Trending

Qnap TS-559 Pro+: Familiar Network Storage With A New CPU

By

It’s a good idea to use two CPU cores to speed up multiple drives in RAID 5 or 6 arrays and it’s even better to increase clock speeds. We put Qnap's TS-559 Pro+ with an Atom D525 dual-core CPU to the test: is it any faster than devices with Atom D510?

Test System And Power Consumption

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 MotherboardAsus P5E3 Deluxe, Rev.1.03G, Intel X38, BIOS: 0810 (02/11/2007)
CPUIntel Core 2 Duo E6750 (65 nm Conroe core) @ 2.26 GHz
RAM2 x 1024 MB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600
eSATA ControllerJMicron JMB363
System Hard DriveSeagate Barracuda 7200.9, 160 GB, 7200 RPM, SATA 3Gb/s, 8 MB Cache
Test Hard Drive5 x 3.5" Samsung Spinpoint HD103SJ, 1000 GB, 7200 RPM, SATA 3Gb/s, 32 MB Cache
DVD-ROMSamsung SH-D163A , SATA 1.5Gb/s
Graphics CardGigabyte Radeon HD 3850 GV-RX385512H, GPU: 670 MHz, Memory: 512 MB DDR3 (830 MHz, 256-Bit)
Network CardMarvell Yukon 88E8056 PCIe Gigabit Ethernet Controller
Sound CardIntegrated
PSUCooler Master RS-850-EMBA, ATX 12V V2.2, 850 W
System Software & Drivers
BetriebssystemWindows Vista Enterprise SP1
DirectX 10DirectX 10 (Vista Standard)
DirectX 9Version: April 2007
Graphics DriverAMD Radeon Version 7.12
Network Driver9.0.32.3 (Vista-Standard)
Intel Chipset DriverVersion 6.9.1.1001 (20/02/2008)
JMicron Chipset DriverVersion 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 ProQnap TS-559 Pro+
Off0.9 W0.9 W
Peak148.8 W148.8 W
HDD Power Down27.3 W27.3 W
Idle56.2 W56.2 W
Rebuild63.5 W63.5 W
32 Comments Comment from the forums
  • hmp_goose 25 May 2011 12:56
    I remember a time when teh Internet was going to have hyperlinks embedded in articles for clowns like me to look stuff up with.

    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?
    Reply
  • barmaley 25 May 2011 14:17
    Ok, I don't get it. Can someone explain to me why this $1000 device that comes with no storage is better than a $500 Linux box you can build yourself that will do everything this does and more plus it will come with tons of storage too...
    Reply
  • 25 May 2011 14:35
    Did you do Gbit Link Aggregation for the tests? Seeing as it has 2 of'em?
    Reply
  • sharpless78 25 May 2011 15:10
    barmaleyOk, I don't get it. Can someone explain to me why this $1000 device that comes with no storage is better than a $500 Linux box you can build yourself that will do everything this does and more plus it will come with tons of storage too...
    Ease of use. Very few users have the time, will and knowledge to build a NAS.
    Reply
  • aaron88_7 25 May 2011 18:33
    barmaleyOk, I don't get it. Can someone explain to me why this $1000 device that comes with no storage is better than a $500 Linux box you can build yourself that will do everything this does and more plus it will come with tons of storage too...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.
    Reply
  • aaron88_7 25 May 2011 18:36
    Oops, I meant to write this is better than a $500 Linux box
    Reply
  • dealcorn 25 May 2011 18:58
    I am not aware of any 5 bay hot swap itx case that could be used as a basis for a diy project with comparable functionality. Chenbro can get you to 4 at the cost of no pcie support. No pcie means no esata with a supermicro atom itx board.

    There are ways to go with ATX cases, but that is not really comparable.
    Reply
  • radiumburn 25 May 2011 19:00
    but with that $500 linux box you will force yourself to learn something.. and in the end isn't it all about the pursuit of knowledge! haha well I admin a few linux servers so I'd save the cash and make my own for myself/work instead. On that note if you want I will make them for $999 and free shipping with initial phone setup!!! save a dollar!
    Reply
  • a-nano-moose 25 May 2011 20:02
    How can you compare them when you are using different hard drives than the earlier tests?
    Reply
  • cknobman 25 May 2011 20:11
    Sharpless78Ease of use. Very few users have the time, will and knowledge to build a NAS.
    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.
    Reply