The QNAP TBS-453A Changes The NAS Game

Status
Not open for further replies.

CaedenV

Splendid
This is amazingly awesome and amazingly pointless at the same time! The big issue here of course is Gigabit Ethernet... even ganging all 4 ports together with a single connection is only going to net you a total of 400MB/s, which is a speed that 2 HDDs in a RAID1/0 (or a single SSD) can easily saturate in throughput.
To really make this shine you need a bunch of 10Gb/s ports... and even then the SSDs would be bandwidth capped.

Still, amazing to see all of that m.2 connectivity though! I bet IOPS throughput is pretty awesome on this kind of box, which would be handy if you have lots of users hitting it at the same time.
 

Hanin33

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2009
388
0
18,780
0
It's a great proof of concept and way to get this type of device going in the consumer market. The issues of questionable connectivity will be addressed in future revisions, and let's be honest, the majority of buyers will not be the kind that will saturate the current connections. Let them sell these and get support going and watch for versions that meet the needs of even the top end, maybe through modular connectivity.
 

Vorador2

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2007
462
2
18,785
0
10gb network is stupid. Requires a very expensive back plane and a huge amount of CPU. Get real guys.
Is almost as worse to install an array of M.2 SSD and only add 1 Gb ports, you're essentially wasting that pricey SSD storage. The overhead added by TCP/IP AFAIK squanders the high I/O and the max throughput of the 1 Gb ports doesn't even approaches 1/10 of the total bandwidth of a good M.2 SSD. QNAP should have had the option of replacing the port module for a 10 Gb one, or at least one of them.
 

hef311

Reputable
Jan 12, 2016
1
0
4,510
0
It's a product for the home - who has 10Gb Ethernet at home, much less needs it? Streaming an HD movie only requires what, 2-4MB/s? Not sure why one would put an SSD in a home NAS. Even video transcoding / converting is going to be CPU-heavy, not I/O heavy.
 

tinnerdxp

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2008
71
0
18,630
0
I agree - it should support normal hard drives, there's no point in spending extra money on 4 x SSDs just to keep the box quiet and small... The 10Gb ports would also be useful and in terms of CPU power - it seems like it could handle that.
Interesting proof of concept - but it won't fly in a real life.
 
If you have many users who each only need say 4MB/s, then hard drives would struggle whereas SSDs would not. Gigabit Ethernet would also still be sufficient even without using ganging, so 10GbE would be unnecessarily expensive and would require the clients to also support 10GbE, which isn't likely in the home. The product has its uses as it is, though I can't help but feel that two 2.5" slots would have been better since you could then choose to use HDDs or SSDs, depending on which better suits your needs.

Something like making the Ethernet ports be through a replaceable module that could be switched out with a 10GbE version would be a nice touch too, but I doubt many people would do something like that and it might be easier to just later make a 10GbE version of the NAS for such customers.
 

Patrick_1966

Reputable
Jan 19, 2016
12
0
4,510
0
I think that the question of the Disks being saturated is moot. 4K resolution only requires about 25Mb/s throughput (Saw the calculation done somewhere...) so four channel at that level gives 100 / Mb / second required and one of the posters above indicated the 4 port can produce 400 Mb/Second. Given other issues on the network and contention for the HD's plus protocol overhead etc etc etc... 4 Gigabit ports BONDed should be sufficient to cover two standard deviations of use (95%). 10Gb would only be useful for a 3-standard deviation market (99.7%). Yes I know a probability curve is not exactly am accurate reflection of use but it gets the point across that this is designed for a market with a certain normal distribution of use cases.
 
Using four GbE ports to connect to a single other device is rather extreme. The only things it could then connect to are routers/switches with even more ports or computers with four ports. Both are expensive and unlikely to be found in a typical home, so whether or not it is enough for (using your measurements) two standard deviations is irrelevant because most of that 95% couldn't or wouldn't use such a configuration.

Basically, anyone who wants to use this as high speed network storage is going to be disappointed and anyone who doesn't want high speed network storage doesn't need it to have four SSDs. 2.5" bays would have made more sense than SSD only slots.
 

Giocas

Reputable
Feb 4, 2016
1
0
4,510
0
Did you tried to play with integrated HDMI H.265 4K videos? Or just H.265 1080p videos?
Are the hardware specs strong enough to support these kind of videos?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS