DiskStation is a line of network-attached storage (NAS) solutions from Synology headquartered in Taiwan.
N/A
Windows Server
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pricing
Synology DiskStation
Windows Server
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
DiskStation
Windows Server
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Synology DiskStation
Windows Server
Considered Both Products
DiskStation
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose DiskStation
Synology NAS replaced any cloud storage for way cheaper, more controlled and expansible. Qnap is the second best and was also an option but back then it had less functionalities. It does the backup just as Synology DiskStation but the support was better on the Synology …
Synology DiskStation is head and shoulders above WD and Seagate NAS servers I've used. The most immediate standout for me is the user interface on Synology DiskStation is far better. A real user oriented experience.
Performance I get from my Synology DiskStation NAS is much …
I use Synology DiskStation privately as well, so I continued using them when I met them at my new workplace as well. They have a nice GUI comparable to QNAP. Using Netgear ReadyNAS in the past, Synology DiskStation are better in any perspektive except for the price tag. QNAP …
I had a very old Buffalo Tera station that had a very hard to reinstall OS and it was a very slow system (personal). Since coming on to my current job, we have had exclusive use of Synology DiskStation, so I can't compare it to anything else. Previous previous jobs, we have …
Easy setup. Good price for TB. Easily accessible hdd drives. Thanks to e-mail notification. In the event of a disk failure, I will immediately get a notification to replace the HDD.
We had used an HPE MSA for one of our offices, the ROI was not as good as the Synology DiskStation due to the price. It required more of a setup needing to have a Windows OS to manage it. While the DiskStation just needed a few clicks to set up. There was no additional software …
We honestly went with Synology DiskStation because of the cost solution and how quickly we were able to acquire the units. After acquiring and we were able to work through setup, it far exceeded our expectation in the ability to configure and be able to get things running. We …
These are very similar products. QNAP is known for better high end performance. I really like the Synology interface. It makes it very easy to use. There are so many applications that are available that expand the functionality significantly.
Synology DiskStation is by far the best all-around NAS solution on the market. QNAP provides more hardware variability and some better prices, but QNAP's OS, QT, is simply not as good as Synology's DSM OS. FreeNAS is an extremely powerful and robust open-source NAS solution …
I have a Qnap, and I hate it compared to Synology. Synology is the easy button of a NAS. You can literally have it all up and running, configured, and backing up servers in 30 minutes. I have not used it for cameras, but I hear it's great. My qnap just sits in a box now, won't …
When we were making a decision on what to go with we looked at storage capacity, extra features offered, package deals, and overall cost. When we considered Dropbox, it felt like it was too much for how much we would get and that we needed some growing to do before we moved …
We have evaluated the QNAP units (which have higher processor ratings, but the software isn't good), and the Western Digital NAS unit, and FreeNAS setup but none have the simplicity with their DSM software and support that Synology provides yes, being able to call Synology …
Synology DiskStation packs a punch with the latest and greatest feature set which goes above and beyond many other vendors. It allows for a turn-key solution to cover almost every use case in the SMB market leaving other vendors behind.
When using Arlo on a device - if you log into another device, then you'll be kicked off on the device previously used. but i like Arlo for personal use as it's free to use.
We transitioned from a standard Windows File Server. This solution is much cheaper. Easy to use and extremely reliable. We will be replacing our two Synology boxes in 2020 with newer versions.
Synology stacks up very well against the QNAP and the Nexsan. We used to find the Nexsan was very power-hungry in the data centre as well as being very loud to run. We still run a QNAP in our environment which works in a very similar way and with a similar interface as Synology …
Synology meets a different need. Smaller companies do not need the scalability of the NetApps, Equalogics, Isilons. PowerVault was too complicated for customer self-support. Synology met the storage capacity needs, and was easy to set up and use.
When we decided to look for a nearby storage solution, we briefly considered QNAP NAS. From a technical data sheet point of view, it has complete feature parity to DiskStation. Ultimately, we decided to go with DiskStation because of word of mouth from one of our team members;…
I considered the WD MyCloud NAS as well as the Seagate Ironwolf. I found the Synology was a better overall product with a lot more features and value for the investment. I also briefly considered brands such as Asustor and TerraMaster, but kept coming back to Synology because …
It is really all about application support. The only option we really have is Windows Server, and where we can choose we continue to use it for consistency as well as compatibility with the systems where we are forced to use Windows Server).
