Slow transfer speed due to SSD cache acceleration

[P3R]

But I'm just wondering, is it possible to achieve 10G speeds, and if so, how and with what hardware and settings.

Adding more disks to the RAID 5 will definitely increase performance up to a point but it probably won't be able to reach full 10 GbE speed. Another problem is that it's recommended to migrate to RAID 6 when having more than 4 large disks in the RAID and that will again set your performance back due to the limited CPU.

I'm not sure but it may be possible to saturate the network with a static volume on 6, 7 or 8 disks in RAID 0 (and possibly limit all other services and apps) but that's a very odd and risky configuration. TS-1635AX is a large capacity workhorse but it simply isn't a good hardware to use if maximum performance is the goal.

[Bob Zelin]

Hello Elmucki -
you say "I love this NAS". I love QNAP, but I do not love the TS-1635, TS-1635X or TS-1635AX. QNAP makes lots of great products. The TS-1635ax is not one of them. You will not get 1000 MB/sec on a TS-1635ax. Had you spent $1500 more and purchased a TS-1685 (and today in 2021, you would have purchased the TVS-h1688X), you would be easily getting your 1000 MB/sec. But when you have a crappy CPU in the system, you get poor performance.

Let's take some other models. People look at the TVS-872XT 8 bay, and the new TVS-h1288X, and say "wow - I want those - but I can get another QNAP - the TS-832PX that has 10G ports for SO MUCH CHEAPER". Well - the TS-832PX is junk (like like the TS-831X was junk) and the TVS-872XT, the TVS-h1288X, and even the OLD OLD TVS-871T were great (and the TVS-1282T was great) - all 8 bays, all with 10G, all great. The TS-832X, and anything that is Annapurna based is complete garbage.

A Dodge Challenger is not a Ferrari - but a Dodge Challenger can at least perform. A Hundai, while it has its uses to get to work, cannot compete with a Ferrari or a Dodge Challenger - even though they all have 4 wheels, and run on regular gasoline.

SO - what can you do to make your TS-1635ax run as fast as the more expensive QNAP systems ? Nothing. Sell it, save your money, and buy the proper QNAP.
Bob Zelin

[elmucki]

QNAP TVS-h1688X-W1250-32G 16-Bay Hybrid NAS is a beast looking at the specs.... and price. I bet definitely worth it, just too much for me.... maybe in 10 years

[Pfeffernuss]

Let's take some other models. People look at the TVS-872XT 8 bay, and the new TVS-h1288X, and say "wow - I want those - but I can get another QNAP - the TS-832PX that has 10G ports for SO MUCH CHEAPER". Well - the TS-832PX is junk (like like the TS-831X was junk) and the TVS-872XT, the TVS-h1288X, and even the OLD OLD TVS-871T were great (and the TVS-1282T was great) - all 8 bays, all with 10G, all great. The TS-832X, and anything that is Annapurna based is complete garbage.

I have one of those garbage products, the 932px. Would I have rather had a 1282? Well yes. But that NAS is 4x (four times) as expensive, enclosure only. Completely unreachable for me and probably a lot of other people as well.

In the NAS I put 5 8TB hard discs for storage and 4 SSD's running as QTier (which is also regarded as a useless feature in these threads).

However, stuff goes to the NAS at around 700/800MB per second and retrieving it, while a lot slower (appr. 370MB) , is easily sufficient for my usage (streaming 4K media) and photo viewing. I only wanted a 10GBe NAS to store large (40-70GB) movies without having to wait for ages and occasional other content.

So, although a bottom of the range ** abysmal utter garbage products it probably is, I'm quite happy with it.

YMMV.

[holger_kuehn]

Let's take some other models. ...

I have one of those garbage products, .... , I'm quite happy with it.

I've to agree to this, I'm quite happy with the TS1635AX, using it as Mediastorage and Plex-Server. As most of the Network is still 1GB, the read and write performance of around 500 MB/s is more then enough to serve the six workstations / mediaplayers at the same time.

I've not done any videoediting with it, so I'll not judge it there. But it all depends on the use case for it ...