I currently have a 2TB Windows file server that's maxed out, and I'm considering shifting our engineering and marketing teams to a rack-mounted Synology with Backblaze B2 for offsite backups. Testing has gone well so far, but with a full Nimble/VMWare refresh still two years away, I need a dependable temporary solution. I haven't set up a Synology in a business setting in about 15 years, so I'm curious if there are any major pitfalls regarding Synology's performance. We're a small operation with fewer than 100 users. I'd rather not switch to OneDrive, and we already have a Synology that was purchased for a different, now-completed project. Is there any reason I shouldn't go ahead with this plan?
6 Answers
For sure, it can definitely work as long as you know your IOPS requirements. Just ensure your organization has stated their Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO), and that Backblaze B2 fits into your disaster recovery plans. If something happens at the office, it’s important to consider how quickly you'll be able to access those files again.
I highly recommend using Active Backup for Business; it works wonders! I back up our 22TB file server to S3 via Hyper Backup nightly. It’s efficient and quick, especially with its CBT feature.
Absolutely! File servers are pretty interchangeable these days. Similar specs generally lead to comparable performance across different operating systems.
I think this setup will work well for you. If performance lags, adding some SSD caching could definitely help boost speed when needed.
I've got two rack-mounted Synology systems that sync with Backblaze B2, and they’ve worked great for years! You should be fine going this route.
Just a tip: make sure you have proper NVMe caching and a compatible 10G or faster network card—you'll be glad you did, it works like a charm!
Good point! Having a plan for rapid recovery is crucial, especially if your files are business-critical.