QNAP TS-659 Pro II Review

by Ganesh T S on 9/19/2011 8:00 AM EST
POST A COMMENT

69 Comments

Back to Article

  • Death666Angel - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Hey! I just wanted to post a quick comment regarding this:
    "The redundancy helps in data recovery, in case of media failure of any other unforeseen circumstances."
    Really, RAID only helps in case of a media failure. Most other "unforeseen circumstances" (which btw really aren't unforeseen...) cannot be helped by a RAID:
    - unintentional deletion of a file
    - virus
    - power black out
    - mainboard/PSU failure which fries the system

    There are a lot of things that a RAID can do nothing about and need to be taken care of separately. I'm sure you know that, but the statement above made it sound differently. :-)
    Reply
  • geniekid - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    ++

    Better to have data on two separate machines running no RAID than on one machine running RAID if data backup is your goal. RAID was designed primarily for enterprise use to minimize downtime when a drive fails - and even then, any serious business will have an offsite backup. In home use, the time-cost for replacing the hard drive on a non-RAIDed machine and then copying data from your backup machine is well worth the data safety you get from having that backup machine.

    That said, external AND internal hard drives are both *relatively* cheap, so should be not-too-hard to get the benefits of both RAID and backup in home use :)
    Reply
  • ganeshts - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I agree with your points :) But, the mainboard / PSU failure doesn't mean that data is lost. Please check out my LG N2A2 review, where I recovered data from a 'fried' system using UFS Explorer.

    I believe UFS Explorer can still be used here, but one needs to feed each disk into the rebuilding computer, make an image, and then recover after making UFS Explorer recognize all the images. I didn't check this out because I don't have a test system handy with ~6 TB worth of free space. Will try to redress in future :)
    Reply
  • mino - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    MoBo/PSU failure might easily take the disks with itself either by corrupting data or physicaly damaging them.

    Not to mention no way ofe getting them back withou getting identical mobo even if data was not touched AND hoping the new firmware will not zero them on sight ...
    Reply
  • DeviousDog - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    True!!! But data storage and backup are two different things. As the article states RAID helps with media falure.

    Just need to correct this
    » unintentional deletion of a file - QNAP has a network recycle bin, so if you do delete a file it is not deleted. Only the soft link is deleted until you empty the recycle bin.
    » virus - QNAP has an addon AntiVirus product, but then you should use Access Control Lists to protect data from virus and deletions.
    » Power Black Out - Anyone that has a NAS, and does not have a UPS attached is a fool!!
    » mainboard/PSU failure which fries the system - Use a UPS which has a clean line filter so the main board does not get a spike, even if it did fry the system. QNAP uses a software RAID so pull it out and put in another QNAP and re-apply the firmware and you are up and running again.

    I agree though.. RAID is RAID it is not data protection (too a point) it is physical media protection for the RAID volume if a hard drive fails. That being said, there is nothing stopping you from making a 4 bay RAID 5 and then having a 1 or 2 bay RAID 0 on the same box for backup.

    I have a TS-859 Pro + for personal use, I have a 5 Bay RAID 5 which is backed up onto the same QNAP which has 2 Bays holding 2 x 3TB drives in a RAID 0 for backup.
    Reply
  • DeviousDog - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Oh.. forgot to also state, I then backup my box to another rsync server located at my brothers house through a VPN. Additionally I backup data to a cloud service for highly important stuff (photos), all of which the QNAP OS supports. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    All your points are very valid, as well. :D
    But the article made it sound as though just having the redundancy is all you need. That was my main beef, as such a statement might lead the uninformed to set up a RAID array, put all their beloved old childhood photos and videos on it and then be surprise when there is a power outage which messes up all their data.

    Yes, you can protect against black out, electrical spikes, viruses, unintentional deletion etc. But by other means than a RAID.
    That was my point. Not that RAID is inherently dangerous. But that such a broadly worded statement is false and can lead uninformed people into dangerous situations. A brief 2 - 3 sentence paragraph about this stuff would suffice to enlighten most people to the problem, I think. :D
    Reply
  • DeviousDog - Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - link

    RAID is good (except RAID 0), the article does state it protects against media failure, meaning the physical disk. With the size of Hard Drives increasing any NAS in a RAID is a good choice, keep your data off your desktop or laptop, how many times have I seen people loose all the family photos due to a Drive Fault, this alone is a good reason to buy a NAS.

    However you shoud be Paranoid about your Data, back it up and store it out of your house. Its all good having a 6 Bay unit filled with 3TB drives, but then how do you back that data up... another NAS or rsync server.

    You should always think that someone will break in and steal your NAS, or even fire or flood.
    Reply
  • mino - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    ... in beef, as such a statement WILL lead the uninformed to...

    Fixed for ya!
    Reply
  • CherryBOMB - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    I have two QNAP;s as well 809's.
    photobucket.com/albums/xx165/goldcoin1/P9200347.jpg

    for those who do not know the three latest firmwares have been 3.3 , 3.4 , and 3.5 In 3.4 they implemented RAID 10 capability.

    Details of the firmware updates below.

    3.3> http://www.qnap.com/fw_v3/

    3.4> http://www.qnap.com/fw_v34/Default.aspx?lang=eng

    3.5> http://www.qnap.com/fw_v35/features.asp

    IMO QNAP is the way to go.
    Reply
  • 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." Reply
  • 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?
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • chris1317 - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    lol, its for my house :) I like my gadgets, I do worry about the URE problem though. Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    URE? Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • chris1317 - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Yeah it is good that there is also RADI6 support. QNAP My TS-509 supports RAID6 but I am unwilling to sacrafice 2/5 drives for raid thats why im holding out and saving up for either the 8 bay or 10 bay model. Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I don't agree with your conclusions about the non-usefulness of USB3 vs eSata. Granted supporting quick copy on both would be best; but among non-technical users USB drives are significantly more common than eSata and over the next year or two I expect most of them to become USB3 enabled. Backing up to an external HD is a common pattern, so a lot of 1st time NAS users will probably have data to import this way. Reply
  • Kevin G - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Minor differences between the chart and the article on the first page. "Internally, the dual core Atom D525 runs at 1.73 GHz and has four execution threads..." while the chart indicates a flat 1.8 Ghz. Reply
  • ganeshts - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    The 1.73 GHz is from /proc/cpuinfo ; Any other claim is just marketing specs (which I clearly mention before putting up the specs). Reply
  • schumaku - Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - link

    TS-459 Pro II, V3.5.0 Build 0815T

    [~] # cat /proc/cpuinfo
    processor : 0
    vendor_id : GenuineIntel
    cpu family : 6
    model : 28
    model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU D525 @ 1.80GHz
    stepping : 10
    cpu MHz : 1795.701
    ...
    processor : 1
    ...
    model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU D525 @ 1.80GHz
    stepping : 10
    cpu MHz : 1795.701
    ...
    processor : 2
    ...
    model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU D525 @ 1.80GHz
    stepping : 10
    cpu MHz : 1795.701
    ...
    processor : 3
    ...
    model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU D525 @ 1.80GHz
    stepping : 10
    cpu MHz : 1795.701
    Reply
  • ganeshts - Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - link

    I rechecked the NAS, and it is indeed 1795 MHz. Sorry, fixed. Reply
  • XZerg - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I don't find NAS at all worthy and their performance/price are even worse than what you can do with a 10 years old computer and a gigabit card. Maybe not 10 years old but 6-7 years would be great instead. I have had a NAS, DLink DNS-323, which I sold after a year of not much of a great use for $100 ($130+6% tax originally paid). Even though it was a Gigabit NAS the performance on that was just pathetic, think in 3-4MBps for most tasks, including copying movies which would go up to 10 or so MBps. Once I bought my new laptop, I basically converted my old computer (Sempron 3100+ 32bit system) into my NAS and I easily got 40-50MBps over LAN. I upgraded that after to something newer (X2 4600 with 785G chipset) and now it servers as a media center too replacing my DVD player as well.

    Given their performance and their price, why would anyone want to get a NAS over say even a nettop systems which will too easily outpace them? Some of these NAS, take QNAP TS-659 Pro II for example, cost $1000+. Hell for that price I can easily setup a very decent low-end system with 5x2TB drives and some SSDs too and still have money to add more. So why?
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Quality NAS hardware, as opposed to cheap junk like your $100 Dlink box, are full fledged computers in SFF cases and can be more compact than anything you can build yourself. eg HPs 4 drive WHS boxes are half the size of the smallest 4 bay MiniITX case I could find.

    If the size of the device isn't a concern, you can build your own hardware, and install/configure/admin a linux file server yourself then there's really not any reason for you to buy a NAS. OTOH if you want something that just works out of the box because you value your free time highly, or are a SMB without a dedicated geek (or your geek is already swamped and you can't afford a second) then the cost of a good prebuilt NAS with idiot friendly web config pages, is less than hiring a contractor/etc to build and maintain a homebuilt server for you.
    Reply
  • MTN Ranger - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Stepping up to a better quality NAS such as a Synology DS210 offers much higher performance. I regularly get over 60MBps on my gigabit LAN. Reply
  • jmelgaard - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Did you actually read the article?... Did you miss the page where they measured performance, or did you just assume it was impossible to reproduce those numbers under real life situations?

    Have a QNAP 859 Pro my self, chosen for pure convenience as putting together a NAS box that would fill the same set of requirements would be a picky task not to mention the time put in to it in terms of build and installation...

    Copying a ~10GB directory, a VMWare virtual machine in my case, gives me the following (Large files, 1GB-2GB pr file for most of the 10GB):
    - NAS to Workstation: 86MB/s
    - Workstation to NAS: 55MB/s

    Copying ~9GB directory with images (small Files, 2-5MB):
    - NAS to Workstation: 45MB/s
    - Workstation to NAS: 44MB/s

    My workstation has 3 x 240GB Vertex 3 SSD's hooked up to a LSI MegaRaid 9265-8i controller, so there should be absolutely no bottleneck there, I run with Dual 1Gbit link for the NAS in fail-over mode, and only a single 1Gbit link in the Workstation, The NAS has 8 x SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3EG (Green, HD203WI 1AN1) in RAID 5...

    As expected It can't give the same throughput when writing to it as reading, has to calculate parity after all, also dealing with lots of small files has it's penalties compared to large files, also something I did expect.

    But building your own NAS does have advantages for sure, so if one bothers there is gains like the flexibility you can give it and that you have a more "limitless" ability to expand, well to a certain degree but properly far beyond your needs, also 10Gbit links are more available although QNAP has just release a new series that can be upgraded to 10Gbit, but to utilize that we are talking SSD's and uhm... that will become rather expensive and I would have to say that I could not see the case for it...

    But these "In a box" solutions is far from as bad as you seem to think of them...
    Reply
  • Toadster - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    the specs on page #1 show 43W max power, but in the SMB, ISCSI and NFS page - you show 72.3W usage - which is it?

    also - why the heck are they using a 350W PSU when only 72.3W max? I could see maybe a 100W PSU which may remove the need for the PSU fan (thereby reducing noise?)

    overall, very tempted to get this device!
    Reply
  • ganeshts - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    That spec on page #1 is QNAP's claims (and that is with 500 GB hard drives -- mentioned somewhere else). We measured 72.3W and stand by it :)

    Echo your sentiments on the PSU.. And QNAP claims 350 W PSU when the internal PSU is just 250W (not that it matters when the max power consumption is around 70 W only)
    Reply
  • MichaelD - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    It's sad that a state-of-the-art, $1K+, SMB NAS device still is unreliable when it comes to rebuilds. I stopped using my D-Link DNS-343 (not in the same class as the QNAP) because of all the issues I had with it. Dog slow access speeds, lockups, you name. FW flashes fixed nothing.

