QNAP TS-332X Three Bay 10GbE NAS Reviewed

[thiggins]

QNAP's TS-332X is a 10GbE NAS that trades higher flexibility for lower price.

Read on SmallNetBuilder

 

[TheLostSwede]

I'm actually quite surprised at how poor the 10Gbps performance is on all the 10Gbps products you've tested.

Obviously tested differently, but this is what I get on my DIY NAS running OMV.

 

[thiggins]

Those numbers look way too high. Yes, test method matters a LOT.

What do you get with a large Windows sequential file copy?

 

[TheLostSwede]

Those numbers look way too high. Yes, test method matters a LOT.

What do you get with a large Windows sequential file copy?

This is from my PC to the NAS. Seemingly much faster than what you get with any of the branded boxes.

 

[thiggins]

Well, could be the ol' testbed is too slow. I am using a RAM-based drive to host the file.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Well, could be the ol' testbed is too slow. I am using a RAM-based drive to host the file.

Well, sadly that's what happens, as gear gets faster and faster, so if you don't keep up, you fall behind without even noticing.
Admittedly my hardware is all pretty top notch without going crazy. My main system is a Ryzen 1700 @ 4.85GHz with 16GB of RAM and a now "old" Plextor M8Peg SSD. Not cutting edge, but not too far off. To be honest, the NVMe drive doesn't make a huge difference in day to day tasks though.

On the other hand, I'm quite pleased I built my own NAS, as it's working really well so far and it's much more up to date software wise than the retail brands. Obviously it lacks some of the functionality on offer from those companies, but most of what's on offer, is of little to no use for me. I've also had to learn a lot more Linux skills to deal with this thing, which is both a plus and minus.

 

[TheLostSwede]

@thiggins Silly me, I have 16GB of RAM in the NAS, so this would explain why I get so high performance when dealing with "small" files.
This is what I get once the data size exceeds the RAM size.
Still not bad, but closer to the numbers you're getting in your testing.
If nothing else, it proves you need plenty of RAM in your NAS to take advantage of 10Gbps Ethernet.

 

[Rohan]

Lots of RAM, a fast processor and SSD NAS drives ( or SSD tiering) are all needed to get the best out of a 10 GbE NAS. You also need a lot of NAS users or a PC with equivalent specs as the NAS to load a NAS up to the 10 GbE limit

 

[sfx2000]

QNAP's TS-332X is a 10GbE NAS that trades higher flexibility for lower price.

QNAP seems to really like these 3-bay RAID5 configurations lately...

Would be curious to know what they're thinking there from a marketing perspective compared to 2-bay and 4-bay configurations...

 

[Skeptical.me]

Well, sadly that's what happens, as gear gets faster and faster, so if you don't keep up, you fall behind without even noticing.
Admittedly my hardware is all pretty top notch without going crazy. My main system is a Ryzen 1700 @ 4.85GHz with 16GB of RAM and a now "old" Plextor M8Peg SSD. Not cutting edge, but not too far off. To be honest, the NVMe drive doesn't make a huge difference in day to day tasks though.

On the other hand, I'm quite pleased I built my own NAS, as it's working really well so far and it's much more up to date software wise than the retail brands. Obviously it lacks some of the functionality on offer from those companies, but most of what's on offer, is of little to no use for me. I've also had to learn a lot more Linux skills to deal with this thing, which is both a plus and minus.

4.85Ghz puts my TS-253Be to absolute shame. Thats the only thing that annoys me with the smaller, cheaper, QNAP NAS' ... the Celeron processors.