Multi-Client SMB Performance
Our SMB multiclient test represents years of hard work, a lot of money and several companies coming together to make the test a reality. There are 10 dual Xeon servers, each with two Hot Lava Shasta 6-port NICs. Each server has 12 Windows 7 Hyper-V installations and each Virtual Machine has a dedicated gigabit Ethernet connection back to a series of linked enterprise network switches. The Windows 7 VMs run custom software that runs Microsoft Office traces with programs like Excel, Access, Word and Power Point.
In high-client count environments, the sequential data is randomized because so much data is reaching the system at one time. With a low number of clients, the sequential data stays sequential but the block size of the file updates is still very small since we are dealing with Microsoft Office files.
This is the first test where we really start to see the AMD APU have issues with performance compared to the other products in the charts. The first chart shows throughput and it takes the SSD cache to bring the TVS-863+ performance to the same level as the Netgear ReadyNAS 716X. We've run this test on a large number of QNAP devices over the years with various Intel processors, and this is the first system that performed so poorly on this specific test.
The second chart shows the average latency for each client. This test is actually more important than the first as it has a direct relationship to the user experience at each office desktop. If you plan to use the TVS-863+ with several users running office software off of the central storage, you will want to take advantage of the SSD cache option.
A massive over-simplification which is almost up there with "I want to buy an internet for my PC". It's not a technology, it's a protocol which runs over dead-basic Ethernet connectivity. The technology is "Ethernet", not iSCSI.
You can't boot ALL computers from an iSCSI mounted volume unless you NIC supports it - and most integrated NICs don't.
The "Con" of only having a single 10GbE interface isn't really a con for this type of device - if you need dual 10GbE then it's more likely to be for path diversity than performance, in which case you'll be wanting multiple switches and you're then into the realms of enterprise requirements, and if that's the case you wouldn't buy one of these in any case.
iSCSI is technology, bridging two different protocols, and it doesn't need to be done over ethernet (though most commonly done over ethernet). Sure it's not "network technology" in the sense of low level protocols and physical devices, but it's still just as much a separate technology as TCP/IP, TLS, etc. (i.e. not all technology even has to have the same purpose or independent from others)
"You can't boot ALL computers from an iSCSI mounted volume unless you NIC supports it - and most integrated NICs don't."
Pretty sure all newer vPro systems support it, and definitely anything with PRO series NIC from Intel (and of course server grade NICs). Considering this device is 10gigE, I don't think they meant consumer grade computers booting over it!
As for single 10gigE not being an issue, the only case in which I think people would see it as an issue is in the case of a legacy network still running gigE, in which case two teamed adapters running gigE would certainly still have a benefit. Other than legacy networks, you're right on the ball there.
That's not really that much... ;)
Dual 10gbE is nice for redundancy in a large network but I'm referring to performance increases against cost. A dual port 10GbE NIC has a very small price premium over a single port 10GbE NIC. QNAP sells both dual and single port 10GbE NICs but only offers the TVS-863+ with a single port.
pretty small ;-)
I prefer the other solutions where we talk about TB not GB... ;-)
WHAT? I currently have two 8-drive setups running RAID 6. A 12TB and a 24TB setup (2G and 4G drives respectively). And I'm almost full (89%). I have a large movie collection (all legal and no, you can't get any... ;-) and I also use about 8TB of that for (fake) work data storage. So I'm up to 28TB of movie and music storage that is just about full. I'd happily retire them for a single 48TB solution.
Although building them myself is far cheaper, it's not as small. This is the first unit I'd actually consider buying that I've seen thus far. I'd for sure be excited to test it and see if it'll do everything else I need also (seems like it should).