|
I will have my geeky little hands on a Synology DS508 (+3 500gb drives) within the next week and should have time to write up a little something outlining the setup and initial experience. I did a decent amount of research and it seems to be one of the better options out there for the upper end of the entry level NAS units (or lower end of the mid-range...whatever). Let me know if you have any specific questions or things you'd like me to investigate before I have to set it up at my client's site.
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2008 12:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
I asked this question in the enterprise thread too but figured we're kind of below enterprise right now. I'm looking to move our relatively small company's backup strategy to D2D2D with one NAS replicating off-site to a similar unit at our colo. All of my experience doing something similar is with equipment WAY out of our league, and I hesitate to drop 15k on entry level NAS/SAN gear for "just backup" equipment. Is there anything I should be looking at in the QNAP/Thecus/Synology/etc range that will do replication relatively hands-off or would I be looking at nothing but headaches? I have enough headaches.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2011 16:49
|
|
|
So for a small business wanting to get away from tape, would having two identical Qnaps (one at our colo) and using the built in rsync function be reliable enough for a production setup? I don't want to have to babysit it every day and coddle it to keep it working. Mainly looking to use the NAS as a B2D target and then replicating the contents off-site, although may mix in some low-priority storage and ftp functions on it too.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
Cavepimp posted:So for a small business wanting to get away from tape, would having two identical Qnaps (one at our colo) and using the built in rsync function be reliable enough for a production setup? I don't want to have to babysit it every day and coddle it to keep it working. Quoting myself just in case anyone else is interested in this project and wants me to write it up. I went ahead and pulled the trigger on two Qnap TS-809U-RP 2U units, one at our office and the other at our CoLo, loaded up with 3TB drives and will be mainly using it as an iSCSI target for our new backup environment as well as lower tier storage and moving our lightly used FTP server off old hardware. I'm switching from Backup Exec and a single LTO3 drive to Microsoft DPM 2010 and this replicated NAS setup, which should be interesting. Do we have a backup megathread? Seems like we should.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2011 07:23
|
|
|
Moey posted:What kind of performance are you getting out of the 809U-RP (and what firmware are you currently running)? I have been pretty displeased with ours (we have 4). For big slow file storage, they seem to work fine. But any kind of read that isn't sequential was terribly slow. I don't have ours quite yet (getting ready to order after getting the preliminary green light). I'm not sure I'm terribly concerned with performance for our purposes and was probably going to just RAID6 all 8 drives, but I can certainly test it all out while I'm setting them up and burning them in. What kind of numbers are you seeing and how are they set up (RAID, # disks, network)?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
I guess it's a good thing that's not what I'm doing, then. The primary NAS is my backup-to-disk target. The second, off-site NAS is going to get a scheduled delayed sync of that backup data for DR purposes. Aside from some non-critical stuff that can be replaced, no files will actually live directly on the primary NAS.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
Moey, that's interesting. Have you ever adjusted the 'Transfer Request Size' to a higher value? I think that might be part of what's limiting your results, from what I know. 32k isn't going to be very representative of most real-world scenarios (and certainly not mine). e: also curious what your network settings are. Teamed? Jumbo frames? All the benchmarks/tests I've seen indicated a much higher throughput was possible (closer to 100mb/s), and my backup window would be hosed if I got numbers like yours. Gah, e2: Do you have encryption turned on? Everything I've seen indicate that absolutely murders performance. Cavepimp fucked around with this message at 00:16 on May 14, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
Moey, if you're still around I'd be interested in comparing some more notes on these Qnap 809U's. I did go ahead and buy them, because I figured if most people were getting results like yours their forums and the internet would have exploded with rage by now. I just finished getting my first one built today. Firmware that was released today. 8x3tb, one big RAID6, EXT4, write caching off and no encryption. Crossover cable between it and a Hyper-V host, with a guest VM the only thing attaching to it via iSCSI. Forced 1000/full on both ends, no jumbo frames, no other settings tweaked. Works fine. The RAID is built with 128k cluster size, so if you run benchmarks with sub 128k reads/writes it sucks balls. 128k-8mb I was seeing above 100mb/s both read and write. I don't put a lot of stock in benchmarks though, so I added a couple 2tb LUNs to Microsoft DPM 2010 (running in the guest VM) and took a full backup of my Exchange server. It backed up 350gb in 1:11:02, which is about what I was estimating (and I think that overlapped with another job that was already scheduled to run, as well). Granted, my usage is probably a lot less random than many things, but I have a hard time thinking you can't get more out of yours with some tweaks.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2011 06:09
|
|
|
Moey posted:Still around, sorry I didn't get back with more numbers as planned (the specific NAS I was testing on, was thrown into production hosting scans). Once I get into the office tomorrow, I will figure out if I still have one to test on, or if I have to relocate that scan directory. Since you are getting good results, it makes me want to make mine get some good performance (like yours). Thanks for the update, it gives me hope with these. No problem. I already threw my primary one into half-production (there were things we aren't capturing with our current backups, so it makes me feel a little better) but I still have my secondary unit available to tweak around with for a few weeks if we want to try some different configs and compare. I purposely went simple with the config on that first one and it seems to be good so far, but I want to play around with teaming and jumbo frames to see what happens too. I'm not really expecting it to make much difference for my purposes, maybe another 5-10mb/s, but it could squeeze a little more performance out of it or kill the performance if something isn't right. I read a lot of the posts on their forums from people having problems and it was almost always a config problem or someone trying to make it more complicated than it really is.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
Moey posted:At work we have 4 QNAP TS-809U-RP. For lower tiered large slow storage, they have been working great. We originally grabbed a few to use for VMWare storage using iSCSI, but were not getting good enough performance out of them for what we wanted (someone else on this forum has the same ones and is getting much better performance, could be a misconfiguration on my end). As for reliability, have not really had any problems. About a month ago I noticed one of the arrays (8x1tb Raid 5) had dropped a disk. The system was showing that there was no disk in there. Swapped the disk, array rebuilt fine, everything was good. No downtime from the system. I ran a few tests on the disk that dropped and it seemed fine. Decided to throw it back into the array (in the same bay that it was reporting dead in), came back online fine, rebuilt the array, still chugging. That was me. I have two of the TS-809U-RP's and they've worked great for my purposes so far, although my usage is slightly atypical. I am using them as iSCSI targets for our backup server to store backups on, the primary one essentially replicating to the secondary located off-site. Performing just that one function by one server it works great (110+MB/sec). I'm about to add some lower tier file shares to it now as well since the usage hours are completely opposite for those two functions. The only hiccup I had was with the 3tb drives. Out of the box the units had an older firmware that didn't support my drives, so I needed to scrounge up a smaller disk for the initial setup and firmware flash.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2011 05:09
|
|