    Granted, the web interface is very attractive and it has a lot of high-end features (and the display is nice looking) but when it comes down to brass tacks, data integrity and availability are all that matters. If I can't rely on this device to successfully rebuild after a drive failure, what good is it?

    I built my own NAS (server) out of a mATX mobo/RAM/CPU/HW RAID card I had laying around. I own a copy of Server 2003. I also owned the 5-drive SATA enclosure. Been up for almost 18 months now with a reboot roughly monthly for Windows updates. Zero issues.

    These "shoebox NASs" just aren't ready for prime time. STILL.
    Reply
  • saiga6360 - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Windows updates? LOL Reply
  • jimr1234567890 - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    What are the effects of going from 1 GB to 3 GB memory? Any better performance? Faster rebuild time? Is there any benefit and if so what are they?

    BTW: like the article I like the fact you took out a drive and made the system rebuild a disk. Most articles I have read just gloss over any real world test and just regurgitate the products propaganda.

    I wonder how well this would work as source of video files from my DNLA complainant TV?
    Reply
  • ganeshts - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    uPnP media server works fine as a source for your DLNA TV.. But, this one doesn't do transcoding.. so hopefully your TV's DLNA profile is good enough for your videos. Reply
  • jimr1234567890 - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    What would be a good one that can effectively handle transcoding then? Reply
  • ganeshts - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I am evaluating something in the ReadyNAS lineup which has Orb inbuilt. This is supposed to have a transcoding engine, but I am yet to test its effectiveness. Reply
  • saiga6360 - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Why transcode at all? Get a proper media player. TV media players are crap. Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Even if the box on your TV has enough computational power to play arbitrary modern formats without special purpose hardware low power handheld devices (phones, and tablets) are unlikely to be able to do so any time soon. Over longer terms unless we eventually reach a point where throwing more hardware at the problem stops yielding better quality images for a given file size I don't expect this to change.

    Also the number of playback points you have is also a factor. If you only need to stream to one or two TVs spending an extra hundred bucks per screen for more powerful decode isn't a big deal; if your McMansion has a tv in each of a dozen+ rooms then consolidating all of your transcoding into a single location and using dumb hardware at each TV will save significant amounts of money.
    Reply
  • jmelgaard - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I Use the PS3 Media Server instead of the built-in one to stream to a PS3.

    I must admit I have not tried streaming directly to my Sony DLNA enabled TV as I have gotten to use to using the PS3.

    But it might be worth trying to see if it narrows the cases where the format is unsupported.
    Reply
  • saiga6360 - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    You will probably run into the same issue, which is really a Sony issue not supporting media formats. In which case, you will be stuck with a PC in between your storage and media player. As NAS hardware continue to upgrade to more powerful CPUs then maybe a better integrated DLNA media server can become possible. Reply
  • jmelgaard - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    The point is that the PS3 has the same issue, many formats are unsupported by the PS3.

    The PS3 media server is therefore aimed to transcode unsupported medias to a format that the PS3 supports, so this should narrow the cases unless it chooses to transcode into a format that a TV does not support.

    There is a bunch of settings for the various encoders, but to what degree you can control what is transcoded by default and what the output is I don't know.
    Reply
  • jmelgaard - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Oh and the whole point of choosing the PS3 media server over any others was just that it already has a Pre-build QPKG for QNAP users making the installation a blizz...

    For other NAS types it's a different story.
    Reply
  • jwcalla - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I'm somewhat surprised by the (relatively) poor NFS performance. Were the hard disks left in ext4 configuration or formatted to NTFS before the tests? Reply
  • ganeshts - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    NFS performance could be improved by playing around with the mount options. We just tabulated the values at the default settings. The disks were in EXT4 only. Reply
  • Sivar - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    A know of several businesses looking for something just like this. Your article was not only well-written and informative, you also have a clue about image formats so didn't use JPEG, which is horribly inefficient for screen shots like the ones in the article. Reply
  • SeeManRun - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Hi Ganesh,

    I read the article as I am very interested in getting a NAS or building my own. One thing that appears to be a limit for all of these machines is the speed at which you can transfer data from them. It seems to me with dual gigabit ethernet ports bonded, you should be able to see above 110 megabytes per second. I have read on smallnetbuilder that almost no NAS can get above this limit. Do you happen to know why, or care to explore this?

    Thanks
    Reply
  • tbutler - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Question that wasn't answered in the review: are the eSATA ports on this box compatible with port multipliers? Reply
  • ganeshts - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

    I just checked it out myself and am able to confirm that the eSATA ports are compatible with port multipliers.
    Reply
  • bobbozzo - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    So can you add more drives to the RAID using eSATA? How many?

    Thanks!
    Reply
  • ganeshts - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    It supports port multipliers in the sense that you can configure share folders on it. However, I don't think RAID expansion is supported: http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?p=158110 : Note that I am unable to test this out right now because the review unit is being put under stress for one of the bugs reported elsewhere in this comments section. Reply
  • beginner99 - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    IMHO only makes sense for business use. Only advantage to a DIY build is the small case with hot-swap. Have not seen such a case anywhere for a DIY build.
    But besides the case size you can get better hardware for half the price with DIY.

    I'm quite astonished by the 72 watt. Do hdd's need that much power?
    Reply
  • jmelgaard - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    I Disagree that the only advantage is the small case, a DIY solution might not even be possible for some consumers as they simply won't know "how to" build your own, these boxes has a high level of convenience to them and putting together components to hit the same low power consumption could be a picky task.

    But ofc. it's your opinion so I can't but say mine is different.

    The drives is rated at 7.4 Watts typical under read/write according to specs the Processor is according to Intel rated around 13 Watts.. that sums to 57,4 Watts... Add the rest of the components and I think it sounds fairly realistic...
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Most of the remainder is probably PSU inefficiency. Assuming 80% efficiency you get 71W of power in for the components you listed. Reply
  • asakharov - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Not long ago I had a chance to test I/O performance of QNAP TS-459 Pro II (the same generation as at article) and older TS-439 Pro II. Looks like not my, not TS-659 Pro II could really use Ethernet load balancing - no I/O performance change according to NASPT. All available Ethernet teaming type was tested. All disks are in RAID0
    The best I/O performance I received with one Ethernet connected to NAS.
    The simplest is the fastest?
    Reply
  • meesterlars - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    I would urge you, Anand, to consider making readers of your site aware of an undisclosed but critical bug affecting QNAPs with newer firmware versions; it seems a certain combination of free space and number of files stored on the NAS can cause anything from appalling performance to data corruption and eventually data loss.

    The following link documents the failure of a 10TB storage node.

    http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=189&t=46...

    According to their forums, QNAP are investigating...

    It seems we too might be showing symptoms of this bug at one of our customer's installations where we had two freezes last week alone, requiring customer interaction (i.e., "pull power, please"). Not ideal.
    Reply
  • rancid-lemon - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Ouch, I've just read through this thread and seems to be a show stopper.

    I was looking at buying a QNAP device but this may have to go on hold.

    There does seem to be some qnap support on the subject but that haven't revealed any details of a fix, time frame to solution or anything. Plus they seem to be no closer to a solution (or indeed know generally what is going on with their own system!)

    Thanks for the heads up!
    Reply
  • ganeshts - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Thanks for posting this. I am trying to recreate the issue in the unit we have, and if I am successful in doing it, I will post an addendum to the review. Reply
  • rancid-lemon - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Just so you are aware, having read the entire thread it seems to affect larger hard drives, 2TB+. I notice that your review system was using 1TB drives.
    The issue may still occur with 1TB drives though since according to that thread there seems to be an amount of uncertainty involved as to the cause.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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!
    Reply
  • 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
    Reply
  • Hrel - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Quick search found 940 online. No hard drives inluded. Bahaha, no. Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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."
    Reply
  • Nenad - Friday, September 23, 2011 - link

    In short: iSCSI >> SMB for small files and when file-cache can be used

    I 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.
    Reply
  • Carlu - Monday, October 03, 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... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now