We've utilized docker and debian for very specific applications and they have been useful - overall Windows Server provides a better package. I would choose VMware ESXi over Windows Server for virtualization as it's far more reliable in our experience. I can't imagine using a …
There are plenty of other server solutions out there which may be better suited for certain tasks, but Windows Server is the way to get a Windows environment going. For simple setups, there are many alternatives, but often there are key features lacking, or a restriction on …
Windows Server is more cost-effective and skills are easier to find to support the products. The deployment and management of the product can be automated with Microsoft SCCM. In my opinion, Linux seems to be more secured but takes more time and effort to learn than Windows …
These are just very different products. They can all have the same functionality but the specific product knowledge with Linux is much higher. This slows down troubleshooting and can leave you with limited options for high end support. There are absolutely good use cases for …
I didn't use any other system which gives the same functionality and I am not aware of any. The full integration between all components and especially the ability to integrate mail via Exchange or even via a hybrid setup with the Ofice365 cloud, including the ability to …
For our more experienced users and for simple web apps we will go the RHEL route but with Windows Server such an industry standard the the ease of use of the GUI it just makes more sense for most applications that use it. It also generally has a lot more interoperability …
Linux is great, but support is harder to come by. You also need to pay linux admins more as it is a much smaller group of people that can support it. Windows is the industry standard with the most support available. Going with another platform just didn't seem to make sense …
I have some basic experience using various builds of Linux and have always found myself coming back to Windows. Perhaps after years of working with Microsoft products they all have a similar feel and configuration options. Microsoft products are my typical first choice where …
We have various servers or appliances that run on various flavors of Linux that do their jobs well, but we configure and manage them very lightly at the OS level. Most of the admin on these devices is sone inside the applications themselves. We don't shy away from new …
All the other products I have used in the past OS2 servers, Novell Netware, Banyan Vines etc don't show up in the search list, which i guess goes to show that the best wins.
I have used/administered several servers using systems like Ubuntu, Debian, and CentOS. While these systems are great in their own rights, you are typically using a command-line interface or shell in order to administrate the system. This requires a lot of commands to be …
For our purposes it came down to picking between Windows and Linux and at the end of the day we picked both. We use Windows for 80% of our server needs to run our Web, File, Print, DHCP, Internal DNS, Active Directory, SQL, Web and other windows based servers. We use linux …
Windows Server has become one of the industry standards for providing file and directory services for the majority of users because of the ease with which it interacts with the common desktop OS, as opposed to needing to provide esoteric support for users to be able to work …
About any linux distro can be setup to handle services that a Windows Server can do, except I have not personally found anything nearly as convenient of a replacement for Active Directory, Group Policy, or an RD Gateway. There are alternatives to those services, they just …
Windows Server is by far the easiest server option to get started with because they offer the same kind of interface with windows that most users are already familiar with. Plus, it's the most graphically friendly option, so it is easy to navigate. Lastly, it is the most …
We were comparing Windows Server with Hyper-V to VMware ESXI, and decided on Windows Server as we are primarily a Windows server/workstation shop, and the familiarity allowed us to spin up new Hyper-V servers quickly without much additional training required. We also have a …
We have used various flavors of Linux as it is the only other real competitor in the small to large business world. In most cases it is harder to find technical expertise in the Linux server world verse Windows Server. For this reason Windows has remained our go to operating …
Windows runs some applications better and is easier for junior admins and non-technical users to administer and get started with. It obviously does not run everything better, so other operating systems are preferable in some situations. Compared to OSs like RHEL, they both have …
Windows Server is the only one that has an upfront cost for licensing before hardware is considered. Windows Server is generally better suited for multi-faceted approaches; however, for just backups, TrueNAS and Synology are cheaper and just as good. For standalone services …
Windows Server is the most Enterprise/Business server around, easy to deploy and configure and to co-exist with other servers. Most if not every other server technology is usually very good for a very specific purpose but fail in the coexistence and integration when compared …
Synology DiskStation would be well suited for a smaller organization of under 100 employees where you have a lot of collaborating between teams and clients. If you have to have a common space to save documents and project files so both employees and clients can access or upload if needed, this product is perfect! You can create links for clients to access or upload files, while you and your coworkers have a shared collaboration space. If you have a large team, over 100 I would not recommend this product. For us, it seemed to work really well because there were about 20 of us using it, but it is hard for me to imagine it working well for a group that is 5x our size. I don't know, maybe it would still work really well. If you had to know exactly when something was updated and have real times updates on things being added, I would also not recommend this product.
If you have one user or 1000's of users (especially using Windows), Windows Server is a no-brainer! The only reason I would suggest going with a Linux server is if you have old hardware (Windows Server is more process intensive than Linux). But, Linux is open-source, so anyone can publish updates/security updates, but on the flip side, malicious people also have full access to Linux's codebase allowing for much easier writing of exploitations/viruses/malware/ransomware.
File serving for Windows PC's is outstanding in terms of compatibility and performance and reliability
The cloud storage service is like our own private dropbox and very helpful
The backup for business make backup a no brainer with backup to the box and hyperbackup providing a off-site cloud backup option to Synology Cloud or a plethora of other options
User and device management out of the box. Active directory is a proven system for doing this and works just as well as it always has.
ADFS providing integration into many third-party applications using SAML authentication. We use this heavily to make user experience as simple and straightforward as we can.
