[Cincinnatus]

Now that I'm set on migrating my collection to ISOs (and eventually MKV), I'm looking for an affordable NAS to store my library.

Lots of choices, so much confusion. I have my eye on the Western Digital EX4 'My Cloud' unit, because it's affordable, and has a fairly rich feature set. I know it doesn't perform as well as other boxes by Synology or Qnap, but it's less than half their price, and in the case of needing a repository for media intended for streaming, file access latency and throughput is not a huge concern considering Kodi runs just fine accessing movies via a USB external drive.

If you guys have any insight on diskless (the box only) NAS options under the $350-ish price point, I'd be grateful for the input.

[bry]

I suggest saving money a bit longer and going with a qnap or a synology for the long run.

[hdmkv]

+1 for Synology. Have had my 1812+ for around 3 years & it has been super reliable. Great for SMB and/or NFS video streaming.

[Cincinnatus]

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I've been thinking that over very seriously. The deciding factor would be if either the Synology or Qnap units can change RAID configurations on-the-fly allowing me to expand discs one at a time. In other words, my plan would be:
- Buy the unit with a single drive
- Add 2nd Drive for RAID1
- Add 3rd drive for RAID5 but migrate from RAID1 to RAID5 without losing data
- Add 4th drive, expand from 3 drives to 4 drives on-the-fly without losing data

If I'm going in the direction of a more expensive base unit, that brings the Drobo into play, also.

ETA: @hdmkv - just wanted to let you know I ordered the SATV from the Nvidia site last night @$150+tax. Brain fart. I need to start drinking more on the weekends to kill off the slow-functioning brain cells. ;-)

Since I'll be using a ShieldTV for my Kodi server and decoding, is there any reason that you guys dislike the WD unit other than it's slower performance? I installed a previous generation unit for a client 5 years ago and it's still running like a champ, so perhaps my experience is the rarity.

[hdmkv]

@Cincinnatus, glad you got in before they ran out of those $50 discount codes.

Re: Synology, they use all those RAID configurations as well as their own Synology Hybrid Raid (SHR), which I use, with 1 or 2 disk redundancy.

[Cincinnatus]

@Cincinnatus, glad you got in before they ran out of those $50 discount codes.

Re: Synology, they use all those RAID configurations as well as their own Synology Hybrid Raid (SHR), which I use, with 1 or 2 disk redundancy.

Problem is for me, money is tight. I just checked, and the Synology unit does NOT support RAID reconfiguration without data loss, so that knocks it out of contention. I just can't afford a $1000+ unit at $500 for the box plus 3x4TB drives @ $150-ish each. The WD unit enables me to start out at $250 for the box and use my existing 4TB drive, expanding and reconfiguring on-the-fly without data loss. That's a huge plus for me. I could possibly stretch my budget (effectively doubling the entry cost) to $500 for the NAS, only if I can use my present drive and add others to reconfigure as I go. So far, the only other box that would support that reconfiguration/migration without data loss is the Drobo.

ETA: Nvidia extended the Shield promotion end date to 11/25, presumably to capture Black Friday. Good to know.

[Cincinnatus]

Looks like the Qnap units can support RAID expansion/migration on-the-fly, but it seems kludgy.
http://qnapsupport.net/?page_id=2124

[bry]

for what its worth my qnap has been running since late 2007, early 2008 with no issues.

[ashman70]

Not sure where you are getting your info, most synology's that i have seen, and I own two, are just as capable as expanding a raid set as Qnap or any other competitive model, it depends on whether or not you use the proprietary SHR technology or standard RAID. If you use standard RAID, then yes you are likely limited in that you cannot expand to larger drives, so just use SHR. I have a 12 bay synology setup for SHR2, I almost finished upgrading all the drives from 3TB to 5TB, all done on the fly, replacing one drive at a time, rebuild, then repeat. Is this not what you are concerned about being able to do?

[riccioluca]

qnap ts 451 is the shit, official support is slow but thanks to a great community you can already use kodi 15.2, has an hdmi output so the world is at your feet!!251 is the cheaper version, 2 disks instead of 4. If youre a hardcore gamer and wants to use retroplayer or rcb im not sure its compatible, everything else is crazy,

[Mylo75]

+1 for Synology.

[Cincinnatus]

for what its worth my qnap has been running since late 2007, early 2008 with no issues.

As has the WD sharespace unit I installed at a client location.

Not sure where you are getting your info, most synology's that i have seen, and I own two, are just as capable as expanding a raid set as Qnap or any other competitive model, it depends on whether or not you use the proprietary SHR technology or standard RAID. If you use standard RAID, then yes you are likely limited in that you cannot expand to larger drives, so just use SHR. I have a 12 bay synology setup for SHR2, I almost finished upgrading all the drives from 3TB to 5TB, all done on the fly, replacing one drive at a time, rebuild, then repeat. Is this not what you are concerned about being able to do?

See my use case above where I intend to start with one drive. I tend to be leery of proprietary software, so I'm not sure if 'SHR' is something I want to mess with. Ignorance on my part, but sometimes caution keeps people (and data) alive. ;-)

qnap ts 451 is the shit, official support is slow but thanks to a great community you can already use kodi 15.2, has an hdmi output so the world is at your feet!!251 is the cheaper version, 2 disks instead of 4. If youre a hardcore gamer and wants to use retroplayer or rcb im not sure its compatible, everything else is crazy,

If 'the shit' is your way of saying it's a nice unit, perhaps it is. However you may have missed the part where I said I'll be running an Nvidia Shield so hosting KODI on a unit is not a priority, but using a 4 bay unit was. I'm also leery of the lack of manufacturer support, despite an active user community.

So far, I have not seen any practical reason why the WD unit is to be avoided. If there were evidence of unit meltdowns, crappy hardware, lost data (not due to user error), or lousy support, I'd consider those to be good reasons why another unit would be preferable, but so far I'm not understanding why a Synology/Qnap or other unit at $500 is better for my needs than the WD at half that price.

[shabuboy]

So you are planning on getting a NAS and still access the files via USB for the media player? Weird, but whatever works for you.

I love my WD My Book live. I agree, it does not match the higher end models, but for my needs, is perfect. I use it as:
- Media server for phones, PCs and Tablets
- Torrent client
- Backup device for all phones, PCs and Tables
- SCP/SFTP/SSH server for remote access besides the WD apps

Kodi access the library on MBL via SMB.

All happy and no issues, still going strong for over 3yrs.

[Cincinnatus]

So you are planning on getting a NAS and still access the files via USB for the media player? Weird, but whatever works for you.

No, I'm going to put all my ISOs that are presently on my USB drive (an external USB/SATA unit) to the NAS.

What I was saying is that if the objection to the WD EX4 unit is that the performance is slower than a Synology, would it really make that much of a difference for my needs as a media streamer? I'm sure the more expensive NAS boxes have the capability of greater throughput, but if what the box can put out is greater than is required for 1080p streaming, it's overkill. My home config is an old Linksys WRT54G with the latest DD-WRT firmware (v24 sp2), if that makes any difference.

[Cincinnatus]

Interestingly enough, the Qnap 431 is in the same price range. Anyone have input on this vs. the EX4?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00O3Y7E2G/ref=...B00LVT2Y12