This whole project, plus the recent review of the Synology FS3617xs NAS, made me think about Synology's attempt to pierce into the higher-end storage segment.
Consider two solutions I've been offered :
HPE 3PAR Storeserv 8200 with 8x 1.92GB SSD, ~23TB useable with compression, FC 16G links to servers, 70,000iops advertized, promo at ~55,000U$ (normally more) with 5y 24x7 support
Nimble CS3000 with 3x ~2TB SSD and a bunch of mechanical drives, ~25TB usable storage overall, 50,000iops advertized, less-than 60,000U$ with 5y 24x7 support
Now take the following configuration with a Synology FS3017 :
24x Samsung SM863 1.92TB (MZ-7KM1T9E)
2x Mellanox MCX314A-BCCT 2-port 40G QSFP+
Add the rail kit and you end up a tad over 39,000U$. You need two units for HA, so the price climbs to ~78,000U$. You need all those drives to end up with ~23TB usable (RAID 1+0) because they don't have deduplication or compression, at least not that I'm aware of. I prefer no RAID 5/6 on volumes I put high-load databases on.
For a complete business proposal, with a DR site, it looks like this :
The unit at the backup location could only have a single 2-port 10G adapter and 12x Samsung PM863 3.84TB SSDs. Enough for running the cluster while the main site is restored. The 3 units (two in HA at the main site and a cheaper one at the backup site) would cost ~110,000U$ for an all-flash architecture. No idea how many iops an FS3017 with that kind of SSDs would yield compared to the higher-end solutions from Nimble and 3PAR. The Synology also doesn't offer fast support in case of emergency, unlike Nimble, HPE, Dell, IBM, etc...
For a Nimble solution, you only need one unit at each location, since they include two controllers each. With an HPE 3PAR, you need to add SAN switches in order to have site replication. This increases cost and complexity. In case of the 3PAR, complexity is part of the deal (bunch of services to configure, system reporter, service processor, dealing with direct FC links, configuring the SAN switch, managing the LUNs, etc).
Synology offers more of a brute force solution to feed iops to the cluster, while the two others appear to be more refined (bunch of ASICs in the 3PAR doing the real-time compression, completely different approach on the Nimble). A Nimble CS3000 (main) + CS1000 (DR) cost about the same amount, but with much better support. It isn't all-flash though. A dual 3PAR 8200, including all the gears and licenses to do off-site replication, would cost a bit more (probably ~150,000U$) and would be significantly more complex to setup and manage.
Synology's proposal doesn't look bad, but considering the options, who would dare to chose that to trust their entire SMB storage on? Would you?