https://www.qnap.com/en-us/news/201 7/computex-2017-sneak-pr

>>60706331
lol that's some /r/homelab tier shit where people put 24 cores and 256GB RAM in their seed boxes or """home""" servers

>>60706350
I can understand the the use of a 8 core monstrosity if dual 10GbE is saturated and especially if it's running some VPNs or VMs.

But for home NAS? Way overkill.

>>60706373
These are pretty much for running vms.

>be dad
>buy thin clients for your kids so whenever they fuck up you can just reset their pcs in a matter of minutes
doesn't sound so bad

>QNAP
>prosumer NAS
>2x 10GbE and 8 core
>custom motherboard
>6 bays

$2000 minimum

>>60706331
Qnap is shit

>>60706350
That's actually a good use for a multicore processor.

>>60706850
SMBs love QNAP way more than synology.

>>60706867
Wish my boss did. Got two synologys with Intel ticking time bomb c2000s. Not looking forward to that shit when the fix they've offered is soldering a resistor on the mobo to only delay the inevitable. I need to sort my shit out and learn how to set up a decent samba/zfs box.

>>60706867
And plenty love Netgear, but that doesn't mean it's any good

>>60706939
The people buying these overpriced NAS bays don't care about that, they care about it working until it breaks and having a warranty to easily replace it.

I'd personally wait for Ryzen 3/APUs before building a FreeNAS box.
There are already ITX boards for AM4 so everything is ready besides my wallet

>>60706934
>Got two synologys with Intel ticking time bomb c2000s
Shit like this is why I cringe every time I hear some mongoloid shill shamble around spouting "AMD is unreliable" bullshit and FUD.

>>60706331
After Pajeet gets done writing a bloated web admin panel and Rajeesh gets done with the bloated as fuck Enterprise Class Java NAS software 16 cores won't even be enough.

>>60707202
QNAP web interface can run on a fucking toaster.

Is there a Xepnology project for QNAP's GUI?

>>60706331
>Putting 16 cores in a mail server?
What a interesting idea, I would hate it if my DNS and DHCP server choked on two connections, I'll get a 32 core EPYC for it just to be sure

>>60706331
Can't you turn it into a regular server though?
It has PCIE expansion slots left so put a router/firewall, a web server, a file server, a mail server and if you do it right you should still have some resources left.
Why not?

>>60707933
You'd be better off building your own pfsense/freenas setup if you want the kitchen sink.

File: Workstation.jpg (1MB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x2448px

>>60706373
>I can understand the the use of a 8 core monstrosity if dual 10GbE is saturated and especially if it's running some VPNs or VMs.
Its not needed, running NTttcp at ~9.5gb/s uses about 55% of a single core of a E5-2660v2 in a VM. It would use less if it could actually offload everything on to the NIC.

>>60706350
>"""home""" servers
pic related

>>60706934
If you didnt buy from a poorfag company they'd advance RMA it for you. Cisco is doing that.

>>60708628
How much users? Note that this is QNAP's SMB lineup, so this is for companies.

File: 1496330691187.png (226KB, 295x395px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 295x395px

>No one here has seriously ever heard of ZFS
NAS can require horsepower if you want it to.
Compression, dedup, snapshots, checksums...

>>60706331
That's a lot of juice but at least you could use them for VMs, transcoding and encryption if hardware for those wasn't included.

>>60708688
ZFS needs a lot of memory more than anything.
ECC memory.

>>60708648
>How much users?
what?

>Note that this is QNAP's SMB lineup, so this is for companies.
No its not. Its for retards who dont own an actual server and just want a low end appliance. Boxes from companies like EMC, Nimble, HPE/3PAR and NetApp are actually enterprise class.

Doesn't the CPU handle raid5/6 parity building in these, meaning that better cpu = higher i/o? Or do they have a specialized raid chip for that?

>>60708811
I'm not talking about scale out and enterprise, but fucking SMB, that means small companies.
These are for SMB, QNAP has enterprise NASes and they're far more expensive and robust than this.

>>60708820
usually its softraid in these

>>60706867
Why's that? I chose the platform based on the workload. I've used Synology's for their AES-NI and QNAP for VM's. Changes as features or platforms change and what will do the job at the time.

>>60706934
Got one myself, hope it isn't bad since there was no recall or anything. 2 years so far on my 1815+ so good but not happy about it for sure.

>>60706331
fuck yes, now maybe h.265 live encoding is possible (it isn't with Intels botnet hardware backdoor 4core shit)

>>60709003
The fuck if I know, possibly some checkbox middle managers like more.
Both are expensive as shit, so it's not that.
Maybe QNAP is RMA friendlier.

