Pulling ahead of the RAID 5 Pack: QNAP TS-509 Pro Reviewed

[Dennis Wood]

A fix for RAID5 would be really good news indeed. Tim, with 5 of the Seagate 7200 RPM 1TB drives, our unit here is very quiet with the fan speed set to it's default temperature dependent low/med/high.

Regarding the "unregistered" posts above, I was thinking that the RAID5 issue must be code related as the RAID 0 speeds are nearly 10 times faster in our tests, as is the single drive performance. I'd be very appreciative if you could pmail (or email) contact information so we could get the beta firmware on this unit fired up

While you're at it, see if the Qnap wizards can provide NAS cache support for the Esata port

 

[thiggins]

Regarding the "unregistered" posts above, I was thinking that the RAID5 issue must be code related as the RAID 0 speeds are nearly 10 times faster in our tests, as is the single drive performance.

Well remember that RAID 5 is a lot more compute intensive than RAID 0!

I pointed my QNAP contact to this thread, but haven't heard back.
I'll ping again.

You could try U.S. Support:
IEI Technology USA Corp.
168 UNIVERSITY PARKWAY
POMONA, CA 91768-4300
TEL: 909-595-2819
FAX: 909-595-2816
Email: tech@usa.ieiworld.com

 

[Dennis Wood]

From another thread and based on FTP tests:

2. In terms of your large files, I just tested FTP and got a surprise. FTP to this device is nearly twice as fast as SMB2 at about 20MB/s write using the same workstation as above. Reads are coming down the pipe at a blistering 92MB/s. I smell a code update from Qnap

So Tim, maybe your test routine just got a bit more complicated

 

[Unregistered]

sata connectors

From looking at the slideshow... are there really eight SATA connectors on the mainboard of the TS509?

Are they all live?

 

[corndog]

Hello all,

More info on this if you're interested. I just got my 509 yesterday and loaded it with 5 Seagate 1TB drives. I set them up in a RAID5 array and began copying my 566GB collection of video files to the 509.

The copy is coming from a very powerful Linux box via NFS, and so far (78GB had transferred so far at the time of writing this) the copy is streaming at a sustained rate of 320megabits/sec!

Just to add another data point to everyone's experience with the TS-509 Pro

(When I saw the 150megabit rates being seen by others on this forum for RAID5 writes, I was somewhat let down - I had already ordered the 509 and was waiting for it to arrive) But these numbers I'm seeing are restoring my happiness with this box - wow!

 

[QNAPIvan]

Hello Tim and all
Thanks for the great review and forum here that TS-509 Pro can be introduced widely. During this period of time we spent some time & effort in QNAP Lab to fine-tune the performance especiially for large-sized file transfer.

The performance boost solution with some bug fixes were included in the latest version, 2.0.2 build 0916 on QNAP website. We expect users can gain fast and stable speed after upgrade their system. Besides, QPKG apps which were available on TS-109/209/409 series before, are now available on TS-509 Pro too.

• SABnzbd+
• Python
• WordPress
• Joomla
• phpMyAdmin
• MLDonkey
• SlimServer on TurboStation (Now with Squeeze Center 7!)
• Optware IPKG (Itsy Package Management System)

thanks
Cheers,
Ivan
Product manager,
QNAP Systems

 

[corndog]

That's good news!

I'm getting this 320megabit copy with Firmware 2.0.0

If you're telling me 2.0.2 has performance improvements, I'm going to have to upgrade and try again

 

[Dennis Wood]

Ivan, there's still a few bugs to work out regarding very large esata backups, and it looks like multiple loads when load balancing network mode is engaged. I've emailed Andy and company about one of them.

The good news is that you seem serious about fixing the issues that come up, therefore I'm happy to help out with some testing. Interesting results today on performance increases with teaming....but I'll fire up a thread for that.

 

[Unregistered]

Oooooh! I'm in pain!

As reported above, I was copying hundreds of gigs from my linux computer to the QNAP 509 using NFS and getting over 300megabit.

Then, being greedy, I upgraded the 509 to firmware 2.0.2. Now, when I try to start an NFS file copy, My linux computer is able to create a zero-size file on the NAS, and then the mount goes unresponsive. Can't stop the copy with ctrl-c. The session hangs when doing a df command to see the size of current mounts. Can't even do a clean reboot because the nfs mount fails to dismount.

Tried this and reproduced with 3 different Linux computers.

WARNING to all - don't upgrade your QNAP 509 to firmware 2.0.2 if you want NFS to work. It looks like there is a MAJOR problem with firmware 2.0.2 nfs service. I should have just been happy with 2.0.0 when it was working fine :-(

 

[Unregistered]

Hi ;

What are your NFS client parameters ?

 

[corndog]

I managed to back out the 2.0.2 upgrade on my 509 and went back to 2.0.0. Once again I have my blazing performance back.

looking at /proc/mounts on the linux host I see this:

rw,vers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,soft,proto=udp,timeo=7,retrans=3,sec=sys

This would represent defaults on my linux host or a negotiated setting between the host and the 509 - not sure exactly. I didn't specify any of these, except UDP, and I also had the crashing on 2.0.2 with both UDP and TCP.

I'm also not sure if these settings are all the same when this linux host connects to my 509 running version 2.0.2, and at this moment, I don't have the stomach to upgrade the 509 and give it a try.

