CES 2009: QNAP adds 6-bay High Performance NAS

[beq]

Regarding SmallNetBuilder article: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30694/242/

I read QNAP's recent comments (and datasheets):

http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=10144&start=0&hilit=809

http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=10219&p=47088&hilit=809#p47088


I think the 8-bay QNAP TS-809 is the high-performance unit to look out for (competing with the 6-bay Netgear ReadyNAS Pro in price and performance).

Whereas my GUESS is that the 6-bay QNAP TS-639 (and 4-bay TS-439, and future TS-x39 models with different number of bays) use an Intel *Atom* CPU for lower-power consumption. Can anyone confirm?

The low-power models could be an answer to customer complaints such as from one of the above threads:

"The TS-509 uses 70W all the time. Synology DS508 uses 27W (standby) and 54W full access." (edited)


P.S. QNAP comments on TS-x39:

- "TS-x39 (... low-power CPU, starting from 1GB DRAM, performance slightly below the TS-509)"

- "Neither the TS-439 (even if one DD slot less) nor the TS-639 (even if one HDD slot more) will be a direct replacement for the TS-509."


QNAP comments on TS-809:

- "TS-809 (8 bay, dual CORE CPU, stating from 2GB DRAM)"

- "The TS-809 models ... are designed to a much higher performance level - and to a different price tag."

- "Depending on the number of servers to migrate to ESX and iSCSI and the performance expectations, the [TS-809] is what you might take into consideration aside the TS-509."

 

[beq]

I wonder why Synology has not announced new, faster hardware? Though they did release the new Disk Station Manager 2.1 Beta firmware (very nice user interface, which I think sets the bar).

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30687/76/

Anyways, it will be very interesting to see the benchmarks on Tim's new platform of these new QNAP models and the Thecus N7700 against the ReadyNAS Pro!

Re-testing the current TS-509 on the new platform as a (cheaper) baseline would also be useful, but I understand if that's not realistic. Nonetheless Dennis Wood's experiences with the TS-509 have been very informative.

 

[beq]

It's interesting that the 6-bay TS-639 is about $200 more expensive than the TS-509 right now, but the 639 is actually:
- smaller (comparing its horizontal chassis vs the 509's minitower chassis)
- lighter when diskless
- supposedly a bit slower

Then again the 639 has one more bay, a second eSATA port (but not RS-232), and supports jumbo frames. And even though it's not on the datasheet, the 639 apparently has the same surveillance station capabilities (which had been added to the 509 at a later point).

As for power usage, the QNAP website interestingly states:

TS-509
Sleep mode 47.3W
In operation 84.7W

TS-639
Sleep mode: 33.06W
In Operation: 86.64W
(with 6 x 1TB HDD installed)

 

[thiggins]

See SmallNetBuilder's CES 2009 Wrap Up. The 639 and 439 Pros use Atom.

 

[beq]

Whoops, sorry I missed that article

 

[dje007]

See SmallNetBuilder's CES 2009 Wrap Up. The 639 and 439 Pros use Atom.

Any idea when you will be getting one for testing / review.


Dave

 

[thiggins]

Any idea when you will be getting one for testing / review.

Maybe before end of January. No firm date right now.