In this series of tests we ran traditional server and workstation storage workloads. There are two charts for each workload. The first chart simply measures IOPS performance with increasing queue depths. The second chart is one you don't see used very often. In the snake charts we show latency (vertical) with IOPS (horizontal). Ideally, the second chart will show the IOPS moving to the right and staying very close to the bottom of the results area (showing lower latency).
In many of the workloads we found very little performance scaling as the queue depth increased with the TVS-863+ without cache. The Netgear ReadyNAS 716X delivered the same flat-line results and the ASUSTOR AS5108T showed a little variation. With the SSD cache enabled, the TVS-863+ picked up the pace quite a bit and manage to increase performance until reaching peak. After the peak performance the IOPS drops due to the latency increasing for each additional IO.
The snake chart shows the latency and allows system administrators to tune the system for quality of service. Using the database test as an example, system administrators can use the cache system to get 5400 IOPS at roughly 3ms response time from the storage system. Any more IOPS past that point will have a negative impact on latency.
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).