 

[js.opdebeeck]

Your settings doesn't works for me too ...

rw,vers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,soft,proto=udp,t imeo=7,retrans=3,sec=sys

[mntent]: line 16 in /etc/fstab is bad

But it rocks with this

auto,rw,hard,nointr,rsize=8192,wsize=8192,noatime,nfsvers=3,timeo=600

I suspect wrong or obsolete settings in your config, they can be unsupported by the QNAP.

Js

 

[corndog]

Hmmmm...

That would be a concern. My settings represent the defaults with the latest Linux kernel. I basically didn't specify anything. It works ok with every other nfs server I connect to. I don't really think they are obsolete. It seems rather that it's a limitation on the QNAP.

I would be willing to try this, but just got my nas back after downgrading to 2.0.0. I don't want to take the chance.

 

[corndog]

If anyone is interested, this NFS problem of mine has a very happy ending. Six days after I reported this problem on the QNAP forum, QNAP released an upgrade to the v2.0.2 firmware that not only fixed the problem but also increased the speed over v2.0.0

Here is my testing so far.

I generated a 30Gig file from /dev/urandom and it is sitting on my TS-509Pro. If I use dd to copy this file to /dev/null over NFS on a Gentoo Linux server (Core Duo, very fast, etc) I get a summary at the end of the copy that says 59.8MB/sec.

Then, if I use dd again to copy FROM /dev/zero to a fresh 30gig file on the 509 over nfs, the whole copy streams at 42.7MB/sec.

I confirmed these speeds by watching the network bar graphs on my HP ProCurve switch that the 509 is plugged into. The ProCurve supports these numbers.

My 509 has 5 Seagate ES2 1TB drives in it - configured in a RAID-5 array. This is better speed than I've seen on any NAS - ever! I'm doing testing at work on a new $50000 EqualLogic iSCSI SAN, and this QNAP is so far faster than my EqualLogic!

Needless to say, this looks GREAT on QNAP in my humble opinion. I used to think Infrant was good to their customers - this blows them away!

 

[Dennis Wood]

This sounds consistent with SMB2 performance with the NAS connected with one LAN port. We're getting read speeds sustained at 87MB/s and writes at a solid sustained50MB/s with an LACL switch and both workstation and NAS connected using two ports.

The stinker is that during load testing from two workstations, it still slows to 5MB/s writes even with today's code update.

 

[corndog]

Yes, I have mine connected to two different networks. Hence the speed. The thing I'm liking about my QNAP is that I am actually seeing speeds that correspond with Tim's NAS charts. More often than not (and I get opportunity to try different NASes out every now and then) my real world speeds are a lot less than what I see on these charts. Not so much this time, which is a pleasant surprise.

 

[Dennis Wood]

This is true. Single workstation speeds to the NAS unit are better than any RAID5 solution I've tested yet. The only thing faster in our testing was traffic between two teamed RAID 0 workstations...and that was only faster in writes. Reads were about the same as from the RAID 5 config'd TS509.

Once the loading performance issue is sorted we'll be able to test multiple workstation loads with the unit in it's load balancing mode which I believe is unique to this NAS. In my mind, that's where the unit has potentially a huge advantage as very few business networks have just one workstation hitting a server at one time.

 

[Unregistered - FAB]

So has everyone been happy with this NAS? Would you guys buy another QNAP NAS? I'm upgrading my DNS-323 and I really like everything I read about QNAP.

 

[Dennis Wood]

Based on current firmware, I could recommend the TS509, but only for a single workstation. If you've got two heavy users, I'd wait until the firmware issue is sorted. To their credit, the Qnap crew has moved to fix each reported issue to date. This is great, but (and this is my only complaint) for professional use, I'd expect a product like this to not have required so much debugging in the field. In other words, in another few weeks, providing the loading issue is fixed in time, I'll be including and recommending this unit in my video editing article. I've tested the living daylights out this unit using 4 different workstations, 3 different switches, and every possible RAID configuration. The one problem remaining is that if for example you were running a workstationA backup to the switch, and workstationB wanted to write a file...it would slow to the point of not being usable.

If/when the QNAP crew can fix this issue, then using this NAS unit with an LACL (link aggregation) switch and the NAS in load balancing mode with two gigabit ports trunked to the switch would make it pretty hard to argue with as a high performance server for business. As it is, in this mode we're seeing sustained RAID5 writes at 50MB/s and reads over 80MB/s to a single workstation. On reads, that's about 60% faster than anything tested here on the NAS charts. Keep in mind that Tim doesn't test with LACL features (trunking/teaming/link aggregation) because no one else so far supports load balancing on their NAS. In our tests, IOZONE seems to have an issue with teaming, not reflecting measured transfer rates.

CD, what happens there with your unit if you load it from two workstations using NFS?

 

[rpwoodman]

I've been following this thread quite closely - I'm in the market for a NAS box, and this is on the list of options (along with the Synology DS408 and the new Sans Digital MN4L, but am holding off until I've read comprehensive reviews of both products).

One thing that is putting me off the QNap (and this would impact any recommendation I made) is that the software seems unreliable. If you look on the QNap forums, there are lots of occurrences where people have lost their RAID setup. Almost every time, QNap support have connected to the drive and fixed it, so people get their data back, but the fact that this happens seemingly so frequently scares me off.

From looking at this thread, QNap support is well above average, but my data is important to me - I'd rather have fewer features but know that my data is safe than lots of features (the majority of which I'd not use).

Maybe I just need to hold off for 6 months until things have settled down a bit.

rgds

Rupert.