Test Configuration
We used the default settings of the NAS device for our testing, meaning that we didn't use the jumbo frames setting. Each of the RAID arrays used the firmware-recommended sxt4 file system. For our tests, we used the firmware version 3.3.4 Build 1019T. Instead of the Samsung 320 GB HD321KJ hard drive with 16 MB cache found in past NAS tests, we transitioned over to the HD103SJ model with a capacity of 1000 GB and 32 MB cache.
| System Hardware | |
|---|---|
| LGA 775 Motherboard | Asus P5E3 Deluxe, Rev.1.03G, Intel X38, BIOS: 0810 (02/11/2007) |
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 (65 nm Conroe core) @ 2.26 GHz |
| RAM | 2 x 1024 MB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600 |
| eSATA Controller | JMicron JMB363 |
| System Hard Drive | Seagate Barracuda 7200.9, 160 GB, 7200 RPM, SATA 3Gb/s, 8 MB Cache |
| Test Hard Drive | 5 x 3.5" Samsung Spinpoint HD103SJ, 1000 GB, 7200 RPM, SATA 3Gb/s, 32 MB Cache |
| DVD-ROM | Samsung SH-D163A , SATA 1.5Gb/s |
| Graphics Card | Gigabyte Radeon HD 3850 GV-RX385512H, GPU: 670 MHz, Memory: 512 MB DDR3 (830 MHz, 256-Bit) |
| Network Card | Marvell Yukon 88E8056 PCIe Gigabit Ethernet Controller |
| Sound Card | Integrated |
| PSU | Cooler Master RS-850-EMBA, ATX 12V V2.2, 850 W |
| System Software & Drivers | |
| Betriebssystem | Windows Vista Enterprise SP1 |
| DirectX 10 | DirectX 10 (Vista Standard) |
| DirectX 9 | Version: April 2007 |
| Graphics Driver | AMD Radeon Version 7.12 |
| Network Driver | 9.0.32.3 (Vista-Standard) |
| Intel Chipset Driver | Version 6.9.1.1001 (20/02/2008) |
| JMicron Chipset Driver | Version 1.17.15.0 (24/03/2007) |
Intel NAS Performance Toolkit
We tested the NAS device with the Intel NAS Performance Toolkit.
Noise Level
As both the housing and the fan of the TS-559 Pro+ are identical to those of the TS-550 Pro, we don't have anything new to report about noise levels. The 120 mm fan runs quietly and unobtrusively. It would be inaccurate to describe its operation as completely silent, but the gentle hum of the fan in normal operating mode is hardly noticeable, and would be drowned out by many PCs on the market.
Unfortunately, the vibrations of the hard drive in both the TS-559 Pro and the TS-559 Pro+ make an annoying rumble. A gentle pressure on the HDD bays is required to quiet the noise.
Power Consumption
| Qnap TS-559 Pro | Qnap TS-559 Pro+ | |
|---|---|---|
| Off | 0.9 W | 0.9 W |
| Peak | 148.8 W | 148.8 W |
| HDD Power Down | 27.3 W | 27.3 W |
| Idle | 56.2 W | 56.2 W |
| Rebuild | 63.5 W | 63.5 W |
C'mon! I'm a knuckle-dragging FPS-player: I don't know what "SMB/CIFS protocols" stands for, let alone good for! Isn't there at lest a related article?
Ease of use. Very few users have the time, will and knowledge to build a NAS.
First off, it isn't better than a $500 Linux box. Linux requires Linux knowledge and you have to provide the software you need yourself - that costs small businesses money. This also offers failover and load balancing with its dual NIC card that you wouldn't have in a $500 Linux box.
The main thing is ease of installation. You don't need a highly technical person to get this box up and running and quickly backing up your companies data, whereas a Linux machine will require additional staff that a small business normally would not have on hand and have to pay to come onsite.
For $1000 I'd like one just to play around with myself, though it clearly is not targeted for home users.
There are ways to go with ATX cases, but that is not really comparable.
A NAS is a computer. Heck you can even build a PC put Windows 7/XP Home edition on it and turn it into a NAS all for ~$500 (and thats even with 2tb storage in raid 1, heck that is what I have done and it works great and I am even using a low power AMD CPU that is powerful enough to actually be useful rather than a pathetic atom cpu).
There is no ease of use factor or amount of time on earth that is worth $500+ dollars.
Agreed - I have been running a NAS based on an Atom processor for about two years now (but it's also a RADIUS server, SVN server, etc). However not everyone is technically capable and they are sometimes willing to pay for something off the shelf rather than putting it together themselves.
It's IMO a choice between fire and forget (if one of the thecus boxes fails the plant can replace it themselves) and an ongoing support need. For me that's worth the incremental cost.
Additionally, you'll be going with software raid if you roll your own (hardware raid cards would blow any cost advantage entirely) and then you're going to have to be really conscious of processing power required for solid performance. That means time spent tweaking, optimizing, and in component selection that will more than overtake the hardware cost differential if you cost your time at a reasonable rate.
This can be solved by purchasing a $20 NIC and adding it to the Linux system.
The important thing to note is that if you've got the time and inclination to learn to setup and administer the system, a Linux box will give you more bang for the buck compared to systems like the QNap or Thecus. the N7700's work great as a single host box (or for archive use), but I've not seen the kind of performance that could support even a 2 host cluster. You could get that out of an Openfiler box with some tweaking (though an Openfiler box with that performance would probably cost a grand or so with required peripherals like a dual nic and hot swap SATA chassis).
You may find them under $300!