Mount SSD as SSD

[hakannordell]

the expansion box is usb attached ....not much use for SSDs in there..you are a bundle of bad idras eh ? :p

That´s correct, if you use them as cache. Why settle for HDD when it is SSD I'm just testing what is possible, if I someday want to buy a number of Samsung PM1633a and replace the HDD in the UX.

And... If you look at Qnap compability list for the UX, they list a bundle of SSD for the UX

[hakannordell]

@Håkan, It's too late for us to give advice now that you've already spent a lot of money on that system. The next time, please ask before buying and configuring.

I will put the 431 as a backup over the WAN far from here, and the ReadyNAS Ultra 6 is getting old and tired. Thought about changing the OS to OS6, but I don´t know. Det means I will buy a new machine in the next month to act as a new backup. Thinking a bit on the TS-831X because it has 10GbE and then I could buy a new network card to the 471. Or the TVS-871, but I don´t need two machines with i7 processors, and 10 GbE is soo interesting.

[P3R]

I will put the 431 as a backup over the WAN far from here...

Excellent.

Det means I will buy a new machine in the next month to act as a new backup. Thinking a bit on the TS-831X because it has 10GbE and then I could buy a new network card to the 471.

10 Gbps is overkill for backups but it sure sounds like a nice setup. The TS-831X alone is a better NAS than most can afford...

[P3R]

That´s correct, if you use them as cache. Why settle for HDD when it is SSD

The problem with the UX-line of expansion chassis is that the USB interface is a bottleneck already with mechanical disks. Anything faster would only be a terrible waste of money...

Unfortunately not all products Qnap sell are good...

And... If you look at Qnap compability list for the UX, they list a bundle of SSD for the UX

Was the SSDs not recognized at all? If so I agree that's odd.

[hakannordell]

Unfortunately not all products Qnap sell are good...

Agree, should have purchased the 871T from the begining, but I thought that it was too expensive then, and that was before I started with Plex

Was the SSDs not recognized at all? If so I agree that's odd.

No, not recognized at all. Tested various SSD and various bays

[P3R]

It's not that I want to rub salt into your wounds Håkan but an advice to others that may come to this thread in the future is to not buy the Qnap UX-line of storage expansion.

The UX-line (UX-500 and UX-800) of storage expansion are performance-limited and almost always not a good buy!

Let's assume that someone bought a TVS-471 and realize they need more disks. A comparison with approximate pricing of the alternatives would be:

• TVS-471 (≈$1000) + UX-500 (≈$500) ≈ $1500
• TVS-871 (≈$1500) - resell value of the used TVS-471 (≈$500) ≈ $1000

In addition, the TVS-871 alone offer better performance and is a cleaner and better solution technically than TVS-471+UX-500.

If we look at the UX-800 instead it's a much worse performance hog than the 5-bay brother and about the same price as a TS-831X. A separate NAS like the TS-831X offer the same storage expansion capacity but have much better performance and offer far more flexibility than adding a UX-800.

The other storage expansion product families from Qnap (REXP, TX and EJ, compatible only with high-end SMB and enterprise line NASes) are costly but at least have appropriate interfaces to do this kind of large scale storage expansion with reasonable performance.

[hakannordell]

It's not that I want to rub salt into your wounds Håkan.....

Well, I'm pretty satisfied with mine. Partly it´s not likely to exceed USB 3.0s rate of 5 Gb/s, partly because it´s flexible. I have not thought of using it as a mobile device, but it´s possibility to unlink it from the 471 and connect it to another QNAP, with all data intact. Furthermore, I do not know if I agree that´s a expensive solution. My UX + 471 + i7 + 16GB cost $2667. Corresponding 871 costs $3066. And then I have 4 GB of memory and an i3 processor left over, that I can sell. Also, I have 9 bays instead of 871s 8 bays. But honestly, if I had bought today, it would probably become a 871 anyway

I said this weekend that I was thinking of buying a new machine, and my thoughts primarily was directed against the TS-831X and its 10GbE SFP +. And last night, I made my order, but I changed a little in my list

[P3R]

Partly it´s not likely to exceed USB 3.0s rate of 5 Gb/s...

The marketed 5 Gbit/s of USB 3.0 is in reality more like 2.5-3 Gbit/s. It's the same as with WiFi marketing numbers...

3 Gbit/s = 375 MBytes/sec.

A total of 375 MBytes/sec give us 75 MBytes/sec per disk in a UX-500.

It's probably not noticeable until you upgrade the LAN to 10 GbE but it's a performance bottleneck compared to internal disks.

In a UX-800 it's <47 MBytes/sec per disk and there are owners reporting here in the forum they're really disappointed with that performance.

...partly because it´s flexible. I have not thought of using it as a mobile device, but it´s possibility to unlink it from the 471 and connect it to another QNAP, with all data intact.

