![]() ![]() Then you have ONU GPON (FFTH) managed by really underperforming xDSL routerĢ. If all fails, and if this is important for your operation, I’d ditch it and look for a more solid alternative (some I’ve mentioned earlier). Increase the number of files and see what happens when everything is synced and you edit a single file, is it going to sync faster. Not sure if this happens initially until everything is synced and it takes off later or is it going to be like this. I keep reading that Drive becomes very slow when there are a lot of files to sync (especially small files). However, I’d go back and say, try a single big file in the synced folders. I just use it daily to edit my files (spreadsheets and documents). Unfortunately, I’m not using it to sync such amounts. Now we know that you’ll need to focus on Drive, since we’ve proved that the links are doing what they’re supposed to do (transport at the advertised speed). That’s within the range for 1 GB fiber broadband (I expected it to be in the upper 20s). On both DDNS or Quickconnect.ĭid lots of test with my ISP, they swear the network works flawlessly at 1Gbps.Īny idea what is going on here? Is it Synology drive client app or network or config? It's on the same router so that's okay.īut between the NAS and PC2. on a 1Gbps connection, this is quite frustrating not being able to use the available bandwidth.īetween PC1 and the NAS I'm getting 80 to 120Mb/s. Now that I migrated all our data to the NAS, we're getting only 2 to 3Mb/s using the same configuration. With dropbox using the same config, we use to have 30 to 60Mb/s transfer between dropbox and our computers and dropbox servers. The NAS is on its own dedicated IP, no DHCP. On my router I have ports 5000 5001 6690 and 80 forwarded and open. I used the Drive client using Quickconnect and DDNS, both are slow. It should have take 4 to 6 hours max, not 3 days. The other day it took 3 DAYS to sync 600GB of files for a project. I'd need to get the 10TB tier if I had to back up all the photos I shot over the last three years in native resolution, and that comes out to $49 a month, or $600 a year - that's the cost of two 18TB Red Pro drives, and I know what I'm buying.We're trying to sync video projects, since we're into video editing. As we're on that subject, the cost of storage adds up very fast if you need a lot of it on Google Photos. This makes a big difference for my particular use case as I tend to search with file names when looking for product shots. Then there's the fact that Synology Photos has better photo management, and you get the ability to sort photos by location, camera, file name, and more. Synology Photos gets a lot right, and it now works natively on the best smart TV platforms. Synology Photos is insanely fast at uploading photos, and as you're only doing so within your home network, it has a distinct advantage over Google Photos in this regard - particularly if you're working with large albums with hundreds or thousands of photos. The move coincided with Google killing off unlimited storage with Google Photos, and having used Synology Photos soon after it launched, there was a lot to like. To its credit, Synology did a fabulous job collating all of its disparate services into a unified entity for backing up photos and videos, dubbing it Synology Photos. As the data never leaves your home, you have full control over your photos and videos, and I wrote a guide breaking down why a NAS server is the ideal offline Google Photos alternative. There are a few advantages to using a NAS server for storing your media, key among them being data security. I've been using the DiskStation DS1019+ and DS1520+ to back up full-res photos and videos from all the phones we have in the house, so it was pretty straightforward to consider the brand. It didn't take long for me to figure out that Synology Photos is a viable solution. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |