Recommended Posts

Thanks to everyone who devoted so much time to helping me. I was getting stressed out so I just made a decision. I went with a build with 2.4TB drives in RAID6 and 2 480GB ssd drives in RAID1 for the os. I also decided on Server 2019 Standard instead of essentials just to make sure FileMaker server works without issues. I'll set up an external backup and also find a good cloud backup solution.

 

As far as deploying, I may have tons of questions. Server 2008 was extremely difficult for me to configure since I have no training or certification. I had to do a ton of googling to get it working right as a domain controller. I'm hoping with 2019 they made it a bit more user friendly. Is there maybe some way to export my configuration from my current server and import it to the new one? Another thing I thought of was keeping my older 2008 Dell server up and running for any reason. I'm thinking probably a bad idea.

4 hours ago, patseguin said:

Another thing I thought of was keeping my older 2008 Dell server up and running for any reason. I'm thinking probably a bad idea.

Could always use it as a backup. :)

9 hours ago, patseguin said:

I went with a build with 2.4TB drives in RAID6

RAID-6 is even worse than RAID-5 for a Database due to even one more parity creation on every write! Might help with making your new server feel much like the old server!

 

But it may not matter for your specific data base as the "Teddy Bear Fans" here keep pointing out.

 

If you ever get a chance to compare running your FileMaker on your RAID-1 SSD vs your slow spinners, I would be very appreciative of the test results. Without a test there is a case to be made for 5 users being a "sleepy hollow" scenario and it won't matter what hardware it runs on. But if the Embroidery software actually does any real processing on the data, then the opposite could be true. After all the guessing, you are in a perfect spot to test it with both SSD and the "Ancient Ones" and yeah with figuring out Server 2019, you probably won't have the time to consider this, but given the mysteries involved, had to ask :)

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Mindovermaster said:

*ding ding ding*

"Ring Ring Ring"

 

I can sound like a Children's TV show too!

 

I used the word "may" but it is SOLIDLY in the EDGE CASE area! The VAST MAJORITY of Database software will have a VERY noticeable performance improvement on SSD.

 

Logically, "no difference" is a possible outcome, which is why I logically agreed it was possible. Possible is no where near the same concept as PROBABLE.

 

And find a single reference paper in a Database Journal that says RAID-5 (or 6) is good for a Database. Simply NOT professional to provision that way even if you can run around like a Bull in a China Shop and make it happen.

 

Bad science is bad science no matter what words you put on it. I can't help it if computers have been around long enough fro traditions to have built up and for VooDoo recipes to spread in a social manner. That doesn't make it science. No matter how many people start believing the moon landing never happened, it did. Period.

 

Same thing here. No matter how many people repeat some incorrect but trusted traditional I.T. "everybody knows" won't make it correct. Science is testing.

 

Which is why I politely asked when time was available that a simple test be made to see if this Embroidery Database is an edge case that does not benefit from performance or if it is more squarely in the norm of what Humanity Actually Knows About Databases

 

5 minutes ago, DevTech said:

And find a single reference paper in a Database Journal that says RAID-5 (or 6) is good for a Database. Simply NOT professional to provision that way even if you can run around like a Bull in a China Shop and make it happen.

Guess what, SC302 has done exactly that, so... What does that show?

2 hours ago, sc302 said:

I ran an entire erp system on 15000 rpm disks on a fiber channel array. Went to flash...0 increase.  Oracle jd Edwards Erp system with 150+ users is going to be a bit heavier than a 5 user file maker pro db. 

Maybe yes. Maybe no. Depends on the code. Depends on the DB structure. Depends on what exactly the Database is being used for. Does it contain a boatload of Embroidery patterns that need to be accessed and processed? Who knows...

 

Anecdotal experience is not science. Your measurement shows for that database, there was no difference. You see that I hope? if the 5 user Embroidery DB gets tested and has the same result as yours it would still not be insightful, just a second anecdote. Standard science: Correlation is NOT causation. To prove (or have reasonable confidence in) causation, you need a controlled experiment or at least a good understanding of the breakdown (like in this case the DB layout, the sprocs etc)

 

But no matter what  this is an anecdote I'm curious about.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Mindovermaster said:

Guess what, SC302 has done exactly that, so... What does that show?

HUH? what on earth are you talking about? NO database people would say that!

 

 

EDIT: Please stop the Teddy bear stuff. Next you will say the Earth is flat. Please, enough is enough. He can make a server however he wants and I have said nothing about that, no suggestions whatsoever since his decision. So no need to pervert reality or how on earth will people learn anything?

 

5 minutes ago, DevTech said:

HUH? what on earth are you talking about? NO database people would say that!

He ran platter drives and moved to flash drives. He saw 0 difference, that should teach you that, in that scenario, it didn't matter. In OP, however, does it REALLY matter?

1 minute ago, Mindovermaster said:

He ran platter drives and moved to flash drives. He saw 0 difference, that should teach you that, in that scenario, it didn't matter. In OP, however, does it REALLY matter?

Read my explanation again and try to understand.

 

The OP has made a decision and I have made no comments on his decision. And I will continue to not make any further comments on his configuration.

 

I have asked him if he can find the time sometime to perform the same type of test that @sc302 performed and I full expect the PROBABLE outcome to be that th SSD will show a large performance improvement. Because that is the logical result to expect.

 

If it does not improve I would just add it to a mental check list of ANOMALIES for which both computer science and reality are plentiful.

 

Would I take an ANOMALY and use it to NOT suggest SSD to a client. No possible professional way! If some pattern matched the anomalies described in this thread, would I point out that the possible outcome might be different in that special case? Sure thing. That is responsible DUE DILIGENCE.

 

There is a thing called Computer Science and with that there is Database research. Nothing I am saying is a secret. You can look it up actually!

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, DevTech said:

Read my explanation again and try to understand.

 

The OP has made a decision and I have made no comments on his decision. And I will continue to not make any further comments on his configuration.

 

I have asked him if he can find the time sometime to perform the same type of test that @sc302 performed and I full expect the PROBABLE outcome to be that th SSD will show a large performance improvement. Because that is the logical result to expect.

 

If it does not improve I would just add it to a mental check list of ANOMALIES for which both computer science and reality are plentiful.

 

Would I take an ANOMALY and use it to NOT suggest SSD to a client. No possible professional way! If some pattern matched the anomalies described in this thread, would I point out that the possible outcome might be different in that special case? Sure thing. That is responsible DUE DILIGENCE.

 

There is a thing called Computer Science and with that there is Database research. Nothing I am saying is a secret. You can look it up actually!

 

 

 

 

No one else talks tech like you... I've been here awhile. NO on else takes up 4 posts and 6 paragraphs of stuff (except for BudMan...)

 

Around here, we do not make scenarios, we get right to the center of the problem. What you are talking about is fantasy, it does not equal to real life.

 

That's just my opinion. Take it or burn it. Or... something...

3 hours ago, sc302 said:

I ran an entire erp system on 15000 rpm disks on a fiber channel array. Went to flash...0 increase.  Oracle jd Edwards Erp system with 150+ users is going to be a bit heavier than a 5 user file maker pro db. 

If you are interested, we could explore this.

 

The default result to expect is a fairly large performance INCREASE. 

 

To me, that means there is another more overriding performance bottleneck that is preventing the difference from being seen. CPU/RAM/Network/Oracle/Security software/Type-of-RAID/etc could all erase a perf diff.

 

3 minutes ago, Mindovermaster said:

No one else talks tech like you... I've been here awhile. NO on else takes up 4 posts and 6 paragraphs of stuff (except for BudMan...)

 

Around here, we do not make scenarios, we get right to the center of the problem. What you are talking about is fantasy, it does not equal to real life.

 

That's just my opinion. Take it or burn it. Or... something...

You've gone over the edge with a personal attack.

 

It would appear that you enjoy social bullying and because nobody else is precise, detailed and has a depth of knowledge I am providing you have some right to make a personal attack instead of taking the time to read up on databases. 

 

I'm not impressed here.

 

15 minutes ago, DevTech said:

If you are interested, we could explore this.

 

The default result to expect is a fairly large performance INCREASE. 

 

To me, that means there is another more overriding performance bottleneck that is preventing the difference from being seen. CPU/RAM/Network/Oracle/Security software/Type-of-RAID/etc could all erase a perf diff.

 

You keep talking like you know for sure it will increase his database speed by switching to flash/ssd.  I wouldn’t bet a single cent on it.   You say it is faster, and it is true that it is capable of being faster, however if he isn’t taxing the system as it sits, he will more than likely not see any gains.  Unfortunately I can no longer perform extensive tests to verify db speed as the old storage has been disconnected and disassembled, I can tell you that the user experience has not changed from before to after and I do not see any speed increase with vms (booting, launching apps, running queries, etc).  From what you say is that I should see a huge performance gain.   I wouldn’t see performance gains even if I went to 40Gb/s on the back bone.  The links aren’t taxed enough to necessitate even the 8Gb/s backbone. Upping to flash/ssd was ultimately unnecessary for speed.  

 

But what do I know, I just manage and architected the data center, I have absolutely no clue what I am talking about.  I am not seeing real life, it is all fictitious make believe..it is all in my head. 

 

You keep beating the horse that says he will see a performance gain and I will defend the horse saying that it isn’t necessarily true. Put whatever facts and whatever you believe to be true and I will continue to doubt your theory. I have seen where it isn’t true, just because it is a ssd doesn’t mean the db/client interface will be any faster. 

4 minutes ago, DevTech said:

You've gone over the edge with a personal attack.

 

It would appear that you enjoy social bullying and because nobody else is precise, detailed and has a depth of knowledge I am providing you have some right to make a personal attack instead of taking the time to read up on databases. 

 

I'm not impressed here.

 

Umm, it seems like SC302 agrees with me.

 

I'm not attacking anyone. I am just saying what I see.

 

Social bullying? I'm not disregarding your information. I'm not saying you are wrong.

 

3 minutes ago, sc302 said:

You keep talking like you know for sure it will increase his database speed by switching to flash/ssd.  I wouldn’t bet a single cent on it.   You say it is faster, and it is true that it is capable of being faster, however if he isn’t taxing the system as it sits, he will more than likely not see any gains.  Unfortunately I can no longer perform extensive tests to verify db speed as the old storage has been disconnected and disassembled, I can tell you that the user experience has not changed from before to after and I do not see any speed increase with vms (booting, launching apps, running queries, etc).  From what you say is that I should see a huge performance gain.   I wouldn’t see performance gains even if I went to 40Gb/s on the back bone.  The links aren’t taxed enough to necessitate even the 8Gb/s backbone. Upping to flash/ssd was ultimately unnecessary for speed.  

 

But what do I know, I just manage and architected the data center, I have absolutely no clue what I am talking about.  I am not seeing real life, it is all fictitious make believe..it is all in my head. 

I was not attacking your experience.

 

I was taking your previous description of your approach to things and offering to work with you on it in some sort of collaborative manner. It sure looks like somewhere you have a mysterious and interesting bottleneck.

 

Were you making that up about wanting to learn stuff? I feel very let down if so.

 

But it seems like everything here has to be adversarial. Mindmaster sees it as a "fight" but that is boring and tedious.

 

I am loosing my faith in this community to be frank...

 

31 minutes ago, DevTech said:

I was not attacking your experience.

 

I was taking your previous description of your approach to things and offering to work with you on it in some sort of collaborative manner. It sure looks like somewhere you have a mysterious and interesting bottleneck.

 

Were you making that up about wanting to learn stuff? I feel very let down if so.

 

But it seems like everything here has to be adversarial. Mindmaster sees it as a "fight" but that is boring and tedious.

 

I am loosing my faith in this community to be frank...

 

No.  I am interested in learning new things however in this case I already have people all over this. While a second or third set of eyes is helpful in this case I am uncertain of your abilities beyond emc/dell or understand the storage collects that I have sent over to verify storage configs. They have stated I have more compute capability than storage and that my sp utilization is low. Essentially the sans are underutilized even the 15000k storage was also underutilized. Far more capable than what I am putting them through which is why it is fast and why I am not seeing performance gains. It was over spec’d for the environment in both cases. 

 

Far more  goes into it than just flash vs spinning disk.  

 

For him, being that the db is also under utilized and the server is way under utilized (I wouldn’t consider 5 users in a db would kill the db throughout or really tax a decent server even if it was a few years old), he won’t really see a performance increase. 

 

Dont be so bull headed.  It isn’t always that simple where you can say do this one thing and you will absolutely see a performance increase....I haven’t dealt in absolutes ever.  I don’t make an assumption that others don’t have their stuff in order unless they prove it or ask for help. I am not asking for help, I have my environment pretty good.  Where were you during my sales calls or during the design phase. You have no idea of how over spec’d my environment is (remember I stated I used to recommend what I would buy, understand that I over plan/over spec for my environment).  Not seeing an increase in performance wasn’t unexpected, but note that there is no noticeable performance increase. 

24 minutes ago, sc302 said:

No.  I am interested in learning new things however in this case I already have people all over this. While a second or third set of eyes is helpful in this case I am uncertain of your abilities beyond emc/dell or understand the storage collects that I have sent over to verify storage configs. They have stated I have more compute capability than storage and that my sp utilization is low. Essentially the sans are underutilized even the 15000k storage was also underutilized. Far more capable than what I am putting them through which is why it is fast and why I am not seeing performance gains. It was over spec’d for the environment in both cases. 

Well if it is possible to see anything I write down in a non-adversarial way, I will say:

 

1. The SSD WILL write faster, just no way that is not possible.

 

2. The main perf limit on most databases is the insane difference between RAM and disk which is why all sorts of cache and other algorithms are applied to avoid a disk write and why "In Memory" database software like Redis has become so popular.

 

3. Oracle could be caching the writes so well that within the measurement window for your DB perf instrumentation there is equally enough time for the 15K write or the SSD write. But still no matter how much spare compute you have the DB should be faster on some sort of measurement.

 

4. It could also be the case that you have an exceptionally high read to write ratio.

 

5. I am sure you will enjoy the search for the mysterious weirdness - I always suspect security software in any enterprise for performance issues. 

 

 

My "area of expertise" is software programming/design/architecture and I have been CTO of the last few companies (start-ups) that I been associated with FWIW which IMO isn't much meaning since data is data always. I am for sure NOT CEO material and I recognize that.

 

Still feeling rather disturbed and I might take a hiatus from the forums for a while, but that's no comment on your personal wonderful attempt to be understanding.

 

Someone told me that raid6 is better than raid5 because 2 drives can fail. As for speed, I only build my home systems with ssd's and am well aware of the performance increase. For my needs, platter drives were much more cost effective and have been plenty fast enough for FileMaker server. I do have the freedom to replace my drives with ssd when and if the need arises.

 

Let's watch the personal attacks too. I had no idea I'd be creating such an emotional thread. 😀

5 hours ago, DevTech said:

Well if it is possible to see anything I write down in a non-adversarial way, I will say:

 

1. The SSD WILL write faster, just no way that is not possible.

 

2. The main perf limit on most databases is the insane difference between RAM and disk which is why all sorts of cache and other algorithms are applied to avoid a disk write and why "In Memory" database software like Redis has become so popular.

 

3. Oracle could be caching the writes so well that within the measurement window for your DB perf instrumentation there is equally enough time for the 15K write or the SSD write. But still no matter how much spare compute you have the DB should be faster on some sort of measurement.

 

4. It could also be the case that you have an exceptionally high read to write ratio.

 

5. I am sure you will enjoy the search for the mysterious weirdness - I always suspect security software in any enterprise for performance issues. 

 

 

My "area of expertise" is software programming/design/architecture and I have been CTO of the last few companies (start-ups) that I been associated with FWIW which IMO isn't much meaning since data is data always. I am for sure NOT CEO material and I recognize that.

 

Still feeling rather disturbed and I might take a hiatus from the forums for a while, but that's no comment on your personal wonderful attempt to be understanding.

 

 

 

Dev you are simply going overboard and I am simply trying to reel you in a bit.  My messages aren’t to attack but to explain it isn’t always the case....I will give you a piece of information that you didn’t know before and the storage is a little red herring that I threw out there, the middleware is java based...single treaded java processes.   The only way I can ever see speed is if I upgrade compute, less cores/more Hz.  I am on the latest release :(  No storage upgrade will fix that, esp since I am no where near even 10% utilization on the storage processors and bandwidth to the hosts. I peak at 8, average is about 5.  The unity arrays are way overkill. 

yeah this system seems a bit over the top if you ask me.. You have 5 users.. Really raid 6 for what amount of data?  How much were those drives?  They are only 1.2TB?  You prob have saved money just getting SDD and doing Raid 1 if you were worried about something failing..

 

The box is prob way over the top cost wise for 5 people... You could prob of gotten by with some $1000 off the shelf nas to be honest... You sure don't need to be paying the MS tax for windows server licenses with 5 users.. Any NAS os would allow you to be a "domain" and central user management, without paying the ms tax..

18 hours ago, sc302 said:

 

 

Dev you are simply going overboard and I am simply trying to reel you in a bit.  My messages aren’t to attack but to explain it isn’t always the case....I will give you a piece of information that you didn’t know before and the storage is a little red herring that I threw out there, the middleware is java based...single treaded java processes.   The only way I can ever see speed is if I upgrade compute, less cores/more Hz.  I am on the latest release :(  No storage upgrade will fix that, esp since I am no where near even 10% utilization on the storage processors and bandwidth to the hosts. I peak at 8, average is about 5.  The unity arrays are way overkill. 

The point, is I have no point other than curiosity.

 

I get that overall, you can't see a storage effect. And I won't point out that using it as an example for seeing no perf improvement between storage types meant that it was a data point of zero value to anyone trying to have an understanding of that.

 

But it is still interesting to just measure the DB component. DBs are usually very sensitive to data writes so if a RAID-5 spinning plater write takes .5 seconds (for example) and the SSD write takes .005 seconds, there should be a cumulative performance boost that should bubble up in the DB perf instrumentation. And if you see that, then it is just normal expectation, even if it has no "overall system" effect. But if you see something else then it becomes an interesting anomaly. 

 

I am sad that nothing ever calmed down enough to jointly discuss interesting anomalies. But that's the way the cookie crumbled and so thanks for the info, looks like you are doing good stuff...

 

13 hours ago, BudMan said:

yeah this system seems a bit over the top if you ask me.. You have 5 users.. Really raid 6 for what amount of data?  How much were those drives?  They are only 1.2TB?  You prob have saved money just getting SDD and doing Raid 1 if you were worried about something failing..

 

The box is prob way over the top cost wise for 5 people... You could prob of gotten by with some $1000 off the shelf nas to be honest... You sure don't need to be paying the MS tax for windows server licenses with 5 users.. Any NAS os would allow you to be a "domain" and central user management, without paying the ms tax..

There have been so many subjective viewpoints on this config that it has been an eye-opener for me as everyone clings to their favorite thing like life and death. Or as I liked to portray it - clinging to their warm and comfy Teddy Bears...

 

Personally, I was attracted to the SuperMicro mobo suggestion by @Bryandue to the "Homebrew at Super High Performance for Far Less Money" vibe, but I can see where everyone on this thread is coming from.

 

And warning, your suggestion to use SSD will have the "Teddy Bear Police" on you like greased lightening on a water drenched groundhog...

 

 

Here's a question for you guys. Can I keep my current server on the network since it already has my embroidery design database running and just use it solely as an embroidery design database server? I'm wondering if I'll have to change its IP address and demote it from a domain controller. I'm guess I will have to do that. Right now it is 192.168.10.2 which AFAIK is the standard setting for a server. I'll make my new server 192.168.10.2 and just change the old server to to a dynamic IP and connect it to the domain that will be set up on new server. Does this sound like a reasonable plan?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • TerraMaster F4-425 Pro review: an octa-core Intel NAS that ships with AI (OpenClaw) by Steven Parker It has been a while since I reviewed a TerraMaster NAS, but the company reached out to me asking if I was willing to test the F4-425 Pro, which goes on sale today. It is an upgrade on the F4-425 Plus, which I reviewed back in October 2025 What you need to know is that it basically follows the design principles of the four-bay F4-425 series, with its all-metal exterior. Here are the most important specifications: TerraMaster F4-425 Pro CPU Intel Core N350 (8x E Cores/Threads, Max burst up to 3.9 GHz) Intel Core N305 (4x E Cores/Threads, Max burst up to 3.8 GHz) TDP: 7W / 9W (Base) Graphics Intel UHD Graphics 32 EUs (1.35 GHz) Intel UHD Graphics 24 EUs (1.25 GHz) Memory 1x slot 16 GB DDR5 4800MT/s non ECC SODIMM (Max 32 GB) 1x slot 8 GB DDR5 4800MT/s non ECC SODIMM (Max 32 GB) Disk Capacity 120 TB (30 TB x 4) Supported RAID Types TRAID, TRAID +, RAID0, RAID1, RAID5, RAID 6, RAID 10 Network 2x RJ-45 5 GbE Internal storage 3x M.2 2280 NVMe Slot (PCIe 3.0 x1) Bootloader 2Gbit 256 GB NAND Flash card (MX30LF2G28AD) USB port (internal) USB Ports 1x Type-C 3.2 Gen 2 (10Gbps) 3x Type-A 3.2 Gen 2 (10Gbps) HDMI 1x (HDMI) Hardware Transcoding Engine H.264, H.265, MPEG-4, VC-1 Maximum resolution: 4K (4096 x 2160); Maximum FPS: 60 Size (H/W/D) 219 x 181 x 150 mm Weight 2.9 kg System Fan 150 x181 x 219 mm Power 90W, 100V - 240V AC, 50/60 Hz, Single frequency Power consumption (HDDs) 45W (4x 4TB ST4000VN008 in read/write state) 14W (4x 4TB ST4000VN008 in hibernation) Noise Level: 20.9 dB(A) Using 4 SATA HDDs/SSDs in standby mode; Test environment noise: 17.3dB(A); Test distance: 1m Warranty 2 Years OS TOS 7.0.0706 (Beta) MSRP £639.99, $699.99, €739.99 / £739.99, $799.99, €839.99 As you can see above, there are two variants of the F4-425 Pro releasing today. The lesser variant has the slightly weaker N305 CPU and iGP, and 8 GB less RAM, although it also costs $100 less than the top variant we are testing today. In addition, these new F4-425 Pros are shipped with the as-yet-unreleased TOS 7 beta. So what is TOS 7 exactly? During the device initialization, you are warned not to use it in a production environment, which we'll get into later. My contact told me that TOS 7 exits beta today, June 23 with version 7.0.0746. The clear difference with the F4-425 Plus is that it contains the more powerful N350 Intel CPU released in the first quarter of 2025, with support for DisplayPort 1.4, HDMI 2.1, LPDDR5 (4800), DDR5 and DDR4, and a max TDP of just 7W. It also supports AV1 decoding, as well as H.264, VP8, VP9, H.265 (8 bit), and H.265 (10 bit). The different capabilities in the Alder Lake-N (and Twin Lake) series are listed below. Processor E-cores L3-cache Turbo clock GPU GPU-clock TDP Intel N355 8 6 MB 3.9 GHz 32 EUs 1.35 GHz 9 W Intel Core 3 N350 3.9 GHz 1.35 GHz 7 W Intel Core i3-N305 3.8 GHz 1.25 GHz 9 W Intel Core i3-N300 3.8 GHz 1.25 GHz Intel N250 4 3.8 GHz 1.25 GHz 6 W Intel Processor N200 3.7 GHz 0.75 GHz Intel N150 3.6 GHz 24 EUs 1 GHz Intel N97 1.2 GHz 12 W Intel Processor N100 3.4 GHz 0.75 GHz 6 W The CPU is part of the Alder Lake-N series that sits just below the top N355 offering, albeit with an impressive TDP (less than the N355 and N305) for the features it offers. It is designed for low- powered systems and entry-level laptops. As before, we are seeing another NAS with an acceptable, if not great, amount of RAM. It should be noted that the F4-425 Pro only has one SODIMM slot, so if you are planning to upgrade the already 16GB included in this NAS, it will have to be on one module of Single Rank DDR5. As a reminder, up until a couple of years ago, it was commonplace to only get 2 or 4GB max on a flagship Synology or QNAP home NAS. Ever since the likes of TerraMaster and more have entered the market with ample RAM sizes included in their NAS offerings, it has gone a long way in forcing the hands of the traditional makers to up their game a bit. Before we dive in, you can view the different SKUs released so far since the 2025 series launched for Home and SMB users, with the most important specifications listed along with the MSRP listed below: SKU CPU Cores Memory Link Price F2-425 Intel N5095 4 4 GB DDR4 2.5 GbE x1 $249.99 F4-425 Intel N5095 4 4 GB DDR4 2.5 GbE x1 $369.99 F2-425 Plus Intel Core N150 4 8 GB DDR5 5 GbE x 2 $399.99 F4-425 Plus Intel Core N150 4 16 GB DDR5 5 GbE x 2 $569.99 F4-425 Pro Intel Core N305 8 8 GB DDR5 5 GbE x 2 $699.99 F4-425 Pro Intel Core N350 8 16 GB DDR5 5 GbE x 2 $799.99 The F2 in the product name means two 3.5-inch HDD bays, where F4 is four 2.5-inch bays. First impressions Like with the F8 SSD Plus packaging, the F4-425 Pro is using the upgraded box materials, which certainly look better than a plain cream colored box with TERRAMASTER stamped on the sides. The box gives off a premium feel and certainly adds a positive vibe to first impressions. In the box F4-425 Pro TNAS device Power adapter LAN cable (CAT 6) Quick guide [full online guide] Limited warranty notice Screws (for HDD bays) Stickers 2x rubber feet (spares) Design As has become kind of common with TerraMaster, certainly in the last three years, the 2025 F2- and F4-series have received a makeover that really adds to the premium feel of the NAS. Gone are the plastic shells, now replaced with an aluminum outer shell, with the front and back retaining the textured black plastic we saw on the 2024 models. Some key differences from the 2024 series include placing the power button back on the front, along with the addition of a Type A USB port. It's not much bigger or heavier either; in fact, it weighs 500 grams less than the F4-424 Pro. It's slightly shorter in height and depth (length), but only by a few millimeters. The front and back do retain a similar style to the 2024 series. On the front, you just have your four bays along with LED indicators for the HDDs and power. The welcomed change is having a USB port on the front for quick access, should you need to back up a USB drive, for example. Around the back, from top to bottom, you have a reset pin hole, an HDMI port, two 5 GbE Ethernet ports, two USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) Type A ports with a Type-C port below them, and a connector for the barrel port power source. Again, there's no Kensington Security Slot present, which is a bit of a shame considering it's a data storage device. Left side Right side On the left and right of the F4-425 Plus, it is completely smooth aluminum with a TERRAMASTER logo printed on both sides. On the bottom, there are some holes to assist ventilation. Unlike with the F4-425 Plus, the rubber feet did come unstuck during the teardown, which was also an issue on the 2023 series. It seems like other customers have lodged complaints about them, as TerraMaster now includes two spare rubber feet in the box, in case any of the preinstalled ones are lost; however, this seems more like a papering over the cracks solution rather than actually fixing the issue with better quality rubber stand-offs. There are also four screws that must be removed in order to access the internals. Teardown Upon removing the four screws, you can slide the device out of its shell to reveal the three NVMe M.2 slots (PCIe 3.0 X1) and single SODIMM slot connector, which is populated with a single 16GB DDR5 4800MT/s module. I added a couple of MP44Q M.2 PCIe 4.0 SSDs (2 x 4TB) that can be availed on Amazon for $492.99 that TEAMGROUP supplied us with, along with a 250GB 970 Evo Plus that my colleague Chris White sent me by accident and let me keep a few years ago. As I have said in previous reviews, TerraMaster support staff actually encourage installing whatever you want on their devices, and happily, the USB port for the bootloader is now easily accessible should you want to use it for your own flavor of NAS OS, such as TrueNAS, Unraid, or maybe Xpenology. Yes, because TerraMaster has now switched to a 256 GB NAND Flash card (3rd photo above) for the TOS bootloader. This is also replaceable, but you can also simply add a USB bootloader, access the BIOS, and tell the F4-425 Pro to boot from that instead of the Flash card. Unlike earlier iterations of TerraMaster NAS, you don't have to tear this down any further than the four screws on the outer shell in order to be able to access and manage the memory, NVMe slots, and USB bootloader. However, if you need to access the NAND Flash card or CMOS battery, then eight more screws (four on each side) need to be removed in order to take off the rear panel with the 120mm fan, and then the motherboard can be lifted off and removed from the SATA connector PCB. There's also no risk of threading the screw holes, because the four that hold the shell in place are metal on metal, while the screws that hold the rear panel on do screw into plastic. Either way, like last time when I reviewed the F4-425 plus, I was just happier to see larger screws being used. Overall, it follows some great improvements in build quality from the 2024 series and earlier. Setup BIOS The F4-425 Pro includes an Aptio BIOS from American Megatrends [1, 2], and you can setup pretty much everything here including the boot order, which is locked to the UEFI OS, however above that choice you can enable or disable booting to the USB bootloader so this would still allow you to switch to a USB stick with an alternative bootloader and boot from it, or disable it to instead always start from the first disk with an OS installed on it. Initial Setup Setup is roughly the same as the F4-425 Plus, along with the new TOS 7 setup dialogs, so there will be no surprises here. Upon connecting to the LAN and booting up, the F4-425 Pro can be reached by navigating to http://tnas.local. If that doesn't work, you can use the local address assigned via DHCP, which you can find using the TNAS PC desktop application, which is essentially a TerraMaster NAS finder. The setup process is pretty straightforward, through a wizard, and in full below: TOS 7 Initialization As you can see, TOS 7 received a new coat of paint, and the initialization requires fewer interactions. Happily, TOS no longer decides to throw all disks into the same Storage Pool; 2.5-inch HDDs are allocated into Storage Pool 1. This is because two of the HDDs are allocated to hold system files. Previously (with TOS 5 and 6), if you pre-installed HDDs and SSDs, they were all placed into Storage Pool 1, even if you did not select the SSDs for inclusion during the onboarding. TOS 7 Setup On first boot, there is a tutorial and some steps to take to harden the TNAS (or not), which includes an immediate update from TOS 7.0.0616 to 7.0.0706, of which the changelog screenshot is also included in the above gallery. It must be noted that the Security Advisor still contains (in my opinion) a pretty major bug in that if you enable SPC and then do the required rebooting, the Security Advisor still says that SPC is disabled. TerraMaster provided the following statement about it: It is disappointing that TOS 7 has been in beta since December, and this OOBE issue is still there. Shutdown option has moved Instead of a Taskbar option to manage the NAS, all of these options have been moved to a "Start panel", initially I didn't see it and my contact had to show me how to power off the F4-425 Pro. To logout, reboot or power off you can find those controls at the top right of the Panel. It is also possible to power off through the TNAS mobile app beta. Storage setup Above, you can see the steps I took to create the Storage Pools and Volumes. I made a second Storage Pool using TRAID on two 4TB MP44Q SSDs (which, in this instance, is similar to RAID 5), and finally, I added the 250GB 970 Evo Plus drive as Hyper Cache on Storage Pool 1 in Balanced mode. Registering If you decide not to lock down the F4-425 Pro in Security Isolation Mode (blocking all external connections), then you could set up a TNAS device ID through the Remote Access setting in the Control Panel (which must be unique). This works in combination with an online TerraMaster account. TOS 7 TNAS Online Creating a TerraMaster account and linking the device online activates the warranty when you provide proof of purchase and the serial number, but it also gives you access through the TNAS mobile app, which allows you to complete certain operationsб including powering off and restarting the NAS remotely. A TNAS mobile update is required to gain access through TOS 7, and this is provided on the TerraMaster website, as it is not yet on Google Play. The app is evolving all the time and has made leaps and bounds since I first started reviewing TerraMaster devices almost three years ago. It is not quite there yet if you are comparing the likes of Synology, which, sadly, a lot of users online do all the time. OpenClaw setup One of the main selling points of the new F4-425 Pro is the inclusion of OpenClaw, with TerraMaster claiming that it is "powered by the world's first AI-native TOS 7 OS, supporting local-first smart workflows and independent data control." However, I immediately ran into problems trying to enable OpenClaw. After waiting 20 minutes at the "Enabling" message of the OpenClaw app following installation, I decided to do some searching online and discovered that it couldn't complete the installation process due to SPC being enabled, which is something TOS 7 immediately recommends to be enabled on first boot. SPC for NAS (TOS 7) is basically the same principle as UAC in Windows; it blocks executables from being launched by non-Super Users. After reaching out to my contact about these issues, I received the following response: Anyway, this only became clear when I closed the OpenClaw app screen and clicked on the OpenClaw icon in the taskbar; that is when I saw the message about disabling SPC. I think, due to the fact that this is a requirement, this should be a prompt during the installation process, not when closing the App Market and then trying to launch OpenClaw. There's also no 'Getting started' guide for people like me who have never used OpenClaw. I tried to add an LLM and discovered the tutorial led nowhere. That's when I started looking around the official TerraMaster forums, and I found a guide that helpfully explains that you won't get anywhere with OpenClaw unless you have a paid plan, which is disappointing because I imagined there would be an option to use a local LLM as I do in SubtitleEdit with Whisper-XXL. In addition, with the marketing imagery on the official site, it says that the OpenClaw feature is "all processed 100% locally for absolute privacy." which led me to believe that I could install a local LLM, not one that required paid tokens. In any case, TerraMaster does not provide guidance for this new feature, which was also a selling point of the F4-425 Pro! My contact also provided clarification about the above points I raised with TerraMaster Since it is not in the scope of the review to add paid services, I'll leave that to the people who are more qualified with OpenClaw. F4-425 Pro Surveillance App TOS also comes with a Surveillance app, which is not installed by default; it can be found in the App Market recommended section. In addition, after installing, it doesn't drop a shortcut on the Desktop or top taskbar, but you can "Send to Desktop" from the App Market listing for the app for a quick way to open it. Adding my Reolink POE doorbell camera was painless. TerraMaster doesn't appear to have a repository of preconfigured cameras; instead, the camera must be added using ONVIF or RTSP. No mobile Surveillance app TerraMaster still doesn't have a dedicated Surveillance app, although from searching online, Surveillance can be used and managed through the TNAS mobile app. I tried this with the updated TNAS mobile app beta in combination with TOS 7 and got a message that Surveillance was "Only accessible through web browser," so I reckon this must be limited to the stable versions of TOS 6 and the mobile app. More quirks In addition, whenever I minimized the Live View window in the browser Surveillance app, the feed appeared to switch to the Low-bandwidth stream, and there was no way to get the High-quality stream back. To get the High-quality stream back, I had to close Live View and then reopen it. Benchmarking A pretty cool feature of the TOS 7 is that it allows you to install directly to the NVMe M.2 SSD. In order to do that, you would have to leave out any HDDs during initialization, and even then, the system partitions are always written to two HDDs when they are eventually added. With three NVMe slots, this also gives an interesting scenario where you could build a TRAID storage Pool for installing all your apps and Docker on, and keep the third for SSD cache on the HDD pool. Limitless options! SATA PCIe 3.0 X1 A CrystalDiskMark test on a mapped network drive from within a Windows 11 25H2 PC (image above) connected over a 5 GbE hub was well within acceptable ranges. Although the read result on SATA was a little less than with the F4-425 Plus, for some reason, while writes were generally better. SATA PCIe 3.0 X1 I also ran the NAS Performance tester, which tests the link speed performance. As you can see, it pretty much maxes out the 5GbE connection. Of course, you can also opt to bond the two 5 GbE connections for a bit more umph, but I didn't do that. TOS 7, which, as of testing, is still in Beta, comes with an App Center that has a bunch of handy programs you can install right off the bat, such as Emby, Plex, Docker, as well as in-house Backup and Surveillance solutions. As you can imagine, any media streaming services you would want to host off the F4-425 Pro will work great, thanks to the Intel Core N350 CPU