QNAP comments on USB, eSATA backup issues

[QNAPIvan]

QNAP has integated the NTFS solution into the new firmware to boost the performance, it grately improved the speed when user back up their NAS device to the external storage with NTFS file system.

SS-439 Pro is the first one with new firmware solution that we sent to Tim, the related articles can be found here:
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/nas/nas-reviews/31041-new-to-the-charts-qnap-ss-439-pro-turbo-nas

Cheers,

 

[claykin]

QNAP has integated the NTFS solution into the new firmware to boost the performance, it grately improved the speed when user back up their NAS device to the external storage with NTFS file system.

SS-439 Pro is the first one with new firmware solution that we sent to Tim, the related articles can be found here:
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/nas/nas-reviews/31041-new-to-the-charts-qnap-ss-439-pro-turbo-nas

Cheers,

Nice job QNAPIvan. You guys have really innovated in 2009.

If QNAP could just expand their built in backup options, I'd be thrilled and may jump on board. Sorry, I'm hard to please....

 

[Osamede]

I am rather less impressed. When I owned the QNAP and complained about this problem we were either ignored or told it wasnt a problem. It wasnt until we went on external websites warning potential buyers about this problem, and asking reviewers to document backup performance in their tests, that QNAP took it seriiously. In other words when customers could no longer be duped.

The decent thing to do would be at least apologize and admit that you were wrong QNAP. This isnt innovation - its catching up to real life needs that you were informed of long ago.

 

[claykin]

I am rather less impressed. When I owned the QNAP and complained about this problem we were either ignored or told it wasnt a problem. It wasnt until we went on external websites warning potential buyers about this problem, and asking reviewers to document backup performance in their tests, that QNAP took it seriiously. In other words when customers could no longer be duped.

The decent thing to do would be at least apologize and admit that you were wrong QNAP. This isnt innovation - its catching up to real life needs that you were informed of long ago.

I hear ya. On the other hand which NAS maker had a decent NTFS driver that could perform like EXT2/3? I'm still waiting for Netgear to jump on board with a newer NTFS driver.

 

[Osamede]

I hear ya. On the other hand which NAS maker had a decent NTFS driver that could perform like EXT2/3? I'm still waiting for Netgear to jump on board with a newer NTFS driver.

Not at all the issue for me - issue for me is whether the vendor that stands by their product, as opposed to their response basically being "I dont hear you, but hey look at my shiny new product - buy it". Why on earth would I give you more of my money? You haved proved that you wont do right by customers if they encounter a serious flaw in your shiny new product. No way.

 

[kamina]

Not at all the issue for me - issue for me is whether the vendor that stands by their product, as opposed to their response basically being "I dont hear you, but hey look at my shiny new product - buy it". Why on earth would I give you more of my money? You haved proved that you wont do right by customers if they encounter a serious flaw in your shiny new product. No way.

Serious flaw? Bad performance in backups is not really a serious flaw unless you are losing / corrupting data at the same time. Especially when this has pretty much been a standard for all manufacturers.

Sure it would have been nice if they would have changed the design with just feedback from customers, but I think you are blowing this way out of proportion.

 

[Osamede]

Issue is well covered - since we began, this website has since included backup in its analysis of product. And QNAP, having been exposed, has gone out and addressed it.

Besides which anyone calling backup of data "non-issue" either knows little about computing - or is deliberately to excuse the inexcusable

And on your 3rd post no less - you not a shill are you? Nahhh.....

 

[kamina]

Issue is well covered - since we began, this website has since included backup in its analysis of product. And QNAP, having been exposed, has gone out and addressed it.

Been exposed? Sure, the pressure from here has probably been a major player in their decision to include the new drivers, but who else has done so?

Besides which anyone calling backup of data "non-issue" either knows little about computing - or is deliberately to excuse the inexcusable

A non-issue? Where did I call it a non-issue? I had a Qnap TS-119 (edit, I actually had a TS-109) (sold quite some while ago), and felt the backup speeds to EXT-3 was too slow. I don't think I would have ever beared even slower speeds...

However you are calling out Qnap and saying they have a flaw in their product. Me saying it is not a flaw does not mean I consider it a non-issue (ok, for me it is since I don't have any Windows machines and as such no need for NTFS drives).

