021 with a very small founding team, what were those early days like and what were you aiming to create?

In 2021 the early team was only four members. I found our final CTO at that time, and we started to build the official design. At the beginning we were passionate and wanted to build a comprehensive, robust and customizable operating system for home lab users and tech-savvy people. But after three months, when we reviewed our progress, it was terrible. Even in the early stages you could tell there was something there because it was so light. That lightness was the biggest appeal for many people.  If you didn’t know what you were doing it was a great gateway into experimentation and learning. For people who did know what they were doing, the lightweight design made it flexible. In the first three months we honestly didn’t know exactly what we were building. We pivoted fast. We spent about a month researching Reddit, watching community videos including yours, and we realised people needed a lightweight, easy-to-use command line to set up a home server. That’s where the idea for CasaOS came from.

Fast-growing and successful products come from very sharp product insight. After that insight, the next phase is delivering high quality and building a good reputation through community feedback. This is core to our product methodology.
When we target a feature or user value, we don’t immediately invest heavy development resources. Instead, we speak with community members, moderators, and creators like you. We learn, and listen to how you see things, and watch user experience live on screen.

How big is the IceWhale team today?

Right now we have 35 members. Recently, because ZimaOS has been growing so fast, the operational pressure is high. Our downloads and user base are increasing quickly. So in the coming months we plan to expand the team to around 50 people. The purpose is to continue delivering high-quality support to the community. Our download numbers and user base are growing very fast, and that creates a lot of operational pressure. That is why we are expanding the team significantly. Supporting the community with high-quality responses is one of our top priorities, and growth in the next few months is focused on providing that support.

Why create ZimaOS when CasaOS already existed?

There are two main reasons. First, product direction. CasaOS is very open and we maintained it for more than two years with no license and free global access. However, as the process continued, we gradually realized that relying solely on the existing system architecture could no longer fully meet future requirements in terms of performance, scalability, and stability.. After deep internal discussion, we decided to build the OS from scratch rather than using Debian or mergerFS. This way, we can fully control quality and stability at the infrastructure layer. In 2023 we studied Home Assistant, Raspbian, and best practices in Linux. We built ZimaOS from the buildroot foundation, choosing our own kernel packages and implementing an immutable design. Users cannot modify system files because we focus on stability for daily use. But since many users still want to tinker, we layered Docker Compose on top.

Second, business sustainability. CasaOS used Apache 2.0 licensing because at that time no Chinese company was building a home server OS. We benefited hugely from open-source, so we needed to give back. But some companies began using CasaOS to build their own commercial products. To create a sustainable business cycle we needed a platform we could fully control, and that became ZimaOS.

What is IceWhale doing to handle vulnerabilities responsibly?

We rely on GitHub and created a CVE reporting program. We announced it to the community, and anyone can report security issues. Internally, our development team handles these reports through a structured process. Every Monday we review all community feedback, including security issues, reliability problems, and feature requests. In the last two weeks, especially after your video, installations increased rapidly and so did feedback.

Would you consider a security bounty program?

We are considering it. We need to strengthen our internal capabilities first. Bounty programs can attract both ethical hackers and opportunistic users, but they also help prevent widespread damage. Also, we are still very early into our funding sustainability to commit to something this large.

A lot of people were surprised that ZimaOS is only 29 dollars for a lifetime license. How did you arrive at that price?

The pricing comes from the founding team’s expectations about the market. The NAS industry is still mostly limited to tech-savvy users, but we see a different future. We believe that in the next ten years everyone will have a personal or home server for daily use, home automation, and personal agents. If you evaluate the current NAS market at around one million users, then pricing at 300 dollars, like some competitors, makes sense because their investment is huge. But if you believe the market will grow far beyond that small base, then pricing it at 29 dollars makes much more sense. We think the market will not remain limited to only a few million users.

Crowdfunding from companies like UGREEN has shown how quickly the market can shift when a new player enters the market. Do you think that changed industry expectations towards Chinese products?

UGREEN is a great example. Before their launch I spoke with people at several major brands and many were not worried. They thought UGREEN had no experience and would go nowhere. Then they raised 6.5 million dollars and sold 12,000 units. That was a lot of market share disappearing very quickly. This has really opened the door to a shake-up of private server ownership. In videos, you’ve often talk about control, flexibility, and personal ownership of data. This is core to the philosophical foundation for ZimaOS. When people want to host something themselves, they need full control. I don’t want users to be limited by a specific brand. They should decide how to manage their data, how to customise their apps and services, and how to extend computing power with GPU or 10 GbE. That purpose is at the core of ZimaOS.

