Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910
Results 451 to 476 of 476

Thread: Home NAS

  1. #451
    NVIDIA> AMD Fixture Handruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    12,715
    You can't hot-swap a PCIe adapter. Why not look at one of their 12-bay rack mount units and put it in a basement?

  2. #452
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Handruin View Post
    You can't hot-swap a PCIe adapter. Why not look at one of their 12-bay rack mount units and put it in a basement?
    There is no wiring and I don't want to make any infrastructure changes now. My job changed this year and I think next year the organization's role may be different, so I would be relocating again.
    What do you think of the TS-1635AX? It has 12 bays and an A72 Armanda processor. It is no Xenon x86, but supposedly that is about twice as fast as the older one.
    --Lunar

  3. #453
    NVIDIA> AMD Fixture Handruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    12,715
    That's tough to quantify my thoughts on that NAS without knowing your use cases. From the little information I can find, the pricing at $1500 without storage seems rather expensive given the capabilities and expandability. If you're familiar with QNAP's ecosystem then it's probably worth it for you to stick with them versus a competitor or building your own.

  4. #454
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Handruin View Post
    That's tough to quantify my thoughts on that NAS without knowing your use cases. From the little information I can find, the pricing at $1500 without storage seems rather expensive given the capabilities and expandability. If you're familiar with QNAP's ecosystem then it's probably worth it for you to stick with them versus a competitor or building your own.
    I was thinking that it would eventually replace the TS-831X, which has the original 1.4GHz Annapurna CPU (not the 1.7GHz Amazon one). From what I gather an A72 is a big improvement over an A15, especially allowing encryption without the dramatic slowdown. I won't be the first to jump in on this NAS after my experiences with other new products.
    --Lunar

  5. #455
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,617
    Not that it is a huge difference, but the model with 4GB RAM is $1300 compared to $1500 for the 8GB model.
    Maximum RAM capacity is 16GB, which makes more sense than 8GB. However, the memory slot is a Long-DIMM.
    How does that socket or specs differ from the regular DDR4 RAM used on typical PC mainboards? It would nice to buy the 4GB and upgrade the RAM.
    --Lunar

  6. #456
    Not really a Fixture
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    10,039
    Quote Originally Posted by LunarMist View Post
    Not that it is a huge difference, but the model with 4GB RAM is $1300 compared to $1500 for the 8GB model.
    Maximum RAM capacity is 16GB, which makes more sense than 8GB. However, the memory slot is a Long-DIMM.
    How does that socket or specs differ from the regular DDR4 RAM used on typical PC mainboards? It would nice to buy the 4GB and upgrade the RAM.
    I was surprised that your link actually worked...

    I suspect that a Long-DIMM just means it's desktop memory, not a laptop SO-DIMM, but I'm not 100% sure. http://www.ism-tek.com/DDR4-ECC-DIMM.html

  7. #457
    Storage is cool DrunkenBastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    on the floor
    Posts
    613
    So I'm looking for my first NAS.

    Candidates are the QNAP 963X-2G: https://www.amazon.com/TS-963X-2G-US...dp/B07CVLSCSJ/

    And the QNAP 873-4G:
    https://www.amazon.com/TS-473-4G-US-...dp/B07BMXG7KK/

    The 963 has five 3.5 bays and four 2.5 bays, integrated 10G Ethernet, some kind of AMD chip.

    The 873 has eight 3.5 bays and two m2 slots that arent hot swappable, no integrated 10G but room for two PCI expansion cards, and an AMD processor. A little more money as well. This one can take upto 64GB of DDR4, the 963 limited to 16GB of DDR3.

    Will be using Seagate Enterprise Capacity drives. Use case is for upto 8 surveillance cameras (using Surveillance Station) and general media sharing. Don't have a 10G switch presently.

    Anyone have any thoughts or recommendations? My leaning is towards the 873 which sems to be more robust from a processor perspective, and then get a 10G expansion card later when I get a 10G switch. Other option is to get two smaller 4 bay units to have some redundancy via multiple units versus putting everything on a single power supply etc.

  8. #458
    Not really a Fixture
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    10,039
    Are you going to make one big drive or have multiple arrays/pools?