The ability to backup your NAS is a feature. The filesystems supported are a feature. Slow backup to NTFS drives due to bad drivers in the Linux kernel is a limitation. If the data was corrupted it would be a flaw. If the drive was left in an inconsistent state it would be a flaw.

As far as I'm aware Qnap is the first one who has worked around this limitation by purchasing a license for a proprietary driver from a third party. It's a good move and others will probably follow, but you are still complaining about them despite them being the only consumer NAS manufacturer I'm aware of who has done so?

And on your 3rd post no less - you not a shill are you? Nahhh.....

Yes yes, I know people who don't spend their life posting here can't look at things logically. Do you have a habit of starting to attack people when they find flaws in your logic?

 

[convergent]

I agree with you karmina, I just placed an order for the TS-659 and the NTFS backup performance to USB was one of the things I looked at. I have a ReadyNAS NV+ that I bought 4 years ago. I tried to do backup to USB on it with NTFS and it was SO slow that it would have not finished the backup in a day and it was a daily backup... no go. I ended up going with ext3. A month ago I had a drive failure and because my USB backup was ext3, I was not able to easily access the data... if it were NTFS, I would have been able to plug the drive into my Mac and use it immediately.

Osamede, I get that you are dissatisfied because this wasn't resolved when you originally asked for it, but companies don't always respond to every request for a feature from every user. If you can backup fast to ext3 of slow to NTFS, then that isn't a defect... that's the way it is and actually the way the competition is still. They now have a good solution and its one of the reasons I bought the product over other similar competitive offerings. I also applaud QNAP for coming onto this forum and discussing the problem openly. Not too many vendors will do that outside their own controlled forum.

 

[claykin]

Osamede

I hear ya and you have a point. Qnap is often coy and quiet in their forums when they have an issue they want to brush under the rug. While I agree its an issue, its not really a flaw. All linux based NAS vendors suffered from poor NTFS and to some extent FAT32 performance. It seems that Qnap was the first to address this with a licensed driver. Yippee.

Kamina

I believe Synology also has a newer NTFS driver in the latest firmware (if not, check the current beta).

Convergent

Your NV+ is 4 years old. Did you expect blazing performance out of a 2005 launched product? meanwhile Netgear continues to support the NV+ with firmware updates and they recently released a V4.1.7 beta for it. Unfortunately no new NTFS driver....yet. A little birdie told me its coming but I'm not sure if its coming to the Sparc based NAS' (NV+/Duo, etc) or only the x86 based (NVX, Pro, etc).

You could have read your EXT3 backup using this free Mac driver. http://sourceforge.net/projects/fuse-ext2/

BTW, EXT3 is the most reliable way to backup your data. its native and without the need for a translation driver that can only muck things up.

 

[convergent]

I don't think I ever said that I expected the NV+ to be "blazing fast" by today's standards. Four years ago, it was pretty obvious that even though the specs for it said it supported NTFS, there wasn't any way to practically use it since it took longer to do the backup then the time interval between the backups. So ext3 was the only real USB backup option. I was telling that story to point out that other vendors have a problem with NTFS, and that its not a bug... its the nature of the beast. I further explained that ext3 has limitations for immediate use of the data with a failed NAS, assuming your office doesn't have Linux workstations. I am aware of ext3 options for Macs, but they are not really production ready... not sure if its the one you mentioned, but one hasn't even been updated for Snow Leopard. Given the importance of my data, I elected to wait until my NAS was back online rather than risking damaging my only backup by using questionable drivers. I needed the data then, but needed to not take a chance on losing it more. When my TS-659 arrives, I will test backing up to USB vs. using the NV+ as a backup... and pick the one that will work best. Bottom line is that QNAP has added capability here buy licensing drivers to improve the NT performance. All this stuff has pros and cons and each person's needs are going to be different.

 

[claykin]

I agree with you that everyone's needs are different. For me, I prefer to keep my backup drives formatted EXT3. Reliability is high.

The majority of the EXT/3 tools for Windows/Mac are read only. A few allow writing, but its usually off by default. So, I believe you are safe in read only mode. I've never had a problem or heard of anyone else having an issue corrupting data with a read only EXT driver.

I'm not a Mac user but the readme claims it works with OSX 10.6.

I'm sure you'll enjoy your new Qnap. Performance should be excellent and hopefully reliability is the same. I suspect you may find the built in backup functionality is lacking when compared to the Readynas.

