QNAP TS-451+ SOHO NAS Review
by Ganesh T S on October 29, 2015 8:00 AM ESTMulti-Client NFS Performance for Professional Workloads
We looked at the multi-client performance of CIFS shares for professional workloads in the previous section. In a similar manner, we also evaluated the multi-client NFS performance of the QNAP TS-451+. Instead of the Windows 7 VMs, we used CentOS 7 VMs. The network configuration remained the same. The NFS share exported on the NAS was mounted with the following options.
<NAS_IP>:/PATH_TO_NFS_SHARE /PATH_TO_LOCAL_MOUNT_FOLDER nfs rw,relatime,vers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,namlen=255,hard,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2, sec=sys,mountaddr <NAS_IP>,mountvers=3,mountproto=udp,local_lock=none,addr=<NAS_IP> 0 0
Using a popular filer benchmarking program, we did played back the same multi-client real-world professional workload access traces used in the previous section. Similar to the strategy for the CIFS performance evaluation, failing to meet the required op rate criteria at a particular load point made us stop the testing a couple of load points down the road. The QNAP TS-451+ with four 7200 RPM hard drives in RAID-5 can support recording of 10 or more video streams, 4 or less databases, 5 or less software builds and 2 or less virtual desktops when it comes to NFS performance.
Database Operations
The Database Operations workload seems to get / doesn't seem to get acceptable performance for up to 4 clients.The detailed metrics from our trace playback are available here
Software Builds
The Software Builds workload seems to get / doesn't seem to get acceptable performance for up to 5 clients.The detailed metrics from our trace playback are available here
Video Recording
The Video Recording workload seems to get / doesn't seem to get acceptable performance for up to 10 clients.The detailed metrics from our trace playback are available here
Virtual Desktops
The Virtual Desktops workload seems to get / doesn't seem to get acceptable performance for up to 2 clients.The detailed metrics from our trace playback are available here
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
View All Comments
mwituni - Thursday, November 19, 2015 - link
As an existing QNAP user, I don't know how any QNAP NAS's can be seriously considered for any awards, nor why they do so well on reviews.They entice buyers with fancy options, but are not interested in developing applications users need.
SVN (Subversion Source Control) is the most popular and source control software in use, yet QNAP have been promising a proper SVN-server application since 2009, and still not delivered! How can users take them seriously - they're obviously not interested in developing applications the community needs, only the minimum needed to trick buyers into purchasing and evaluators to award prizes. They claim you can install SVN by an outdated method - which is very risky and outdated by a few years, and in my experience does not work at all.
They have a GIT client, so can claim they "have" source control applications. But no SVN support.
Their marketing department needs to kick the development team into gear.
krazyderek - Sunday, January 10, 2016 - link
maybe you should should join everyone else and switch to GIT ;) https://git-scm.com/book/en/v1/Git-and-Other-Syste...gnalley - Saturday, January 23, 2016 - link
Don't try to use this device as a standalone windows domain controller. The SAMBA and DHCP implementations are missing two CRITICAL components for it to work.Samba is missing the ability to do DNS Forwarders...and DHCP does not allow you to input the OPTIONS command. Both of these functions are critical to having a working solution. If you want a standalone MS Domain Controller that works. Look elsewhere.
StaksOnStaks - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link
I noticed the model tested was the 8GB. Any sense of how the performance would compare to the 2GB? For example, I noticed the Synology DS415+ was very close in the performance, but only has 2GB. Would the 2GB version of the QNAP TS-451+ perform as well compared to the Synology DS415+?