>>60706331
>Putting 16 cores in a mail server?
why not ? our mailserver at work has a 24core xeon

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-02 10-35-06.png (97KB, 630x577px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 630x577px

>>60708761
Only if you want to dedup or use lots of RAM cache to accelerate reads.
Kicks EXT4's teeth in any day when it comes to reads.

>>60709089
What kind of RAID is that?

>>60709108
RAID 1 of two shitty SATA 2 SSDs in a laptop.

They even dump sectors when forcefully depowered but ZFS corrects based on checksums.

>>60709121
And you get 3k reads from two 500MB/s SATA drives? How the fuck?

File: 2180f210b4970d8fdece5cd2a62163a6.png (251KB, 500x580px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 500x580px

>>60709139
RAM caching, son.

File: Boot Disk.png (40KB, 866x746px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 866x746px

>>60709121
No, its just a RAM disk and it is pretty bad at that. Pic related is 8x SATA SSDs in a RAID 0 with single channel RAM write cache

>>60709152
Does it affect IOPS or writes?

>>60709108
It's only a 10MB sample size

>>60709254
Yeah? Usually on smaller files I/O operations are lower.
That's why care more about QD1-4 performance than QD16

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-02 10-58-05.png (153KB, 630x577px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 630x577px

>>60709171
Writes work in transaction groups to lessen the I/O impact and boost IOPs but it's an SSD so I get a marginal boost in throughput but other than that it writes at the slowest disk speed.

The writes are fairly poor at 100MB/s and ZFS ensures everything stays in it's nice neat 5 second transaction groups so nothing past 5 seconds of data will be lost if power drops.

>>60709267
10MB will sit in RAM cache no problem which is why the performance is so good.
I look for the lowest QD in benchmarks myself, mirrors typical home use better.

File: Areca 1883ix-24.png (702KB, 1170x576px) Image search: [Google]

702KB, 1170x576px

>>60709289
>only 500MB of data will be lost
which is why you buy a real raid card like my areca. ffs even my SSDs have supercaps for their write cache

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-02 11-02-22.png (98KB, 630x577px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 630x577px

>>60709360
Well, it's a laptop. It has a built in UPS and no convenient PCIe port to stick a RAID controller into.
My server on the other hand has an SLOG attached and maintains 300MB/s sync write and 800MB/s async depending on my dataset/ directory and how much continuity of data matters vs speed.

>>60709424
>It has a built in UPS
Doesnt matter if your computer crashes and you have to power cycle it

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-02 10-52-49.png (49KB, 825x291px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 825x291px

>>60709454
It is a laptop.

My server has the aforementioned features for actual integrity.

>>60709520
what card are you using?

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-02 11-19-11.png (133KB, 1228x666px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1228x666px

>>60709536
None. It's an HBA for use with ZFS.
I do have an oracle write accelerator 4x 24GB SSDs to pipe sync writes through.

The disks are all attached directly to the system and use software to layer the data.

One scrub caught an error in a file that I can't be arsed to dig through tape to get back though.

>>60709619
>ZFS uses write cache
>but i magically wont lose data
keep on deluding yourself

>>60709711
It's a log not a write cache.
it can replay transactions carried out from the last 5 seconds.
All that data has already been committed to disk and is recorded in those 4 SSDs.

It's for sync writes not async caching.

File: StorageReview-Seagate-600-Pro-SSD-PCB.jpg (192KB, 850x624px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 850x624px

>>60709871
>All that data has already been committed to disk and is recorded in those 4 SSDs.
And the SSDs have their own caches of which you'll lose data from unless you were like me and bought enterprise class SSDs with integrated super capacitors

File: 5815_2F1463003851_2Fsun_oracle_541-3731_96gb_xta-fas-s3ie96gb_pci-express_flash_accelerator_f20_sas.jpg (120KB, 1000x778px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1000x778px

>>60709906
It's battery backed.
Nigga please, you gettin' heated.

>>60709960
sorry i forgot about that part

>>60709995
>Xeon D at 1.8GHz literally 3 times more powerful

Lmao

>>60709995
Let's hope it doesn't brick itself this time, fucking shill. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/244074-intel-atom-c2000-bug-killing-products-multiple-manufacturers

File: 1496375120876.png (500KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 600x580px

>>60709995
>Atom
>AKA
>Two thirds the power consumption
>One forth of the power

AYYMD HOUSEFIRES

I'm not buying this

>>60709619
>tfw when you have vdev level checksum errors in zfs but block devices are fine

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 4.20.54 PM.png (224KB, 1010x593px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1010x593px

Which one's the best deal?

Is there a significant difference between x370 and B350?

>>60706839
Of course, but pretty much all NASes are really overpriced.

People pay because they are very incompetent.

>>60713691
>x370 and B350
Sli. Just get a good b350 mobo.