QNAP comments on USB, eSATA backup issues

[thiggins]

I asked my contact at QNAP to comment on some recent posts that have complained about errors and slow speed of backups made to USB drives. This is the response I received from QNAP (edited for format and clarity).
=====

1) Our implementation of "backup to external storage feature" is based on standard Linux "copy" and "rsync" commands. It allows server managers to back up the selected share folders to the external USB disk instantly or by schedule.

2) For the file disappearance issue described in this thread
http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10704&p=50465

The failure of copied files to show up can be due to SAMBA not updating quickly. Reconnecting to the share in question should force an update and the user should be able to see the files.

We have investigated and answered other complaints of file copy problems via private message. We found that some issues were due to the USB or eSATA drive used. We have found that some inexpensive drives or drive enclosures do not provide reliable file transfer.

In some cases, replacing the USB or eSATA cable might help. But other problems can be caused by USB-to-SATA bridge chip incompatibility. In that case a different drive or enclosure must be used.

3) Slow backup speed
The current NTFS 3G (refered to in http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10484&p=50067) provides the read/write capability for external storage.

We have seen the slow performance (for a 500MHz Marvell ARM, NTFS-3G performance is currently around 2-3MB/s) and have already spent some effort for several months to work/develop with Paragon for a better NTFS-write solution.

The work with Paragon's has yielded a solution that can provide approximately 10MB/s throghput. But we don't yet have a stable release, so currently must continue to use the current NTFS-3G based implementation.

 

[claykin]

Tim

Do you know which USB bridge IC Qnap uses?

Are the issues specific to the hardware that uses the Marvell CPU?

I would suspect Qnap uses the Intel SB to control USB and eSata on the Intel CPU NAS boxes. correct?

BTW, the Readynas also suffers from poor NTFS r/w performance through the USB ports. In my tests on Duo's and NV+ I've seen about 2MB/s. FAT32 yields about 5MB/s and EXT3 about 12MB/s.

 

[thiggins]

They use a couple of USB bridges depending on processor used. The reviews contain any internal details that I was able to determine by examing the boards.

I don't think the NTFS speed issue is hardware specific. Probably more of a generic driver issue.

 

[Osamede]

QNAP is not being honest or frank here. On their own forums, the culprit, has been exposed as both hardware and firmware, so there is a limit to what they can do with just firmware. And the problem (unacceptably low speed or even no speed in transfers) occcurs both via USB and LAN. I mean how many days will it take to back up a 1TB drive at less than 10Mb per seconds top speed, sometimes far less? And what are the chances the thing fails in that time? Quite a lot actually is the experience.

There are many dissatisfied people on their forums owning the QNAP 109 and 209 series with this problem. I myself had to dump a 209 "Pro" for far less than I paid, because QNAP would not take any responsibilty for this. Backup is a crucial function and its isnt something to joke with.

However, with full knowledge of this problems QNAP continue to sell the products in question, dragging new buyers into the same mess. Which is pretty unethical.

One just wishes they would address the issue by doing something eg recalling the products and upgrading them + revsising the model instead of still selling it. But they seem to me more interested in spreading misleading statements than actually doing something. Its rather dissapointing.

 

[claykin]

QNAP is not being honest or frank here. On their own forums, the culprit, has been exposed as both hardware and firmware, so there is a limit to what they can do with just firmware. And the problem (unacceptably low speed or even no speed in transfers) occcurs both via USB and LAN. I mean how many days will it take to back up a 1TB drive at less than 10Mb per seconds top speed, sometimes far less? And what are the chances the thing fails in that time? Quite a lot actually is the experience.

There are many dissatisfied people on their forums owning the QNAP 109 and 209 series with this problem. I myself had to dump a 209 "Pro" for far less than I paid, because QNAP would not take any responsibilty for this. Backup is a crucial function and its isnt something to joke with.

However, with full knowledge of this problems QNAP continue to sell the products in question, dragging new buyers into the same mess. Which is pretty unethical.

One just wishes they would address the issue by doing something eg recalling the products and upgrading them + revsising the model instead of still selling it. But they seem to me more interested in spreading misleading statements than actually doing something. Its rather dissapointing.

I'm not arguing your point. I'm wondering why you don't choose to use an EXT3 formatted drive? That should provide you much better r/w speeds. You can use Ext2IFS to read the files on a Windows desktop.
http://www.fs-driver.org/

What did you purchase to replace your 209Pro?

 

[szaka]

I don't think the NTFS speed issue is hardware specific. Probably more of a generic driver issue.

