QNAP firmware issues : Major file system bug

[P3R]

And there is no process burning cpu caused system slow down.

That also isn't the same symptom as the problem in this thread.

[centropy]

Beta Firmware: 3.6.0 Build 1228T is not solving anything... i must stay under say like 170GB Free of the total: 5.36TB.
When having less free then 170GB the BUG will occur!!!
Since the Support Help desk does NOT recognize my problem or dare to verify that there is such a bug, i have to move on to another brand! I will not hesitate to give negative feedback on the brand Qnap, since they leave our powerusers that try to utilize the device where it's mend for DOWN!

Goodbye Qnap! hello Synology!

[Don]

Beta Firmware: 3.6.0 Build 1228T is not solving anything

They never said this version fixed the problem. What they said was they identified the problem and since it was a kernel issue it was going to take them a while to perform regression tests with an updated kernel. The 3.6 version was probably in the works before the issue was identified.

[chrisqncl]

i must stay under say like 170GB Free of the total: 5.36TB.
When having less free then 170GB the BUG will occur!!!
...

have you checked your tuning parameters of your file system? By default in ext3, 5% of the
disk space of the volume is reserved for the "root" user to allow the system processes
running under UID 0 (root) write access even if the disk is nearly full.

170GB is about 3%.

See man page of tune2fs

[MikeHuset]

And here I was told it was an issue with the drives I bought. LOL. Great thread though took me awhile to get through it. 2-TS809 same issue has been for along time. Running 3.5.2. All I can say is wow great thread hope they get this samba thing fixed. I have to reboot my qnap daily.

[BloodShed]

QNAP, what is going on with this issue? This problem has been going on for a year, this thread has been going for over 6 months, and it's been 10 weeks since we last heard from you that the problem has finally been identified as a kernel issue. When are we getting a fix?

[touki]

This has rendered my unit useless. I will not be buying another QNAP, I will be building my own. I will not suggest any of my friends buy these either

[Egg7]

Do like some of us here: viewtopic.php?f=45&t=33431&start=90
Grab a Syno 1010+, this unit rocks.

[Stin]

QNAP, what is going on with this issue? This problem has been going on for a year, this thread has been going for over 6 months, and it's been 10 weeks since we last heard from you that the problem has finally been identified as a kernel issue. When are we getting a fix?

I'm pretty sure I also have this issue now.
6 months and no fix!?
From what I thought was a premium NAS vendor. I might as well have bought a netgear.

I've only been putting up with this issue a short time and I think its rediculous.
I cant imagine what everyone else must be going through.

Time to leave some reviews on amazon, ebuyer, Aria, scan etc.
I suggest everyone else do the same.

Perhaps once people stop buying their products they'll assign some priority to fixing these problems. But for me the damage will have already been done.

[AdrianW]

6 months and no fix!?

Make that 13 months and you'd be closer to the truth!!!

[AdrianW]

Do like some of us here: viewtopic.php?f=45&t=33431&start=90
Grab a Syno 1010+, this unit rocks.

Is Synology's firmware based on a different Linux kernel to the one used by Qnap? If it's the same then it may have the same issues.

I've tried googling "Synology slow copy" and "synology stall copy" and a number of results come up, not necessarily the same problems - but people are having issues with those devices as well.

[Egg7]

Do like some of us here: viewtopic.php?f=45&t=33431&start=90
Grab a Syno 1010+, this unit rocks.

Is Synology's firmware based on a different Linux kernel to the one used by Qnap? If it's the same then it may have the same issues.

I've been using mine since I got rid of the TS410. It's averaging between 10 and 50GB of free space so I'd say no, it doesn't have the same problem.
Besides, my old TS410 speed was like 13-15 MB/s. My 1010+ does 26-30MB/s, so twice as fast. Same install, same cables, same routeur (50€ Netgear), same computer, same everything. Conclusion's easy.

Came back to this thread since I cleaned most of my bookmarks. Quite "funny" that after more than 6 months after my problem, ans this one (perhaps not the same problems, yeah right) touching many customers, this hasn't been fixed.

[P3R]

...my old TS410 speed was like 13-15 MB/s. My 1010+ does 26-30MB/s, so twice as fast.

With the DS1010+ having more than 3 times the specified power consumption, 4 times the RAM, a much faster processor and being much more expensive a performance comparison between those models is totally irrelevant. A TS-559 Pro or something would be fair to compare against a DS1010+.

If you expected the performance of a Porsche 911, you shouldn't have bought a Skoda Fabia.

Come to think of it the very low performance you see from the DS1010+ (Synology claims read/write speeds of more than 115/109 MB/sec), may be an indication that you have some problem there also.

[Egg7]

I know the specs and the prices are not the same. But specs are almost irrelevant since I'm the only user of the NAS, and mostly for backups during the nights. Even the "low" (they're not low, they're plenty enough) specs of the TS410, with nothing else running on it, should have been able to handle single-threaded file copys from SyncBack at a better steady speed during the nights.
My last post on this thread, don't want to derail anymore. Just pointing out that other better solutions are out there in almost the same price range, especially without a critical unpatched bug reported more than a year ago.

[AdrianW]

But specs are almost irrelevant since I'm the only user of the NAS

CPU speed is certainly NOT irrelevant, especially if you're using RAID - the CPU has to perform all the RAID parity calculations, and lower end NAS boxes will max out their CPU's when copying data to the box, even in a single stream.