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

Page 5 of 8:

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.

Swipe to scroll horizontally

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

Swipe to scroll horizontally

Header Cell - Column 0	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

Current page: Test System And Power Consumption

Prev Page A Glance At The Software And Specifications Next Page Benchmark Results: Multimedia

TOPICS

32 Comments Comment from the forums

hmp_goose

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

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
Did you do Gbit Link Aggregation for the tests? Seeing as it has 2 of'em?
Reply
sharpless78

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

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

Oops, I meant to write this is better than a $500 Linux box
Reply
dealcorn

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

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

How can you compare them when you are using different hard drives than the earlier tests?
Reply
cknobman

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

Show more comments