Correct. These are the write performance results on a 300 MHZ ARM:
Free NTFS-3G driver: 1.4 MB/sec
Commercial NTFS-3G driver: 9.5-11.5 MB/sec

Both QNAP and ReadyNAS use the free NTFS-3G driver.

Regards, Szaka

--
NTFS-3G: http://ntfs-3g.com

 

[thiggins]

QNAP is not being honest or frank here.

That's a pretty bold accusation. Have you contacted QNAP support directly regarding your problems? If you like, I can put them in touch with you directly.

 

[Chaplin]

There is all the same a big problem to make the backup. I wanted to purchase the 639Pro but I think of waiting if there is no simple, effective, approachable, flexible, fast and easy solution of use.

 

[barlew]

Hello

Although this is my first post here at Small Net Builder, I have been following this Backup 'issue' for a while as im looking to buy the Qnap 209 Pro II for home network use and streaming to my Network Media Tank, HDX 1000.

I have a question about Qnap's response:
"In some cases, replacing the USB or eSATA cable might help. But other problems can be caused by USB-to-SATA bridge chip incompatibility. In that case a different drive or enclosure must be used."

I will be looking to back up to an external HD via eSata but have yet to purchase one. Do Qnap provide, or is there an independent list, of drives or enclosures that are compatible with the Qnap USB-to-SATA bridge chip?

 

[thiggins]

I will be looking to back up to an external HD via eSata but have yet to purchase one. Do Qnap provide, or is there an independent list, of drives or enclosures that are compatible with the Qnap USB-to-SATA bridge chip?

I don't have one. I suggest contacting QNAP support directly and asking.

 

[QNAPIvan]

Dear all:
Sorry to step into the discussion here and appologize if there is any bad feeling caused. Allow me to give you some feedback to the concerns above.

1. About the USB chip we used.

• On the TS-109/209/409 ARM platform, the USB hub chip is Genesys GL850G. which should be popular especially in external USB hub products.

• On the TS-509 Pro & the coming TS-809 Pro, the USB interface is from the ICH7. TS-439 Pro and TS-639 Pro Pro is using ICH7M which should share the same compatibility level with x86 PCs.

2. In the past, same with other competitive NAS products. The file system on external disk only supported FAT, EXT3, and "NTFS read only". Seldom vendors provide the "NTFS write" feature.
We tried to integrate the NTFS write capability by both Paragon's solution & NTFS 3G-parallely. We experienced the NTFS 3G shows slow performance at around 3MB/s on 500MHz ARM platform.

3. NTFS write (NTFS-3G) performance on our newly launch x86 platform.

• TS-639 Pro & TS-509 Pro: 10-12MB/s around.

• TS-109/209/409: 3MB/s around.

PS: The copy & dd command is used.
To clarify the concerns here, QNAP didn't stop the effort of looking for other alternative solution to improve the performance level for NTFS write. However we accept the complains because the inconveinence caused.

4. Some discussion concerns on the TS-109 & TS-209's EXT3 with patch format because the the hard disk cannot be mounted by a general Linux EXT3 PC.
Allow me explain:
(1) There is a Live CD can be provided by QNAP support team, incase users need to set up the environment on a PC, the CD can automatically set up to duplicate the file system of patched EXT3. The same environment is also here in QNAP lab incase user dont want to buy another NAS to retrieve the data.
(2) The patched EXT3 on TS-109 & TS-209 can be mounted by the PC with EXT4 format for data recovery.
(3) The file system we use for TS-409/509/439/639/809 series is standard EXT3.

Cheers!

 

[barlew]

Hi QNAPIvan

Could i clarify something before making my purchase of an TS-209 Pro2 and an external HD enclosure to connect via eSata for back up purposes.

You say:
"On the TS-109/209/409 ARM platform, the USB hub chip is Genesys GL850G. which should be popular especially in external USB hub products."

I raised the issue of compatibility with Qnap support:

"As i am about to purchase a TS-209 Pro 2 and will have an external HD connected via eSata I will need a list of drives or enclosures that are compatible with the Qnap USB-to-SATA bridge chip. Can you supply me with one?"

And the response from Simon Chang-Ou was to go by the Qnap compatibility list. Unfortunately this list only contains 2 clear options, and 1 other with a note i dont understand:

Brand - Model - Note
STARDOM - eSATA/USB 2.0 Combo - i302-1S-SB2
Cooler Master - eSATA/USB 2.0 RX-3SB-S
VANTEC - NexStar.3 - Must change another eSATA cable

Not sure what "Must change another eSATA cable" means?