We learned from the community that people need flexibility. At the same time, learning technical skills is still hard, so we also provide complete products like ZimaBoard and ZimaCube. This means users can get started quickly if they want an out the box solution. The industry is changing. Traditional NAS brands may move into higher tiers and ignore the bottom tier. New players will reshape the value and mid-range segments. The market will expand, but many brands are not ready for rapid shifts like AI integration.

Would you consider adding surveillance features to ZimaOS?

Not yet. The surveillance market is very large and specialised. Right now we are focused on building a reliable core operating system.

Some New and Entry level users find the USB installation process or migration away from an existing NAS to ZimaOS the only difficult steps. How do you plan to address that? Would you consider pre-bootloader-ready USB sticks for retail? Or specific Synology-to-ZimaOS migration tool?

I agree. Installation is still the biggest barrier for beginners. We are considering better solutions, including pre-prepared media, streamlined installation tools, and future hardware that removes the need for external installation completely. Making that first step easier is important. The idea of a installation-ready official USB with the license ready loaded makes alot of sense, and definitely something we can consider and explore, thank you. With branded migration tools, that is another very good idea. Migration is one of the biggest concerns for users switching from turnkey NAS systems. A dedicated migration tool could completely open the door for them. We should do that.

Will CasaOS be retired any time soon?

No. We consider CasaOS our LTS version. We will continue fixing bugs and maintaining it. There is no CasaOS 2.0 planned at the moment. Its main advantage is ARM compatibility, which few other NAS operating systems support.

Will there be a new ZimaCube?

Yes. In the next three months we will upgrade ZimaCube to the M2 version and announce it soon. It’s an improvement, not ZimaCube 2.0, more like a plus model. It will replace the existing version entirely. The positioning of ZimaCube was right, but I don’t think we made the first generation good enough to compete with new market entrees. So we focused heavily on improving the details while keeping the price. However, ZimaCube priced between 600 and 1200 dollars is still too expensive for the broader market and entry level, so we are investigating internally a product called “Zima Mini” to target the two-bay and four-bay market. More on that in 2026.

Where do you want IceWhale and ZimaOS to be in five years?

Our vision is to serve more than 400 million households and bring a personal or home server to every family. In five years we want IceWhale to be positioned clearly as an operating system company rather than a hardware company. That has become very clear in the last two years.

What moment made you most proud in the IceWhale journey?

There was a moment two years ago, when CasaOS reached around ten thousand community members. In China many people don’t care much about privacy or self-hosting, so when I told local investors that I wanted to build a NAS and open-source OS, they didn’t understand why. They thought we didn’t need it. But when the GitHub project took off, when the Discord community grew, and when users started creating mods without ever speaking to us, I realised they understood exactly what we were building. They understood the vision even though I never explained it publicly. That moment validated everything. It reminded me why I founded the company.

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...ZimaOS - Interview with LaurenWeek 41 Tech Digest – Synolo Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE

fnOS Beta Review – Should You Keep an eye on Feiniu NAS OS?

Feiniu Private Cloud, better known by its system name fnOS, is a closed-source Chinese NAS operating system currently in public beta. Developed by a small team of self-described NAS enthusiasts, fnOS is marketed as a “genuinely free” NAS solution for domestic users in China and is designed to run on standard x86 PC and NAS hardware. It offers media management tools, AI-powered photo categorization, Docker container support, RAID configurations, and an app ecosystem — all within a graphical user interface that resembles several other recent Chinese NAS solutions. The system is rooted in a Debian-based Linux distribution and aims to provide plug-and-play functionality for users seeking an alternative to more established platforms like DSM, QTS, or TrueNAS.

However, fnOS arrives with notable caveats. As a closed-source system with minimal public documentation, there is currently no way to verify its internal processes, telemetry behaviour, or long-term data integrity protections. Moreover, its security architecture lacks advanced features like two-factor authentication, iSCSi, ZFS or hardened remote access protocols that have fast become an industry standard of many other NAS software options in the market.

Language support outside of Simplified Chinese is also not fully implemented, creating potential navigation barriers for international users. While the interface and features may seem appealing on the surface, fnOS is still in a formative stage — and with it come the usual risks of data loss, unpatched vulnerabilities, and limited user support. As this review will show, fnOS represents a curious blend of innovation, imitation, and potential. But its closed nature, beta status, and regionally restricted development raise several questions about its readiness for use beyond a testing environment.