A TS-531X is about the same price as a UX-500 (and a TS-831X cost less than a UX-800). Those NASes (apart from offering 10 GbE and better performance) are as mobile as the expansion units but they can be used anywhere without requiring a Qnap NAS there to connect it to. In my book a NAS is always the more flexible alternative.

Furthermore, I do not know if I agree that´s a expensive solution. My UX + 471 + i7 + 16GB cost $2667. Corresponding 871 costs $3066. And then I have 4 GB of memory and an i3 processor left over, that I can sell.

I looked at the pricing of the TVS-871-i3-4G as that is the comparable model. Any CPU and RAM upgrades done are irrelevant as they can be done in the same way, at the same cost, on the 8-bay.

Also, I have 9 bays instead of 871s 8 bays.

That's true.

[hakannordell]

.....3 Gbit/s = 375 MBytes/sec.
A total of 375 MBytes/sec give us 75 MBytes/sec per disk in a UX-500.
It's probably not noticeable until you upgrade the LAN to 10 GbE but it's a performance bottleneck compared to internal disks.....

Oh well, I'm stuck with it now, so I might be a bit constructive. The UX can certainly act as backup to the new one, and then performance is´n so important. But I must remember to always have larger disks in the UX than what´s available in the new one. That can be hard

[storageman]

Unfortunately not all products Qnap sell are good...

Agree, should have purchased the 871T from the begining, but I thought that it was too expensive then, and that was before I started with Plex

Was the SSDs not recognized at all? If so I agree that's odd.

No, not recognized at all. Tested various SSD and various bays

So why are they on the compat list? Have you told Qnap? I find this strange, would have heard by now if SSDs can't go in UX expansions.

[hakannordell]

....So why are they on the compat list? Have you told Qnap? I find this strange, would have heard by now if SSDs can't go in UX expansions.

I tested with Samsung EVO 256 and 512 and with Samsung Evo Pro 256. Nothing worked.

[hakannordell]

UX was not as flexible as I thought I unmounted the UX correctly from the 471, and plugged in the in 1635. And when it identifyed the UX, it as I got these errors. Note that I do not have a thin volume, but it is thick. Back again to the 471, and it works like a charm after it have been identifyed.

Code: Select all

Typ	Datum	Tid	Användare	Ursprungligt IP	Datornamn	Innehåll	
Fel	2017-04-04	21:42:44	System	127.0.0.1	localhost	[Pool 2] Thin pool metadata could not be activated successfully.	
Varning	2017-04-04	21:42:40	System	127.0.0.1	localhost	[Storage Manager][RAID Group 4] Not all disks are assembled (Missing  REXP#1 Drive: 1 2 3 4 5).
Information 	2017-04-04	21:42:36	admin	192.168.0.185	---	[Storage Roaming] Started to scan free drives in all enclosures.	
Information 	2017-04-04	21:41:45	System	127.0.0.1	localhost	REXP#1: plugged in.

[storageman]

UX was not as flexible as I thought I unmounted the UX correctly from the 471, and plugged in the in 1635. And when it identifyed the UX, it as I got these errors. Note that I do not have a thin volume, but it is thick. Back again to the 471, and it works like a charm after it have been identifyed.

Code: Select all

Typ	Datum	Tid	Användare	Ursprungligt IP	Datornamn	Innehåll	
Fel	2017-04-04	21:42:44	System	127.0.0.1	localhost	[Pool 2] Thin pool metadata could not be activated successfully.	
Varning	2017-04-04	21:42:40	System	127.0.0.1	localhost	[Storage Manager][RAID Group 4] Not all disks are assembled (Missing  REXP#1 Drive: 1 2 3 4 5).
Information 	2017-04-04	21:42:36	admin	192.168.0.185	---	[Storage Roaming] Started to scan free drives in all enclosures.	
Information 	2017-04-04	21:41:45	System	127.0.0.1	localhost	REXP#1: plugged in.

Why are you getting "REXP#1: plugged in." message if UX-500
UX-500 is approved for 1635, I would feed back to Qnap if there's an issue.

[hakannordell]

Why are you getting "REXP#1: plugged in." message if UX-500. UX-500 is approved for 1635, I would feed back to Qnap if there's an issue.

I moved it from the 471, but -Yea, It´s a couple of things now that I will report back to Qnap this weekend.

Here is another thing.. Copying 471 from 1635 with RTRR. Error after 2 TB, repeats over and over again. Copying, same settings with RSYNC, works like a charm, all 8 TB.

Code: Select all

Typ	Datum	Tid	Användare	Ursprungligt IP	Datornamn	Innehåll	
Varning	2017-04-04	04:53:15		127.0.0.1	localhost	(Job from client: 192.168.0.12)[Hybrid Backup Sync] (Sync) Job All to Calvus 1 failed: Broken pipe, the server connection closed unexpectedly!. Begin the 3rd retry.