Which nas???

vasqualo

vasqualo

vasqualo

Associate
Joined
14 May 2008
Posts
71
Hi folks, i have a qnap ts 209 which functions ok and as my first nas device it doesnt blow me away performance wise yet im not sure what to expect anyway..

Im looking to upgrade for the following reasons

a performance
b include ip surveillance
c increase storage capacity options

ive currently narrowed it down to either the qnap ts 409, qnap ts 509, or the synology DS508. Im keen to stick with qnap as im familiar with the interface however... Is there a big difference performance wise between what i have and the 409?
I understand that the 509 doesnt support the surveillance feature?
what are the main differences feature and performance wise between the qnap and synology,,

Having read great things about the synolgy im leaning towards this as a 'FResh Start" but would appreciate any advice ...

many thanks
 
To be honest they're all 'consumer' NAS devices with the associated rubbish performance, if you're looking for performance a cheapish PC build running a linux NAS distribution will probably be significantly faster than any of these boxes...
 
ok, what will enhance performance if i go this route and is linux a solution that can offer me the type of software that both qnap and synology currently offer (surveillance,twonkymedia etc)
if not ,then how would i implement this?
i dont mind building from scratch as i have a spare pc..
widows media server springs to mind.
any help would be much appreciated

thanks
 
just checked this out and it all looks a bit daunting but i have already built a pc from scratch which runs smoothly so it doesnt bother me too much however... i just want to be sure that i wont miss out any any features as i dont see anything that gives me the options that ive found on the qnap and synology websites... (upnp,ps3,i tunes, ip surveillance etc)
I want the option of implementing all this if not more but am not sure if it involves the separate installation of each package...
I dont mind the hard work as long as i have ruled out potential problems before hand
Also i will need the server to be accessible to both pc and mac environments.
Im also assuming that my pc has to be setup to be on all the time so i have to ensure its stability and think about failsafe options..
This is why im interested in purchasing a readymade solution but as you said .. i may sacrifice performance which to be honest is out of the question..
 
Yuo're basically asking for something which doesn't exist, the features you're wanting (itunes, ps3 etc) only exist on devices targetted at the home market. Which have to be cheap and hence have rubbish performance. The only way you get those features and decent performance in one box is building a linux box for the job as far as I can see. Otherwise you compromise somewhere...
 
purejamie said:
Getting an iSCSI NAS may improve your performance, although you still have to 'present' this through another machine or server.
Click to expand...

Having tested this for a long time, I can say with some certainty that iSCSI performance is disappointing at the low end and unable to compete with fibre channel at the high end.

Also, an iSCSI NAS doesn't exist. It's block level so it's a SAN.
 
My head is spinning!! ok guys, considering that what i want doesnt actually exist unless i build from scratch.... is anyone aware of the best product out so far that will cover all my needs??
i narrowed it down to the synology s508 or qnap ts 509 pro.... Im happy to purchase now and wait until a better performing and focussed all in one device comes along...
What are the main things that affect the performance of a nas??? if its processor and memory then the qnap will be the best option, im used to its interface also as i have the ts 209.. I have a gigabit ethernet network oh and by the way, besides capacity will i notice a performance gain with the new drive (500mhz vs 1.6ghz??) etc..
I access my files often remotely and i plan to store all my media content in 1 place (server) eventually... sorry guys one more thing, with 5 available disk slots... what is the best array for a raid setup giving me both performance and data backup at the same time... I know im after the best of both worlds but im aware of the risks of losing everything... Thanks for all ** help
 
I think you'll likely be best with the qnap, the faster processor should help performance. Disk wise you'd be best with RAID5 for maximum space and redundency, though it'll do performance no good.

Also, actual performance will depend on whether your network is actually any good, cheap network cards and switches will probably limit you to between 700-800mbit at most.
 
anyway to quickly test my network???? ive got netgear gigabit switches etc and all the netgear access points you know the blue coloured business products not the white home models. just a thought to test because as you mentioned "is my network actually any good?".... another thing im presuming the samsung spinpoint f1s are the preferred choice for hard disks however the velociraptors speed and access time are tempting... I know the dangers of falling into the "higher specs" trap and understand that sometimes differences in performance can be only minimal but is there a chance that the wd velociraptors faster disks can make up for the lack of raid striping or is the performance comparison totally illogical?? I promise after this i will order and leave u guys alone but thanks for all the help nevertheless...
 
Best easy test is iperf, run it on a couple of machines and see what you get, it'll be on the high side of real life performance but it's better than nothing.

In my book, Netgear whether home or the blue boxes is cheap but it's probably the best of the cheap lot (unless you include 3com)
 
bigredshark said:
Having tested this for a long time, I can say with some certainty that iSCSI performance is disappointing at the low end and unable to compete with fibre channel at the high end.

Also, an iSCSI NAS doesn't exist. It's block level so it's a SAN.
Click to expand...

iSCSI NAS does exist, both Netapp and BlueArc provide it from their NAS heads. Its how they are entering the SAN market without becoming a SAN vendor. (I am not chasing you around threads honestly!).

vasqualo: Without knowing your budget and environment it is very hard to advise you which NAS solution to go for. Home use? Business use? Enterprise level or entry?

As already advised I think from what you have said the open solution would be your best bet, also quite interesting from an educational point of view.
 
JBod said:
iSCSI NAS does exist, both Netapp and BlueArc provide it from their NAS heads. Its how they are entering the SAN market without becoming a SAN vendor. (I am not chasing you around threads honestly!).
Click to expand...

Conceptually an iSCSI NAS can't exist. iSCSI is a block based protocol like fibre channel and must be mounted by a hardware or software initiator to be accessed.

Sure you can have a box which does both iSCSI and a NAS protocol (like Netapp do) or you can have a box which mounts an iSCSI volume and shares it as a NAS volume using a protocol like CIFS or NFS.

But accessing a NAS by iSCSI is impossible as iSCSI isn't file aware, it's block level and therefore it's a SAN by definition.

I'm also confused about Netapp entering the SAN market without becoming a SAN vendor since they've been selling fibre channel capable SAN kit for years...
 
bigredshark said:
Conceptually an iSCSI NAS can't exist. iSCSI is a block based protocol like fibre channel and must be mounted by a hardware or software initiator to be accessed.

Sure you can have a box which does both iSCSI and a NAS protocol (like Netapp do) or you can have a box which mounts an iSCSI volume and shares it as a NAS volume using a protocol like CIFS or NFS.

But accessing a NAS by iSCSI is impossible as iSCSI isn't file aware, it's block level and therefore it's a SAN by definition.

I'm also confused about Netapp entering the SAN market without becoming a SAN vendor since they've been selling fibre channel capable SAN kit for years...
Click to expand...

BlueArc do it by creating a file on their Filesystem and then exporting it as a iSCSI block device from their NAS heads. We haven't fully tested iSCSI yet but the numbers they are telling us is pretty good.
 
Guessing this is home use rather than enterprise? Check smallnetbuilder (?) as there are performance comparisons. I use a thecus 5200pro which performs fairly well and also allows me to use iscsi which was much faster than nfs for vmware images. As for twonky or whatever else you require, personally I havent used them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom