QNAP TS-659 Pro II Review
by Ganesh T S on September 19, 2011 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
- NAS
- QNAP
We took a look at the performance of the QNAP TS-659 Pro II in the configuration that it is most likely to be used in. It turns out to be a better performer than the LaCie 5big storage server unit that we reviewed last year in the same class.
There are a few quirks in the firmware, particularly with respect to the RAID rebuild. However, none of them are showstoppers. There are a few features such as one touch copy for the USB 3.0 port which could have made more sense for an eSATA port. USB 3.0 is a nice add-on feature, but we are not sure it is worth any additional price premium in the SMB / SOHO NAS market.
QNAP's marketing claims also hold up very well (except for the power consumption numbers which are kept low in the brochures by using 500 GB hard disks, and the rating of the internal PSU, which is 250W instead of the 350W claimed in the marketing brochure). Just like Synology, QNAP also has an exensive wiki system and very helpful forums.
All in all, the Atom D525 based QNAP TS-659 Pro II is the most powerful NAS we have reviewed so far, in terms of raw NASPT benchmark results as well as add-on features (both in terms of hardware as well as firmware). The TS-659 Pro+ has the same hardware specs as the TS-659 Pro II reviewed here (except for the two USB 3.0 ports). If the end-user scenario doesn't involve USB 3.0 devices, the former would turn out to be as good a choice as the TS-659 Pro II.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
Sivar - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link
This is always a good point to bring up. The mantra on StorageReview.com has long been, "RAID is for uptime. Backups are for disaster recovery."Visual - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link
How quiet is this thing?The only reason I would go for something like this is if it is really quieter than any file server I can build myself. It will need to be literally inaudible running 24/7 in my living room or else it will annoy me to hell some night when I decide to sleep on the sofa.
And what are the chances for mods adding torrent clients, web/db server and other gizmos to the OS without complete wipe, keeping the current admin interface for the RAID itself?
ganeshts - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link
Very quiet during periods of sporadic data access. But, putting it through the NASPT benchmarks would cause it to whirr up and create a ruckus of sorts for some time (Around 2 - 3 minutes) before going back to the quiet period again. This would would repeat every 5 minutes or so. This is what one expects when there are 3 fans in the system in such a small enclosure.Final word on noise: If you are sensitive to it, don't buy it.. I think the main target of this system is at enterprise and SMB/SOHO users who don't care about noise / keep the NAS in a server room.
bobbozzo - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link
At least some of their models seem to support bittorrent:http://www.qnap.com/faq_detail.asp?faq_id=547
chris1317 - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link
Thanks for the review. I have been using a QNAP 509 Pro for a few years now and it is a great performer. I have been looking for an upgrade though.It would be good if you could get a hold of the newly released models TS-879 or TS-1079. They support 10 GbE which I am really interested in.
Also its worth pointing out about the limitations of raid5 with regard to the unrecoverable read error during rebuild that can present itself and result in a loss of data http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/why-raid-5-stops... which is why I want to go for a larger model. Allthough these models support raid 6 its tough to sacrafice 2 drives out 6 (5 in my case) for parity.
DanNeely - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link
With the $1k price premium (859 vs 879), several hundred dollars/computer for 10GB cards, and >$10k price for a 10GB router; I'm not sure if 10GB hardware really qualifies for the small office yet.chris1317 - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link
lol, its for my house :) I like my gadgets, I do worry about the URE problem though.DanNeely - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link
URE?chris1317 - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link
URE (unrecoverable read error) from the article that I linked to in my first post. With drive size increasing there is going to become increasingly likely that when a drive fails and a rebuild is in progress that a seccond drive will experience an unrecoverable read error bricking the raid. The article points out that a 7 drive RAID 5 with 1 TB disks has a 50% chance of a rebuild failure due to ure with a standard 10-14 manufacturer spec for failure. Higher spec drives are available and Raid 6 helps with this as it has a 2 drive redundancy.Spazweasel - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link
Very true about reconstruction issues. RAID rebuilding hammers a drive like little else can.Fortunately, the reviewed NAS supports RAID6, as well as RAID5 + hot spare and RAID6 + hot spare.