Old vs new - snappiness?

[kamina]

I've currently got a 211j which has adequate streaming throughput for most use, but is very slow at waking up and also slow with directory listings in folders containing hundreds (or thousands) of items. As this is starting to be old, I'm wondering what i should get to replace it. In terms of storage space I belive 2 disks is still fine for me.

If considering between for example a 713 and 214, what could I expect in terms of responsiveness and handling large listings / small files? Big difference between arm and x86? Would both have a big difference to what I'm running now?

 

[shortyesquire]

Do yourself a favour and get the 713.

The Intel Atom powered DSes leave the ARM ones in the dust. I've just gone from a DS411 to a DS1513+ and the jump in performance was spectacular.

The DS411 was essentially limited by its CPU and never took full advantage of the 4x2TB Raid 5 array and Gigabit LAN. The DS 1513+ didn't even break a sweat when I was backing up the DS411 to it, watching movies and doing some other bits and pieces.

 

[thiggins]

Small file handling is more limited by network file system overhead and hard drive head access times.

A more powerful processor can help. But don't expect miracles.

 

[stevech]

I've currently got a 211j which has adequate streaming throughput for most use, but is very slow at waking up and also slow with directory listings in folders containing hundreds (or thousands) of items. As this is starting to be old, I'm wondering what i should get to replace it. In terms of storage space I belive 2 disks is still fine for me.

If considering between for example a 713 and 214, what could I expect in terms of responsiveness and handling large listings / small files? Big difference between arm and x86? Would both have a big difference to what I'm running now?

slow at waking up... from hibernate? That's a drive-spin-up time issue.
My DS212 is config'd to power off overnight but not hibernate. I have no complaints about response times in the various admin web pages. The 212j has a bit slower CPU but I doubt that would make much difference. The CPU utilization meter shows near zero all the time, except when doing a big backup (which is done late, just before auto power-down).

 

[kamina]

Can't believe a year has passed, and that I forgot to respond to the message.

For waking up, yes I guess hibernation. If I try to mount a disk from my computers the mount times out before the disk get's mounted. Waiting a while and trying again works. It just has two WD green's without raid, so should not be a huge thing to get them up. The admin pages are also really slow with the newest DSM versions, but that's ok as I don't really need to access them often.

Somehow it seems that depending on the site there are quite big differences in NASPT directory related benchmarks, usually favoring Synology over Qnap. I don't know if there is some logical explanation or if it's as meaningful as it seems (for example DS415+ having double performance of TS-451 on Anandtech's benchmarks).

Happy I've been too busy to get a new nas yet though since the models out now look pretty good. Unfortunately there is still hardly any proper stats or reviews on the noise produced by the devices. Would be cool to put one next to my TV but I'm almost certain that they would be too loud even with silent disks. If I could count on them being very silent I think a Qnap TS-453S at 15cm tall would just fit.

 

[sfx2000]

Somehow it seems that depending on the site there are quite big differences in NASPT directory related benchmarks, usually favoring Synology over Qnap. I don't know if there is some logical explanation or if it's as meaningful as it seems (for example DS415+ having double performance of TS-451 on Anandtech's benchmarks).

The Synology DS415+ is a 4C/4T processor, with twice the RAM in a default config - the QNAP TS-451 is a 2C/2T half the memory - twice as much resources...

QNAP uses MD (soft RAID), not sure what Synology does there - but if both are running MD in RAID5, the extra 2 cores on the DS415+ will definitely help...

 

[sfx2000]

Oh, and FWIW, only on a couple of specific benchmarks was the DS415+ "twice as fast.."

Link here -- http://www.anandtech.com/show/8659/synology-ds415-review-dsm-on-intel-rangeley/3

 

[sfx2000]

Couple of other things to note between those two devices:

DS415+ - it supports AES-NI, it's clocked at 2.4GHz, doesn't have QuickSync - again 4c/4T
TS451 - doesn't support AES-NI, clocked at 2GHz, and has QuickSync - 2C/2T

QNAP was really focused on Transcoding, and QuickSync, even on J1800, is more than fast enough - it has to do encrypting entirely in SW on the cores, where as the C2538 has AES-NI, so it gets a real advantage when doing encryption, but if one wants to transcode video, it has to do it in sw on the cores..

Apples vs. Oranges... both are good, just different product focus...

 

[Trexx]

If you are talking the price range of a DS415+, then you would probably look at the TS-453Pro, which has the 4c/4T and J1900 processor. Also moves from 2 to 4 GbE ports.

Generally the TS-453Pro has outperformed the 415+, but depends whose benchmark you look at. As you said, depends on your focus.

If you want Transcoding/Virtualization/Media Playback, QNAP probably has the edge there overall. But if you just looking for basic file storage usage, either will do a good job.

 

[kamina]

I don't quite understand the point of transcoding, I guess the idea is to not have to create multiple files ahead of time? Up to now I have not managed to get subtitles to work well with any streaming apps (current synology) unless I burn them in. For most of my family thats a blocker...