Disclaimer for Users Considering fnOS Right Now

Anyone considering the use of Feiniu Private Cloud (fnOS) should do so with full awareness of the risks inherent in testing an early-stage, closed-source operating system. Although the software is being actively developed and presents a relatively complete GUI with numerous features, it remains in public beta. The system has not yet undergone broad public scrutiny, independent code audits, or transparent vulnerability testing, making its real-world reliability uncertain. The developers themselves have issued formal cautions, explicitly stating that the beta version may cause system crashes, compatibility problems, or data loss. Users should avoid deploying fnOS on primary NAS systems, in business environments, or on any hardware storing valuable or irreplaceable data. Thorough offline backups should be made prior to installation, and any testing should be performed in a non-critical sandbox environment. The system’s UI is currently presented almost entirely in Simplified Chinese, with no comprehensive English language support available at this stage. Translation tools such as Google Lens or Microsoft Edge’s built-in translation functions may offer partial usability, but navigation and configuration still present challenges for non-Chinese speakers.

Security considerations are especially important. fnOS lacks industry-standard safeguards such as two-factor authentication, secure portal client tools, and deeper role-based access controls. There is also no detailed public disclosure about how the system handles network traffic, cloud synchronization, or metadata collection, which is a point of concern given its integration with AI services and remote access features. At present, it is unclear whether any telemetry or user analytics are sent back to the developers, and the absence of source code prevents community verification. In summary, fnOS should be treated as experimental software. While it may offer a glimpse into emerging trends in the Chinese NAS market and present intriguing ideas around media organization and local AI integration, users must approach it with caution and a strong understanding of the security and stability limitations that accompany early-stage, proprietary platforms.

Design and UI

The user interface of fnOS is visually structured and attempts to emulate the layout seen in many modern NAS operating systems, with clear menu segmentation and app-like modularity. Upon installation, users are presented with a desktop-style environment that includes access to system configuration, storage management, multimedia tools, and containerized applications.

Navigation is conducted through a web browser, and the interface features icon-driven panels that mirror the design language of platforms like DSM (Synology) or QTS (QNAP), albeit with some localization quirks. Despite its early-stage development, the UI demonstrates a coherent structure that is functional, if not yet polished.

However, the current implementation suffers from language accessibility issues. The interface is only available in Simplified Chinese, and efforts to translate the interface using automated tools like Google Translate are mostly ineffective, as it relies on dynamic rendering elements that these tools cannot parse. Microsoft Edge’s translation feature performs better but still results in fragmented grammar and partially translated system prompts. This creates a substantial usability barrier for non-Chinese speakers, particularly when trying to configure advanced settings such as RAID arrays, user permissions, or application environments.

In terms of responsiveness and performance, the UI behaves relatively smoothly even on modest hardware. Common actions such as creating storage volumes, configuring shares, or launching apps execute without visible lag. While some buttons and system prompts may feel incomplete or imprecise due to beta status, core layout principles like logical menu placement and centralized settings are well applied. The overall experience suggests that while fnOS is clearly designed with user convenience in mind, it is not yet refined enough for a wide international audience.

Services and Features

fnOS provides a wide array of features targeting home media consumption, local data storage, and remote accessibility. One of its most promoted capabilities is its media handling, with built-in applications for organizing video, music, and photos. The system includes automatic metadata scraping for movies and TV shows, AI-driven facial and object recognition for photo libraries, and a basic music playback utility.

These media apps mimic the functionality of solutions like Plex or Jellyfin, offering poster walls, subtitle downloads, and transcoding options. However, it should be noted that many of the multimedia tools are proprietary adaptations or containers wrapping existing open-source tools rather than purpose-built innovations.

The system also integrates AI-driven services at the local level. The photo application includes features like character-based photo aggregation and image search via text input. Users can select from multiple AI models depending on resource availability and desired recognition accuracy, though it’s not entirely clear whether these models run exclusively offline or leverage external processing. While the integration appears functional, it is not yet well-documented, and the practical use cases are still limited by the interface’s language barriers and overall beta stability.

fnOS includes standard NAS features such as RAID configuration (supporting levels like RAID 0, 1, and 5), SSD caching, and storage expansion. It uses BTRFS or EXT4 as file system options, with support for snapshot creation on BTRFS volumes. Network protocols such as SMB3, NFS, FTP, and WebDAV are available, with multi-channel SMB enabled by default.