 

[Osamede]

Qnap is often coy and quiet in their forums when they have an issue they want to brush under the rug.

And that for me has always been the point. On this issue QNAP was basically ignoring their own customers on their own forum. Wouldnt really respond in any meaninglful way.

And then when it was publicised outside, they start acting like communication is their number one priority.

Sorry, but its phony, phony, phony. A company that acts like this will do it again when some other problem crops up. And that is why they lost me as a custmer for life. I paid my own money for their product, so I dont see why I should have to tolerate some shill coming here to attack me for pointing out that fundamentally QNAP acted with dishonour on this matter.

 

[convergent]

I'm sure you'll enjoy your new Qnap. Performance should be excellent and hopefully reliability is the same. I suspect you may find the built in backup functionality is lacking when compared to the Readynas.

All I'm looking to do is daily incremental backups of my shares... is that something that QNAP won't do? My plan was to either do it either the way I am now to USB drives, or to setup the NV+ as a BSOD and use rsync to backup the QNAP. The advantage of that approach is that I could locate it elsewhere in my house and also be able to access it immediately if something on the QNAP failed. I'll play around with both options once I have the QNAP in hand tomorrow.

 

[kamina]

And that for me has always been the point. On this issue QNAP was basically ignoring their own customers on their own forum. Wouldnt really respond in any meaninglful way.

And then when it was publicised outside, they start acting like communication is their number one priority.

Sorry, but its phony, phony, phony. A company that acts like this will do it again when some other problem crops up. And that is why they lost me as a custmer for life. I paid my own money for their product, so I dont see why I should have to tolerate some shill coming here to attack me for pointing out that fundamentally QNAP acted with dishonour on this matter.

Duh...

Licensing a proprietary driver for all their NAS devices is not cheap. It's quite natural that they will not talk much about the issue while they are trying to figure out if they will invest in it or not. On the other hand once the decision is made, it's easy to communicate about it.

This is all pretty simple stuff if you ever worked in a company developing and selling products. The company want's to make money. Of course they fix bugs, but beyond that they are investing money in either improving existing or creating new features. They will make the choices on what they do based on what they think will bring in the most money. Communicating something such as this to the users before the decision is made would be unwise, as there would really be no turning back. I do recollect seeing Qnap mention that the speed is a limitation of the driver ages ago, but might remember incorrectly. Don't really know what more they could have done at the time.

This will work the same for any public company, even if some show it more obviously.

What I found to be very interesting was that they apparently (don't have a qnap NAS now, so have not looked into it so closely) also released the driver for a lot of discontinued models. I'll assume they are paying a bulk sum allowing this because otherwise it would be a very strange business decision.

 

[Osamede]

The company want's to make money.

This is a cliche we hear all the time - . "The company wants to make money"....so what? Do customers want to buy products that pose a major threat to their data? Nope.

But you show no respect for customers and their hard-earned money, although you are eager for the company to collect that money under false pretences? This is the type of banality one would normally hear from a company shilll.

Communicatingg something such as this to the users before the decision is made would be unwise, as there would really be no turning back. I do recollect seeing Qnap mention that the speed is a limitation of the driver ages ago, but might remember incorrectly. Don't really know what more they could have done at the time.

Actually this statement is directly false. First they ignored it, then they pretended it was a hardware issue. Then when it was uncovered as a matter of refusing to spend money on drivers QNAP went silent for some time, only coming out when the issue spread over external forums such as this one.

You use words but I am not sure you understand what they mean. "Communicating" and probelm solving are what customers expect when a company puts up a user forum on the internet. Silence and obfuscation are fundamentally incompatible with this concept. Better you find something else to do instead of acting as though consumers who paid their money have no right to expect decent treatment and timely communication.

I am certain that you work in the consumer electronics industry, because you display a distinct lack of understanding of these concepts that is common to the industry. It is also part of the reason that these companies spend their existence in a race to the bottom of the barrel. If you want to run a successful long-term business, you respect and treat the customers you have properly. You dont shaft them, ignore them and churn them for others. That is a loser's game. And the industry doesnt get it. But those of us who buy these products wouldnt not have any money to buy them if we showed your type of poor attitude towards our own customers.