and its 16 GB of DDR5 memory. Accessing from mobile is only possible if Security Isolation Mode is disabled, which can put your NAS at risk from external sources, so there was no way to access it from the TNAS Mobile app. It's also quiet. I had this sat next to my computer on my work desk for the past week, and I did wonder if the noise I was accustomed to with NAS devices would annoy me, but all I could hear was a soft whirring of the rear fan (which was a little annoying) when the disks were not actively copying or reading data. Conclusion So what have I learned? Unfortunately, this release raises a few important questions and concerns that I feel haven't been adequately addressed. What I didn't like Our variant shipped with TOS 7 beta, and it's advised not to use it in a production environment. I feel that's a bit limiting on an $800 device. The mobile app is also still in beta and does not support some of the first-party apps, like Surveillance, and it still has quite a few bugs. I am a bit confused about the OpenClaw marketing along with the F4-425 Pro. I feel like that if it's going to be a main selling point, then offer official guidance on how to get started with it. TerraMaster recommends enabling SPC, but then markets the NAS for use with OpenClaw, which requires disabling SPC to be able to use it, opening up genuine security concerns for the NAS; and that's before you get into the security concerns of OpenClaw itself. Of course, the above issues won't be a problem if you decide to install something else on it, or even go back to the stable TOS 6. I wish TerraMaster had just given TOS 7 as opt-in rather than shipping with it. TOS 7 has been available as a preview since December 2025 (so well before my last TerraMaster review), and according to a thread on Reddit where a user shared a screenshot from the TerraMaster Facebook page, it is scheduled to launch today, June 23, but there's nothing about that in the TerraMaster news blog. My contact confirmed over email that TOS 7 exits beta today. The rubber feet also deserve a mention as they continue to be a problem, with them coming unstuck the moment you shift the F4-425 Pro anywhere on your desk. What I liked What it comes down to, though, aside from what I already mentioned, you are still getting a quality, affordable device here, so recommending it will depend on the individual's use case. If you're just looking for a relatively small NAS device to manage virtual machines on, backup your files, and take care of your home theater streaming, then it is a great device that will certainly futureproof you for some time. It provides good performance, takes up little space, and is, on the whole, very quiet. Four bays afford proper redundancy using TRAID or RAID 5, and you can even expand on storage capacity by adding the 2-bay D5, or 4-bay D8 Hybrid DAS over a USB 3.2 (10Gbps) link. Considering the 2024 releases were more about power, with the likes of an Intel Core i5-1235U high-end laptop CPU under the hood, I asked my contact last time if we could expect more of the same in higher-end models and was told: It makes a lot of sense to use Intel's N350 chip inside a NAS; it is more than capable of doing what the F4-425 Pro is intended for, media streaming and backup. The only downside is still the clear lack of community and even staff support on the official forums. In the past, I have had topics go unanswered for days, or there would be generic-type "we've noted this and passed it onto our developer team" type responses. Along with the other things I mentioned, it all ends up costing it a couple of points. If you are comfortable with the command line, Docker, and setting up TrueNAS or Unraid, you'll be fine. You can do great things with this hardware. In TOS, the apps are a bit lacking, and things don't always work as expected.\ AI NAS?! What has become clear to me this year is that we are going to start seeing all kinds of "AI NAS" come to market, and while that might be good for us consumers, be diligent and research these claims. Although the F4-425 Pro technically comes with AI, it is really using a cloud service that is externally sourced off-device through the third party OpenClaw app. My colleague did review a newcomer to the NAS space earlier this year, and it includes a local AI assistant inside the Zettlab D4 NAS, and they do not even use AI in the product name, check out Chris' review here. Where to buy and a discount coupon However, it does not change the fact that this is truly a great entry-level home media-class NAS that you can buy right now. TerraMaster is having a 20% off launch discount, plus you can also still apply our unique 10% off coupon on checkout, which only works on the official website. So here is a breakdown of the pricing that is only valid on the official TerraMaster website. TerraMaster F4-425 Pro (N350) + 20% discount + 10% coupon = $575.99 TerraMaster F4-425 Pro (N305) + 20% discount + 10% coupon = $503.99 TerraMaster F4-425 Pro (N350) + 20% discount + 10% coupon = £525.59 TerraMaster F4-425 Pro (N305) + 20% discount + 10% coupon = £460.79 Use NEOWIN coupon code during checkout for 10% discount Over on Amazon US and UK, the F4-425 Pro also gets a 20% launch discount, but here, the above 10% coupon cannot be applied. TerraMaster F4-425 Pro (N350) for $639.99 at Amazon US (was $799.99) TerraMaster F4-425 Pro (N305) for $559.99 at Amazon US (was $699.99) TerraMaster F4-425 Pro (N350) for £583.99 at Amazon UK (was £729.99) TerraMaster F4-425 Pro (N305) for £511.99 at Amazon UK (was £639.99) As an Amazon Associate, when you purchase through links on our site, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • well you can add a GPU for around $500, that's still around the price of Steam Machine but overall significantly better in performance.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Rookie
      DaviKar went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      462
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      112
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      85
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!