    I don't see the point of 2.5" bays in a NAS. Then again, I don't really see why someone is going to use a SSD for caching either. The disk subsystem should be able to outpace the network interface if you stuff a reasonable number of drives in it.

  9. #459
    NVIDIA> AMD Fixture Handruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    12,715
    How much space are you planning to provision for your immediate use and for the next 2-4 years? I find expanding the NAS and/or re-provisioning the space can be a hassle so it's better to plan for it in advance if you have the funds to do to so.

    I'm still of the opinion that you might be better off building a light weight dedicated system to run your own NAS. If you don't want to manage the config you could always try FreeNAS or Unraid to do that work for you. I agree with SD that I don't see the point of dedicated 2.5" bays. I don't use any SSD caching on either of my NAS devices and the network is always the limiting factor for any use I have. Some day if I get to upgrading the entire house to 10Gb then maybe it might be a factor but even then I'll have other bottlenecks in the way.

  10. #460
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,617
    I would also advise against using 2.5" SSDs for caching. I tried every mode in the QNAP a couple years ago and the Synology after that. Although a dual-SSD configuration it is supposed to support write acceleration, after a while all it does is allow faster reads of smallish files, for example if there are a lot of users. The SSD SATA III interface is a bottleneck compared to multiple hard drives if you have a good CPU and 10GbE network. Spend the money on RAM as that makes a larger difference in buffering writes.

    I don't know those models, but would chose one that was introduced relatively recently to prolong vendor support. After a certain amount of time there will be no further updates to the NAS OS and apps.
    Make sure you are happy with the surveillance software and licensing transferability if the NAS dies for example. Typically only a couple of licenses are included and every additional camera is fairly expensive.
    --Lunar

  11. #461
    Fixture ddrueding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    19,273
    Agreed on all that. I use Synology units with 10GbE Ethernet. SSD really only makes sense when there is a queue of IOs. For single user stuff it isn't necessary. The 10GbE, though, is bad-ass.

    My current home unit is a Synology DS1817+ with the RAM maxed out and a 2x 10GbE card in it. One of each of the ports go directly to the 10GbE cards in the workstations as a secondary interface (No gateway).
    Work1: i7-8086@5.3Ghz, 32GB, 512GB 970 Pro, 2080ti
    Home1: i7-8700K@5.1Ghz, 64GB, 512GB 960 Pro, 1080ti
    Home2: i9-7900X@4.5Ghz, 64GB, 512GB 960 Pro, 1080ti

  12. #462
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,617
    What are the thoughts on the 10TB Easystorage? They are whites, not REDs but have the same old firmware.
    --Lunar

  13. #463
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,617
    Quote Originally Posted by ddrueding View Post
    Agreed on all that. I use Synology units with 10GbE Ethernet. SSD really only makes sense when there is a queue of IOs. For single user stuff it isn't necessary. The 10GbE, though, is bad-ass.

    My current home unit is a Synology DS1817+ with the RAM maxed out and a 2x 10GbE card in it. One of each of the ports go directly to the 10GbE cards in the workstations as a secondary interface (No gateway).
    Is it just me or is Synology not producing much new lately? I'd really like to upgrade to a larger backup unit from the TS-831X v1 and would like to buy another Synology, but there are no good choices.
    QNAP is frequently producing new models recently. In general there are not many useful reviews of NAS online other than the more basic models.
    --Lunar

  14. #464
    Fixture ddrueding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    19,273
    I'm not sure there is enough tech advancement in NAS to warrant new units? 10GbE, SSD caching, RAM upgrades....the rest is really just software, and they have been making progress on that. Their sync to NAS and sync to cloud stuff has gotten better within just the last 3 months.
    Work1: i7-8086@5.3Ghz, 32GB, 512GB 970 Pro, 2080ti
    Home1: i7-8700K@5.1Ghz, 64GB, 512GB 960 Pro, 1080ti
    Home2: i9-7900X@4.5Ghz, 64GB, 512GB 960 Pro, 1080ti

  15. #465
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,617
    I want more CPU power.
    --Lunar