 

[kamina]

Hard to take somebody seriously when the best response you can come up with is insulting. Take care

 

[BE!Bob]

Well, I have to say this thread piqued my curiosity! I am a new owner of a QNAP TS-219P. I formatted an external USB HD as Ext4 and setup the NAS for scheduled synchronization. The first one worked fine (5 hours for about 100GB of data). Seemed long, but it worked! The second scheduled synchronization failed - and that's all I can find out! There's no log or detailed error message. So, I emailed customer (since I am one) support and haven't had a response in 3 days. Since the schedule is for every 2 days, the second try failed as well. Again, that's all I know. I tried the forums and found other users with the same issue. It's not that it's slow, it actually doesn't work! Now that's a failure.

I've tried a manual backup and a manual synchronization, verified that the USB drive is accessible and readable. Still no success and no additional insight.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to get any help from QNAP in figuring this out. Of course, I'd like a solution, but no one has contacted me or anyone else in the forums that I can see! Even if just to post to the forum with some kind of response. Nothing so far. I see responses in other threads, but the threads with USB backup problems are uniquely silent. THAT is probably more aggravating than anything. Not even an acknowledgment that there might be a problem.

Unfortunately, the effect will be to tarnish the reputation of QNAP. One thing I've learned as a consultant: keep your clients informed and be responsive to their concerns.

And yes, I'm a new member to the forum. I do not have any affiliations with QNAP or their competitors AFAIK.

 

[claykin]

Well, I have to say this thread piqued my curiosity! I am a new owner of a QNAP TS-219P. I formatted an external USB HD as Ext4 and setup the NAS for scheduled synchronization. The first one worked fine (5 hours for about 100GB of data). Seemed long, but it worked! The second scheduled synchronization failed - and that's all I can find out! There's no log or detailed error message. So, I emailed customer (since I am one) support and haven't had a response in 3 days. Since the schedule is for every 2 days, the second try failed as well. Again, that's all I know. I tried the forums and found other users with the same issue. It's not that it's slow, it actually doesn't work! Now that's a failure.

I've tried a manual backup and a manual synchronization, verified that the USB drive is accessible and readable. Still no success and no additional insight.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to get any help from QNAP in figuring this out. Of course, I'd like a solution, but no one has contacted me or anyone else in the forums that I can see! Even if just to post to the forum with some kind of response. Nothing so far. I see responses in other threads, but the threads with USB backup problems are uniquely silent. THAT is probably more aggravating than anything. Not even an acknowledgment that there might be a problem.

Unfortunately, the effect will be to tarnish the reputation of QNAP. One thing I've learned as a consultant: keep your clients informed and be responsive to their concerns.

And yes, I'm a new member to the forum. I do not have any affiliations with QNAP or their competitors AFAIK.

Something isn't right. If your USB disk is formatted EXT then you should get better than 5.5MB/s backup speed. I would say you should get more like 20MB/s using the NAS native EXT filesystem. Are you sure your USB disk is formatted EXT and not NTFS? Do you have the latest firmware for your 219P?

I cannot comment on the failed backups other than to say that you should do a filesystem check on both the USB disk and the NAS.

As far as QNAP's lack of CS, I suppose that's one of the reasons I stick with Readynas products. Try calling their US office on Monday and don't take no for an answer. Tel 909-595-2819

 

[convergent]

I am the new owner of a TS-659 and I was unable to get NTFS backups to work at all to USB drives, but I've had good luck with ext4, so it should work for you. The problem I ran into is that I couldn't figure out how to backup to multiple USB drives. With a 6 bay unit, being restricted to a single drive would be useless. After no answers on my questions on the QNAP forum, and much digging, I figured out that I can do this if I use Remote Replication instead of the USB Backup. You may want to try this and see if it works. It uses rsync, but locally. You go into Remote Replication and setup a new job. When it asked for rsync server or NAS, select NAS. Put in the IP address of the NAS. It forced me to put in a userid/password and I just put in "test" for both and it seemed to work. I don't need a userid to access the shares. Then on the destination I put in the share name for the usbdrive - /USBDisk1 and added the share name I was backing up... /USBDrive1/Share1Back . Finally, for the source I selected the /Share1 . Then you can tell it what options you want... I picked synchronize and remove files on destination. I've scheduled a couple of these and they seem to be running fine so you might want to give this a try.