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
meesterlars - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link
Sorry, Ganesh, I must have not seen that you had written the review.Yes, please do try and recreate the issues documented in the forum. Perhaps a little publicity from you guys would pressure QNAP into action.
IaninKL - Friday, May 25, 2012 - link
Hi Ganesh,I've just bought a TS-559Pro-II, so far just using it for a short-term project so have configured as JBOD and loaded about 6TB of data. 5*2TB Enterprise-grade drives.
I am wondering if the issue raised here was ever resolved?
The linked-page on the QNAP Forums has been taken down and there is no follow-up info on this thread either.
Cheers - keep up the great work!
QNAPSimon - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link
Thanks for bring this to our attention. We at QNAP are aware of the problem and have allocated dedicated resources to look into this. I will follow up on this and provide updates on our forum. If you have related concerns please email me.simonchang@qnap.com
Thanks
Hrel - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link
Quick search found 940 online. No hard drives inluded. Bahaha, no.MobiusStrip - Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - link
That's just ridiculous. There's no reason you should have to put drives in sleds. They should go in like cartridges, with a simple Eject button to remove them. Like these toaster-style drive docks:http://www.newertech.com/products/hdddocks.php
If locks are all that important, the lock could be above each slot and simply move a bar down to lock the drive in.
ZPrime - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link
In many systems, caddies help with noise isolation. I have several HP Home Servers and the caddies are plastic, but they have silicone/rubber grommets around a metal peg that attaches to the drives. They are tool-less, FWIW.Caddies can also help insure proper grounding. Depending on your chassis composition (some are plastic or have plastic rails), you might need some other way to get the body of the drive to ground to the chassis. Plastic caddy + metal inserts that connect to a metal latch or similar can solve this problem.
ZPrime - Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - link
Just because you have an LACP bonded connection between two machines does *NOT* mean that transfers will take full advantage of this. When you were testing for performance, did you run multiple simultaneous transfers?LACP / 802.3ad load balancing isn't as simple as people think. Bonding a pair of 1GB NICs doesn't give you "2GB of bandwidth."
Nenad - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link
In short: iSCSI >> SMB for small files and when file-cache can be usedI have QNAP TS-459 Pro+ and QNAP TS-419P , and I use them both with SMB and iSCSI.
In your test, performance of iSCSI is similar to SMB, even with write cache disabled in most parts.
But in my practice I find iSCSI has noticeably better performance in many cases, especially when you work with many small files. That can be seen on your test in 'DIR copy', but as just one number among dozen other it does not stand out. Unfortunately, it is mostly DIR copy where you need or notice speeds - copying single file will usually end fast regardless of SMB/iSCSI, video playback needs much smaller bandwith anyway etc ... it is copy of large folders with subfolders you need (and notice) speed.
Another area where iSCSI seems to have advantage is with using file-cache on windows. I'm not precisely certain how that works, but it appears that windows do not use caches so efficiently for networked/remote disk, as it does for 'local' iSCSI disk.
One practical application of this is anti-virus scanners, who tend to scan 'other' disk when you copy files - resulting in almost double time needed to copy file to/from QNAP, since for example first Norton read file from SMB share to scan, and then allows Windows to copy it locally. With iSCSI I see much smaller impact , and I believe that while Norton probably work same with reading file to scan, Windows can better use file cache to skip another reading when it needs to copy.
Carlu - Monday, October 3, 2011 - link
I love this small boxes, good power-performance ratio, but it sux when it comes to fulldisk crypto. nether the CPU has any good support for it, nor does it handles harddrives with inbuilt disk crypto. And for the same amount of money you get a 20W Xeon 20L, and a micro atx motherboard/chassi etc... and the Xeon has support for AES-IN instruction set...