Synology NAS Tune for Optimal Network Speed...?

Mainstay

Well-Known Member
Reaction score
747
Just setting up a nice Synology NAS that will be connected to an unmanaged network switch with a single subnet.

What do you think is the best configuration for the 4 onboard NIC's?

The NAS will not be used for DHCP and is only a file server.
 
You don't need to use link aggregation to benefit though right? I mean can't you simply access the nas via different internal ips from each computer like for example:

Computer 1 connects to nas via 192.168.0.1
Computer 2 connects to nas via 192.168.0.2
Computer 3 connects to nas via 192.168.0.3
Computer 4 connects to nas via 192.168.0.4
 
I've used the link aggregation on a Synology at a clients a few months ago. Although I didn't test the speed not using it, it was blazingly fast doing the backups across the network.
 
Synology calls this 'Link Aggregation'. Here are their setup instructions for that. Let us know how much it helps, I've never tried it.

It was that page that made me wonder what you guys were doing with the onboard NICs.

You don't need to use link aggregation to benefit though right?

This is how I was going to connect them originally, but if it can do some sort of load balancing without needing special switching equipment, that would be fantastic.

@MichaelBits - so you created a new network bond of all the available NICs, set it to adaptive load balancing, and connected 4 ethernet cables... and that's it?

I just don't want to take down their network in the event a loop is created. Faster access speeds are only good if I don't blitz out their network =)
 
@Mainstay: That's how I've done it previously. The good thing is you don't need anything fancy on the actual switch - just enough spare ports to plug in. Had no bad effects and definitely speeded up file transmission and back-up. Make sure you have CAT6 throughout or you'll be wasting a lot of the benefits.
 
The Synology I set up had dual network ports with the ability to "link aggregate" them.
So wasn't 4....
But basically yes.
The Synology will bond them together so they essentially become a single interface. It will handle all the work and the customers network is none the wiser.

Looked to work pretty well on the system I set up. Was for backing up a server that maintained customer data and their office file shares.
Backups were fast across the network and I saw no noticeable speed issues on the network while it was running.

It was so much faster and easier for them to use than their old system (tape backups).
 
I've always wondered about the advantages of this. It seems to me that it would allow faster throughput in the event of simultaneous access by more than one user, but have no benefit for a single user. Would you agree?
 
Using link aggregation might help. But the system, and that exactly what it is, has many parts, each of which is a potential bottle neck. What type of drives? Encryption? Number of users? LAN specs? The link below covers most of their models but does not specify the drives. Enabling aggregation up front will obviously eliminate that potential bottle neck.

https://www.synology.com/en-us/products/performance
 
Last edited:
I've always wondered about the advantages of this. It seems to me that it would allow faster throughput in the event of simultaneous access by more than one user, but have no benefit for a single user. Would you agree?

Yup.
What's a typical end user on for a drive, SATA? Sooo...60, maybe 70....possibly 80 gigs if a really high performance SATA. But I'll put my money more on 65-70 megs of sustained throughput.

Not quite near saturating a good gigabit connection...which is in the 90's for real world average...maybe juuuust over 100 in a really good setup.

On my laptop with SSD I can bang on that limit copying large ISOs from our Synology RS2212+.....which has a single NIC used.
 
thanks all! will setup for link aggregation and test in our small lab. this DS1517+ is just a beauty =)
 
Back
Top