Basically I have a dedicated shuttle for xbmc that mounts disks from the synology over NFS. If the qnap would work as well for xbmc then I could give the shuttle to my mother in law... It's not a blocker, but I'd kind of have to decide ahead as I can have max 15cm hight next to the tv.

Virtualization would allow me to make a minecraft server for my kid, again not that important but would make him happy.

I was looking through some graphs and it seemed the new NAS review method produces quite a lot worse (or less variance) scores for directory copies in naspt. I tried to figure out why, but couldnt?

 

[thiggins]

You mean real-time transcoding? It's purpose is to avoid eating up storage space with multiple file versions.

Directory copy tests use multiple folders of smallish files. This makes the head move more as well as incurs higher transfer overhead.

 

[kamina]

Just seems like space is cheap, as is bandwidth so I was wondering why everyone makes such a big fuss over transcoding, but surely needs vary.

453 would be tempting but that small powersupply fan looks like it could be very annoying, 451 could be more silent. Both of those would still end up in some dark hole due to the size so I would not get benefit from xbmc / hdmi.

 

[Trexx]

Just seems like space is cheap, as is bandwidth so I was wondering why everyone makes such a big fuss over transcoding, but surely needs vary.

453 would be tempting but that small powersupply fan looks like it could be very annoying, 451 could be more silent. Both of those would still end up in some dark hole due to the size so I would not get benefit from xbmc / hdmi.

Space maybe cheap, but when you have 2-3 TB of video files, then multiply that by 2 for multiple versions of each file (phone, tablet, etc. formats) it starts adding up.

In terms of the small power supply, I have it sitting in a stand that my TV sits on top of and works just fine in my family room. I hear more noise from the HDD's than I do the fan, so I wouldn't worry about that. The fan on my 453Pro runs about 1050 RPM. I have the HDMI running through my AV receiver which does the HDMI switching.

I have a FireTV that I was running XBMC/KODI from which connected to my NAS via NFS. I have since shifted my usage to the QNAP and hardly use the FireTV much anymore.

 

[stevech]

Some of the media player boxes (LAN to TV) have decent players for multiple codecs - in their DSPs/ASICs. And they're cheap.

 

[sfx2000]

Apologies to the Synology crowd - this thread turned QNAP centric, and I'm part to blame...

We probably should move the thread over into the NAS/QNAP forum...

 

[kamina]

I'm still on the limbo

Currently one half of me is thinking about a DS1515+, other half is thinking of a TS-453s (so very different use case)

For Synology the plusses would be a familiar OS, good price for a 5 bay device, more space with faster drives

For Qnap the plusses would be more silent (guess), small enough to fit near my tv, XBMC would allow me to retire existing media player, possibility to run VM's

I need to replace the 500GB SSD I currently have on my desktop with a 1TB model so my thinking is that whatever I get I would test how having a read only SSD cache affects performance, and if I'm not happy I'd just make a separate volume out of the SSD for stuff that benefits from faster IO (vm's on the qnap at least).

However this would mean that using 2TB M9T's on the 453S I would only get 4TB of usable space. This is over double what I currently need, but things could change fast. I guess with the cheaper price of the Qnap I could also just buy bigger disks to my existing Synology (which will be for backups) and have a volume there for large files if I one day run out of space.

I have a tendency to over think these, but at least the options are different enough that one of them should be the better one.

 

[Trexx]

I guess the big question boils down to what do you want your NAS to do for you. They both are good boxes and I have used both SW platforms.

I would also look at the the TS-453Pro model which while a slightly larger form factor, gives you much more capability and versatility than the 453S at a similar price point. If you do, then you are able to use 2.5" or 3.5" hard drives.

The TS-453Pro (or S) will be lower cost than a 1515+, but you also get 1 less drive bay initially.

In terms of capacity, both Synology and QNAP (depending on model) support the option of adding additional drives via expansion chassis/box. So either way, if you do outgrow the storage capability of the boxes initially, you can either migrate to larger drives in the NAS, OR add an expansion chassis to the unit you have and add additional drives to it.

I think you would be happy with either one, but it really comes down to what functions do you want it to perform and the budgetary constraints ($$)

 

[sfx2000]

I would agree - it comes down to feature sets - both Synology and QNAP are top-line OEM's..

Really do need to consider the noise levels - my TS453Pro, while not excessively loud, does make it's presence known in the home office, so might be something to consider in a media center in the living room - it's fan noise mostly, and I've got 3TB enterprise NAS drives in it, so there's a bit of drive noise as well...

 

[Trexx]

I have my 453Pro in my living room too, and while I do hear a little bit of background noise from it at times (more HDD vs. fan), but while watching tv with surround sound on, I never hear the noise.

 

[kamina]

Unfortunately people seem to have very different views to what is loud and what is not... For me, I would prefer to never hear it or then locate it away.

This is the reason it would be nice to have somebody like spcr covering nas devices since even though we are talking about devices that will often end up in peoples homes, and even though manufacturers forums have a lot of complaint about noise, no good nas review sites lime here or anandtech seem to give it half a thought.