So what you are implying is that most external HD enclosures connecting via eSata should work but Qnap compatibility list only recommends 3.

The doesn’t really help unless Qnap adds more products to their compatibility list.

 

[szaka]

We experienced the NTFS 3G shows slow performance at around 3MB/s on 500MHz ARM platform.

Dear QNAPIvan,

May I ask you that when you refer to your NTFS-3G benchmark results then please note that QNAP is using the much lower performing and free NTFS-3G driver. As a reference data, for instance the free driver performs 1.4 MB/s on a 300 MHz ARM, meanwhile the professional and optimized NTFS-3G driver performs 9.5-11.5 MB/sec on the same hardware. On a 2.5 GHz Core 2 Duo our current best result is 1.375 GB/sec (yes, it's Gigabyte).

We tried to contact QNAP several times since September, 2008 and offered our help and reliable, high-performance driver for evaluation but we never got a reply.

Best Regards,

Szabolcs Szakacsits
Chairman & CTO
NTFS-3G Technology Ltd.
http://ntfs-3g.com

 

[claykin]

Clearly, QNAP doesn't want to pay for an optimized NTFS driver.

QNAPIVAN says they are using a ICH7M in the new x86 design. The ICH7M supports only 2 x SATA 300 ports. So, QNAPIVAN, what chip are you using to control SATA and eSATA on the new x86 design?

 

[QNAPIvan]

Clearly, QNAP doesn't want to pay for an optimized NTFS driver.

Clearly? Why you would like to make this kind of judgement?

QNAPIVAN says they are using a ICH7M in the new x86 design. The ICH7M supports only 2 x SATA 300 ports. So, QNAPIVAN, what chip are you using to control SATA and eSATA on the new x86 design?

Marvell SATA controller is used for the internal SATA drives and the internal SATA interface of ICH7 is reserved for the eSATA.

 

[QNAPIvan]

On a 2.5 GHz Core 2 Duo our current best result is 1.375 GB/sec (yes, it's Gigabyte).
We tried to contact QNAP several times since September, 2008 and offered our help and reliable, high-performance driver for evaluation but we never got a reply.
http://ntfs-3g.com

Dear Mr. Szabolcs Szakacsits:
Thanks for your sharing.
The performance number of the solution is new to me and very impressive. The NTFS-commercial information I knew is around Q4 last year from our forum. As I said at that moment we have kicked off the project with the alternative solution provider on ARM & the other platform. Unfortunately we cannot come out the stable release in time till now. However we look forward the cooperation opportunities on other new platform. We will mail you for following discussion.

Cheers!

 

[QNAPIvan]

So what you are implying is that most external HD enclosures connecting via eSata should work but Qnap compatibility list only recommends 3.
The doesn’t really help unless Qnap adds more products to their compatibility list.

Dear balew:
Sorry for the insufficient information of USB device compatibility list. We will improve it. Actually we have purchased more models of USB devices and updated the list on certain series. We will update the list for TS-109/209 soon.

Regarding your concerns,
1. There is no eSATA on TS-209. Please note before you purchase.
2. Your question: "Not sure what "Must change another eSATA cable" means?"
For the model of Vantec, their eSATA cable's quality is not good. After change to another eSATA cable, the box can work stably with the NAS.
3. QBack-35S is something can be considered.

Cheers!

 

[claykin]

Clearly? Why you would like to make this kind of judgement?

Marvell SATA controller is used for the internal SATA drives and the internal SATA interface of ICH7 is reserved for the eSATA.

My bad for making that assumption. Wish you luck getting an optimized NTFS driver integrated.

 

[Osamede]

That's a pretty bold accusation. Have you contacted QNAP support directly regarding your problems? If you like, I can put them in touch with you directly.

1) Its not in the least "bold". They have been informed about this on their forums for some time and the insinuation made here is that its only a firmware problem. Its not.

2) I have been on their forums when I owned the product. Why would I need you to put me in touch with them? I dont own their product anymore - I dumped it.

Thanks for your "support" though.

 

[claykin]

1) Its not in the least "bold". They have been informed about this on their forums for some time and the insinuation made here is that its only a firmware problem. Its not.

2) I have been on their forums when I owned the product. Why would I need you to put me in touch with them? I dont own their product anymore - I dumped it.

Thanks for your "support" though.

What did you purchase to replace your 2 drive QNAP? Are you happy with it?