There is also a built-in file manager allowing basic copy, move, download, and sharing functions, including time-limited and password-protected links. While ZFS is not supported, the storage tools provided are sufficient for basic to intermediate users familiar with RAID and shared folder management.

The included App Center is container-based and supports various community and utility applications. Notable entries include Qbittorrent, Jellyfin, Transmission, Alist, Portainer, and Chromium, alongside more region-specific tools like 115 Network Disk and Baidu Cloud integration.

The application store largely reflects popular Dockerized solutions and offers minimal documentation on integration specifics. fnOS also includes a rudimentary virtual machine manager, which allows for Windows VM creation via ISO files, though functionality is basic.

Backup tools support both local folder sync and remote NAS replication, but third-party cloud sync is limited in scope and likely tied to domestic Chinese services.

Pros and Cons of fnOS?

One of the most notable strengths of fnOS is its broad feature coverage for a beta-stage NAS operating system. Despite being early in its development, it includes many of the core functions expected from a modern NAS platform: multi-tiered RAID support, snapshot capabilities (via BTRFS), Docker-based application hosting, multimedia indexing, and even virtual machine support.

For home users interested in media storage, the built-in tools for automatic metadata scraping and subtitle acquisition, combined with basic transcoding support, make it a practical solution for centralized media access — particularly when paired with a TV interface or mobile app.

The inclusion of AI-powered image recognition and customizable AI models in the photo management application is another area where fnOS differentiates itself. Users can configure local facial and object recognition models to assist in organizing large photo libraries, and even perform text-based image searches. While this isn’t entirely unique in the NAS market, the ability to select from different AI models and the implementation of geolocation tagging and facial clustering demonstrates that the development team is thinking beyond basic storage functionality. It suggests potential for future expansion into smart content management if development continues at pace.

However, fnOS also presents several clear drawbacks. Security remains underdeveloped, with no support for two-factor authentication, no publicly available information on encryption practices, and limited visibility into how data is handled or transmitted over the network.

While SSL certificates and basic firewall tools are present, the absence of fine-grained user permission structures or auditing functionality makes it unsuitable for multi-user environments or deployments where data privacy is a primary concern. Additionally, remote access services built into fnOS are proprietary and undocumented, which raises further questions for users concerned about trust and control over their network.

Another key limitation is the lack of proper language support and international readiness. At the time of writing, the UI is only available in Simplified Chinese, and the developers have not confirmed a timeline for multilingual support, also highlighting that this will be phased into a paid/commercial use version. This, combined with limited documentation and forum discussion outside of Chinese-speaking communities, makes troubleshooting and adoption by non-Chinese users significantly more difficult. Moreover, as a closed-source system, fnOS cannot benefit from the auditing, forking, and community patching practices that open-source NAS platforms rely on to maintain user trust and long-term sustainability.

Conclusion and Verdict of fnOS NAS Software

fnOS represents an ambitious attempt to build a full-featured, home-friendly NAS operating system from the ground up, targeting a domestic Chinese audience first and foremost. Its functionality is surprisingly broad for a beta, covering storage management, AI-powered media organization, Docker app deployment, and local VM hosting. However, its closed-source nature, limited language support, and undeveloped security framework make it unsuitable for deployment outside controlled test environments. For users within China who are technically confident, aware of the risks, and seeking a free, self-managed solution, fnOS may have appeal. For international users, particularly those prioritizing transparency, privacy, or robust security, fnOS remains a curiosity—not yet a contender.

Summary: fnOS Beta – Pros and Cons

Join Inner Circle

Want to follow specific category? Also Read...fnOS Beta Review - I Tried Out Subscribe You can also follow specific search terms:

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?

TRY CHAT

If you like this service, please consider supporting us. We use affiliate links on the blog allowing NAScompares information and advice service to be free of charge to you.Anything you purchase on the day you click on our links will generate a small commission which isused to run the website. Here is a link for Amazon and B&H.You can also get me a Ko-fi or old school Paypal. Thanks!To find out more about how to support this advice service check HEREIf you need to fix or configure a NAS, check Fiver Have you thought about helping others with your knowledge? Find Instructions Here  

Or support us by using our affiliate links on Amazon UK and Amazon US

    

 

WE LOVE COFFEE