Local DHCP. It's another one of these systems that is very easy to setup and use out of the box and requires very little maintenance, if any. The system is almost unchanged throughout the years and so anyone with server experience can manage it.
the focus of synology is on SMB users, we have a 1.3PB Synology NAS unit that needs higher-end DiskStation software to handle the 95 x 16TB drives we have
in summary, Synology NAS software doesn't handle enterprise customer needs
syncing of files with android and IOS devices, in particular with DSM 7, the Synology Cloud sync software doesn't work (the staff are working on a release in the coming months). But syncing files from mobile devices to the Synology NAS is a key reason 2 of our Synology NAS units were purchased, and without the syncing we are limited
Windows Server is extremely complex, and while newer versions have eased the initial setup process, setting up a server is still a very time consuming and difficult task.
The complexity of Windows Server also makes troubleshooting any problems that arise extremely difficult, both in tracking down the actual issue and then resolving the issue. Often times a problem can manifest itself in more than one way, making searching for the specific problem also difficult.
Windows Server is also very expensive, with complex and confusing licensing terms. In fact, Microsoft provides a 32-page PDF guide on Windows Server licensing, which is in and of itself dense and confusing to follow. To make matters more complicated, there multiple different version of Windows Server itself - Nano, Essentials, Standard and Datacenter edition, and each edition has different licensing terms. Licensing terms include items such as the physical processor's cores of the server, how many users will be accessing the server (called a CAL - client access license), and a plethora of other items.
Microsoft's support for Windows Server can be extremely frustrating at times. While Microsoft hosts a very active user forum, Microsoft employees who frequent those forums often provide only stock answers to questions (without actually reading the details) or no answers at all. For more in-depth - phone support can be quite expensive.
Upgrading a Windows Server from one major version to another (i.e. 2012 to 2016) is a frustratingly complex and dangerous procedure, as many things can go wrong during the upgrading, essentially breaking the entire setup. In fact, Microsoft doesn't even suggest doing an in-place upgrade, but to perform a backup of the existing server, doing a clean install of the new version, and migrating the information from the older version to the new version. In general, it is not even recommended to upgrade from one version to another as the risk significantly outweigh the benefits.
It provides us with great ROI compared with other solutions. It is also a versatile product, having NAS and SAN product lines depending on the business requirement. Furthermore, the implementation of dual controller lines would allow us to consider it for more critical applications to supplement the more enterprise-level SAN solution. It also is a wonderful backup solution, having all the applications available after purchase of the appliance without the further need to purchase additional software or licensing.
I've carefully reviewed the servers and services currently running on Windows Server 2012, and given the opportunity would renew them as is going forward. There are two systems I currently have in place, one is a very large Linux implementation for a large ecommerce site, and one is a very large backup solution front ended by FTP servers running Linux. Neither are well suited for Windows, but the overall network infrastructure is and will be Windows Server for the foreseeable future.
The Synology DiskStation is easy to set up and manage. The interface is clean and features are well documented. These units are reliable and can be set up to do scheduled integrity checks so failures can be mitigated before they halt business operations. The available packages for expanded roles makes these devices versatile.
Everything can (and should) be done through the easy to use/navigate GUI. There is no need for archaic command prompt use to administer the server. But, it is there if you have very specific needs for batch files, etc. that are not covered in the all extensive GUI.
Support is pretty solid. There is good documentation and the help articles inside the interface provide you answers to common questions and instructions for many scenarios that you may encounter. I have not needed to speak with support very often and my experiences have been good overall with their support team.
It has been my experience that unless there is a flaw or bug with Microsoft Windows Server, you will have to pay extra for support beyond the support web site. That said, unofficial support on the thousands of technical websites makes self-help support readily available to any technician with an internet connection. Microsoft's support website is also fairly robust, but I find using a popular search engine often returns knowledgebase articles more quickly that Microsoft's search.
Make sure that you have detailed processes in place for every server instance you plan to install/upgrade, if possible get the base OS loaded and Windows Updates applied ahead of time, and if using a VM take a snapshot prior to installing each role, as well as along the way.
Synology NAS replaced any cloud storage for way cheaper, more controlled and expansible. Qnap is the second best and was also an option but back then it had less functionalities. It does the backup just as Synology DiskStation but the support was better on the Synology DiskStation. That and the fact the price and modules for physical expansion are available, Synology DiskStation became my choice
Windows Server is more cost-effective and skills are easier to find to support the products. The deployment and management of the product can be automated with Microsoft SCCM. In my opinion, Linux seems to be more secured but takes more time and effort to learn than Windows Server. However, there are more Windows Server skills available in the job market.
DiskStation has provided an accessible storage solution to our developers for local backup that they can control. No need to contact IT to do anything. This has been a win for IT and our users.
DiskStation provides good support in a mixed PC/Mac environment, eliminating the need for multiple solutions. It can act as a file share for both platforms, and as a result, provides ease of access, regardless of what a user is using for their OS.
While DiskStation provides quotas per user, I'd also like the ability to set policies - so that business-critical data is getting backed up to Enterprise-focused storage, and not to our local DiskStation. This is partly a people problem but could be addressed by enabling policies that disable code from being stored.