  16. #466
    Fixture ddrueding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    19,273
    Where are you seeing a bottleneck? Replication?
    Work1: i7-8086@5.3Ghz, 32GB, 512GB 970 Pro, 2080ti
    Home1: i7-8700K@5.1Ghz, 64GB, 512GB 960 Pro, 1080ti
    Home2: i9-7900X@4.5Ghz, 64GB, 512GB 960 Pro, 1080ti

  17. #467
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,617
    Write speeds. If not CPU then what?
    --Lunar

  18. #468
    NVIDIA> AMD Fixture Handruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    12,715
    Quote Originally Posted by LunarMist View Post
    Write speeds. If not CPU then what?
    What kind of IO workload are you sending to your NAS? Large files, small files, mixed? Do you see consistently low write performance through all types of workloads? How many sessions are writing at the same time? What write speeds are you observing over your network?

  19. #469
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,617
    The writes of the 831X are limited to about 220MB/sec. for large files and sometimes are less if the drives are too full.
    I have no network per se, just direct 10GbE SFP+ connections from NAS to PC. It's even worse with encryption, dropping to 150 or so.
    I blame the Arms CPU, but am not sure.
    --Lunar

  20. #470
    Fixture ddrueding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    19,273
    That seems a reasonable conclusion, particularly with encryption running. With it only connected to a single computer, I'd be tempted to look into a disk enclosure that uses some other more direct interface to the PC (so it can use your (likely very fast) computer to do a lot of the work). Something that connects via fiber-channel or SAS or something.
    Work1: i7-8086@5.3Ghz, 32GB, 512GB 970 Pro, 2080ti
    Home1: i7-8700K@5.1Ghz, 64GB, 512GB 960 Pro, 1080ti
    Home2: i9-7900X@4.5Ghz, 64GB, 512GB 960 Pro, 1080ti

  21. #471
    NVIDIA> AMD Fixture Handruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    12,715
    You could also try changing your 10Gb network MTU setting to 9000 (jumbo frames) on both interfaces and see if the larger packets help reduce some CPU usage if you really feel it's under powered.

    I agree with ddrueding on the encryption. You will need a more-powerful CPU to offload that work or purchase drives that support encryption at rest and let those handle it...and they can be expensive given they are typically targeted at enterprise customers.

    You may need to open your wallet a bit more and get something that is suited more for enterprise use than going with QNap or Synology if you really want a blackbox appliance solution that offers better performance. Unfortunately even the entry-level enterprise NAS solutions offer less dollar per value than if you just built your own but I understand that's not something you want to do. Depending on what your performance goal is, you might be able to achieve it with getting a decent desktop and running FreeNAS on it.

  22. #472
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,617
    So here is another example of the Synology mentality. They updated the DS1800+ series to DS1819+ and it STILL has a stupid Intel Celeron processor.
    --Lunar

  23. #473
    NVIDIA> AMD Fixture Handruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    12,715
    I'm not convinced if they even added the fastest Xeon processor that you would get the performance you're hoping for.

  24. #474
    Not really a Fixture
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    10,039
    Some of the Intel CPUs have AES acceleration.

  25. #475
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Handruin View Post
    I'm not convinced if they even added the fastest Xeon processor that you would get the performance you're hoping for.
    Is that due to the Ethernet itself?
    --Lunar

  26. #476
    NVIDIA> AMD Fixture Handruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    12,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
    Some of the Intel CPUs have AES acceleration.
    Sure, it will help.

    Quote Originally Posted by LunarMist View Post
    Is that due to the Ethernet itself?
    No, I doubt it. A single 10Gb Ethernet adapter has plenty of bandwidth to cover your needs and given you have no switch in between means you should have very low latency. We would need to go through the many levels of the stack to figure out where the bottleneck is and also understand what your goals are for performance to see if they are even reasonable. What method are you using to transfer the data over your network? Is it SMB/CIFS, iSCSI, SSH, SCP, FTP, SFTP, rsync, etc? Each of these have a different performance characteristic. How are your drives configured in their pool of storage? Is there some kind of RAID with parity happening (raid5/raid6/raid50/60)? What is the underlying filesystem type (etx4, btrfs, zfs, xfs, etc)? Is the configuration such that you're limited to the speed of a single spindle? What is the performance of the source of your data? Is it capable of reading as fast as you want?

    My point is, just throwing a faster CPU at this may having minimal to no performance impact.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •