Steltek
Diamond Member
https://www.newegg.com/qnap-ts-431k-us/p/N82E16822099101
$319-$60 promo code for email subscribers (promo code
93XPQ86).
$319-$60 promo code for email subscribers (promo code
93XPQ86).
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
QNAP TS-431K 4-bay NAS $259.00 at Newegg after promo code
- Thread starter Steltek
- Start date
Steltek
Diamond Member
Yeah, I noticed that - I guess you get what you pay for. Probably why they specifically named it as being a "home" NAS.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
Price is good, but honestly, I didn't think it was all that great a deal, so I didn't post it.
I'm using a TS-431 (its ancestor, no longer made), and it's alright, it's functional, but write speeds over 1GbE using RAID-5 still don't hit 100MB/sec conistently (more like 50-65MB/sec). And my TS-431 cannot utilize the QNAP 5GbE USB3.0 dongle adapter. (My TS-451 can, though, but it only boosts the speed from 112MB/sec to 140-150MB/sec. Methinks the USB3.0 port requires too much CPU attention, or my USB Type-C to Type-A cable is screwed up again.)
The TS-431K has a quad-core ARM, I think that my TS-431 (original) only has a dual-core ARM, so you might get better throughput, especially on writes, with the TS-431K.
And of course, for a "first NAS", it's probably not to bad, it is QNAP, so it has a LOT of features.
Edit: That, and the non-upgradeable (?) RAM situation. I would go with a 4GB or an 8GB NAS, with an x86/x64 CPU (Atom or Xeon or Celeron) if you want performance and virtualization support.
There is a TS-431KX, and TS-431X3 or KX3, check those out, they have 2.5GbE and 10GbE ports on them.
I'm using a TS-431 (its ancestor, no longer made), and it's alright, it's functional, but write speeds over 1GbE using RAID-5 still don't hit 100MB/sec conistently (more like 50-65MB/sec). And my TS-431 cannot utilize the QNAP 5GbE USB3.0 dongle adapter. (My TS-451 can, though, but it only boosts the speed from 112MB/sec to 140-150MB/sec. Methinks the USB3.0 port requires too much CPU attention, or my USB Type-C to Type-A cable is screwed up again.)
The TS-431K has a quad-core ARM, I think that my TS-431 (original) only has a dual-core ARM, so you might get better throughput, especially on writes, with the TS-431K.
And of course, for a "first NAS", it's probably not to bad, it is QNAP, so it has a LOT of features.
Edit: That, and the non-upgradeable (?) RAM situation. I would go with a 4GB or an 8GB NAS, with an x86/x64 CPU (Atom or Xeon or Celeron) if you want performance and virtualization support.
There is a TS-431KX, and TS-431X3 or KX3, check those out, they have 2.5GbE and 10GbE ports on them.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
Sorry to be a downer. It's a basic, entry-level, 2x 1GbE-T NAS unit with 4 bays, and it's not much more expensive than a 2-bay NAS, with the promo code. So if you're new to the world of NAS units, it should be a decent starter NAS unit, with plenty of features and documentation to get you started.
And double-check what OS it can run, my TS-431 (original) is stuck on maintenance revisions of QTS 4.3.6.xxxx, hopefully this unit, being a newer release, isn't similarly crippled in the firmware. (The TS-431, when 4.3.6 was "new", had a "special" version for it, because it was an ARM CPU and had very little RAM, so it needed special treatment. My TS-451, bought around the same time, continues to get actual QTS OS revision / feature updates. Also, my TS-431 can only create static volumes, and not "Storage Pools" and "Thick/Thin Volumes" due to being limited on the QTS OS version. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the TS-431K wasn't likewise limited.)
And double-check what OS it can run, my TS-431 (original) is stuck on maintenance revisions of QTS 4.3.6.xxxx, hopefully this unit, being a newer release, isn't similarly crippled in the firmware. (The TS-431, when 4.3.6 was "new", had a "special" version for it, because it was an ARM CPU and had very little RAM, so it needed special treatment. My TS-451, bought around the same time, continues to get actual QTS OS revision / feature updates. Also, my TS-431 can only create static volumes, and not "Storage Pools" and "Thick/Thin Volumes" due to being limited on the QTS OS version. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the TS-431K wasn't likewise limited.)
With a Windows client? Why would they?
Major NAS makers (Synology, QNAP, Asustor - and probably others too) give you performance figures - usually a best case scenario they created to get the "up to X MB/s" that goes to the datasheet.
https://www.qnap.com/en/product_x_performance/product.php?type=4&II=156
Windows Upload - single 10GB File: 79 MB/s
I'd say 50-65 in a mixed file size scenario is pretty good.
SoC in your TS-431 is somehow similar to what Synology uses in their cheapest product: 1-bay DS120j (dual-core Marvell Armada 3700 88F3720).
It's good for 60MB/s write (sequential, single large file) whereas almost everything else in the lineup does >90MB/s.
Windows Upload - single 10GB File: 185MB/s (over 5GbE adapter) and 162MB/s (over dual 1GbE).
https://www.qnap.com/en/product_x_performance/product.php?type=4&II=438
I don't see why it wouldn't be a good "first and last* NAS". It's not exactly missing anything a home user may really need.
Unless of course someone just can't mentally accept having a mainstream LAN connection (be it 1GbE or 2.5GbE). But that moves us to 10GbE NASes with very powerful SoCs and NVMe SSDs.
So yeah, you're spending $2000 more and your 20GB vacation video uploads in 30s instead of slightly under 2 minutes. Which is a big win for human civilization, obviously. 🙂
If someone buys a NAS with big plans for running containers, he should get something with a 64-bit SoC (and ideally x86 for peace of mind).
*) of course it's a QNAP, so it'll likely malfunction or stop getting crucial updates after 3 years (no offense to all QNAP fans, you know how it is 😉 )
for file storage OK, but what if you want to playback files from it with plex? is 2gb going to be oK? for me i think what can i get for a little more, then i keep looking finally i settle on a 550$ asustor 6604 or something, then i think to myself why not just use a mini pc plugged into a storage box 🙁 really wish i could make easy decision. Also if i take this nas apart can i upgrade the ram. if i can then id try it out and give it away if its not good enough. SIGH.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
$50 off w/ promo code W4SCHYRWY34, limited offer
Steltek
Diamond Member
I'm pretty much the same way. I waffle back and forth regularly between buying a cheap or more expensive NAS unit. The iminent demise of Google Play Music is going to force the issue with my music collection as cloud storage isn't a possibility for me (rural internet sucks) and I've decided that I really despise Youtube Music. Google should get over their digital erectile dysfunction for once and actually manage to finish a project without canceling it.
Then, there is also the urge to simply build a NAS. Silverstone has line of of NAS chassis intended for building hot-swap NAS units in the $100 to $200 range. Would it save me any money? No, not knowing me.
But, it would probably be something nice to tinker with and I'd get exactly what I want and not simply be stuck with what features QNAP/Synology/ASUStor et al thinks I should have to spend to support their bottom line. Guess I'll wait until Black Friday to see what might turn up component-price related.
You pay the NAS maker for taking care of such things. So if he offers this NAS as usable for plex, it probably is. Otherwise we're just neglecting the whole idea of home NAS for consumers. I'd advise not to overthink these devices. They are made for people who may not really know what RAM is.
Sure, if you start to bomb it with parallel requests for file operations, video transcoding and running containers, it'll become overwhelmed - at which point it should queue and complete these jobs in a fairly optimal manner - instead of collapsing and throwing errors. 😉
But same can be said about any other computer. Each one has some limits.
But why? Is this pure GAS or what?
Seriously, it's a simple NAS. Use it as it was designed to be used. Or buy something else. The urge to upgrade everything just makes no sense.
Of you like tinkering with computers, just don't treat it as a computer. Treat it as a home appliance. You're probably not thinking how to upgrade your fridge with a stronger compressor or replace it with an industrial cold store...
And if you can't, just don't buy a ready-made NAS. Go for a DIY one.
I would expect more actually from a raid5 setup that's modern. My old Intel ss4200-e can hit 45MB/s writing and 85MB/s reading and it's over 10 years old now. Modern nas units should have near gigabit transfers with the advances and drives and cpus and chipsets at this point, imo.
My synology is the fastest of all the nas units I own, and it's an older one ds215j. Each of my nas units has only one drive besides the ss4200-e and the synology comes close to maxing out gigabit. I would think with two drives in raid0, it would easily max it out.
Of course, this is for simple file operations which is all a nas needs to be imo. Running tasks on a nas unit just turns it into a crippled computer imo. Might as well do a virtualized freenas build if you want to do other stuff on the hardware.
RAID 5 doesn't matter. Just like putting SSDs inside instead of HDDs.
Most NASes are limited by either network connection or the SoC.
Once again: this is a ready-made home NAS. You look at the specs, it says 90MB/s. You live with that or you get something faster. 🙂
It was designed to let people care *less* about hardware and configuration, not more. This is the major reason why enthusiasts are usually disappointed by their NAS purchase - or they don't consider buying one at all because they don't see a use case.
As for RAID: on 90% of these devices you're better off with the provided managed storage solution (ZFS/btrfs or Synology's SHR).
And they do. I don't understand your doubts. Synology example:
As you can see most consumer 4-bay Synology NASes operate around the connection limits (113MB/s over single 1GbE; x2 with Link Aggregation).
In some cases the weak SoC just can't keep up in writing, but that's the compromise. If you're not OK with these slower (and cheaper) options, just don't buy them. 🙂
It's a similar story with QNAP from what I've seen:
Master your digital files for work and daily life | QNAP
QNAP designs and delivers high-quality network attached storage (NAS) and professional network video recorder (NVR) solutions to users from home, SOHO to small, medium businesses.
www.qnap.com
Disagree. NASes are perfect for running suitable VMs. They're super stable compared to FreeNAS. They're much easier to manage.
Of course you can't run everything. There's only that much SoC performance and only that much RAM. But it's hard to beat it for scenario that fits.
It may feel like a crippled computer, but it's a crippled computer that you hardly have to take care of. That's the added value.
Also, many consumers will value highly the fact that you end up with a single box, not multiple ones and more cables between them.
here is what i recommend. Get 5 drives. Install ubuntu on one with zfs. Configure the other 4 drives as any sort of raid you want. Done. Performance is bound by the drive and not an ancient nas.
Raid totally matters when today's drives can on their own saturate gigabit. Having at least 3x of these in raid5 should be able to do the same.RAID 5 doesn't matter. Just like putting SSDs inside instead of HDDs.
Most NASes are limited by either network connection or the SoC.
Once again: this is a ready-made home NAS. You look at the specs, it says 90MB/s. You live with that or you get something faster. 🙂
It was designed to let people care *less* about hardware and configuration, not more. This is the major reason why enthusiasts are usually disappointed by their NAS purchase - or they don't consider buying one at all because they don't see a use case.
As for RAID: on 90% of these devices you're better off with the provided managed storage solution (ZFS/btrfs or Synology's SHR).
And they do. I don't understand your doubts. Synology example:
View attachment 28116
As you can see most consumer 4-bay Synology NASes operate around the connection limits (113MB/s over single 1GbE; x2 with Link Aggregation).
In some cases the weak SoC just can't keep up in writing, but that's the compromise. If you're not OK with these slower (and cheaper) options, just don't buy them. 🙂
It's a similar story with QNAP from what I've seen:
Master your digital files for work and daily life | QNAP
QNAP designs and delivers high-quality network attached storage (NAS) and professional network video recorder (NVR) solutions to users from home, SOHO to small, medium businesses.
Disagree. NASes are perfect for running suitable VMs. They're super stable compared to FreeNAS. They're much easier to manage.
Of course you can't run everything. There's only that much SoC performance and only that much RAM. But it's hard to beat it for scenario that fits.
It may feel like a crippled computer, but it's a crippled computer that you hardly have to take care of. That's the added value.
Also, many consumers will value highly the fact that you end up with a single box, not multiple ones and more cables between them.
Older nas units definitely had limits, but the newest definitely do not as they're now 'appliances', ie another computer to have to deal with. The old school nas units were more like real appliances that 'just work'.
Raid is a performance thing, not a security or integrity thing. Anyone that knows zfs, etc knows this.
I know what you're saying about the synology, but the qnap in the op is really what I'm talking about--a modern product with performance on par with 10 years ago. That's not acceptable imo for a modern product.
Okay, so you like running vms on your nas--I think that's like using your bathtub to wash your clothes--sure it can be done, but there are much better machines made to handle these loads. If you're looking for 'the easy button', I guess you found it, but that definitely doesn't mean you've got the best bang for buck or performance by a long shot. Cheap, easy, fast--pick 2.
I'm not sure what you do with your computers, but I don't have to touch mine. I've got systems that have been on for better part of a decade now and 'just work' because they're set up that way.
Consumers--those whiney babies that ruined computing imo. Price over quality, aesthetics over function, and all the other garbage consumer metrics that changed the industry for the worse. If consumers want to run vms on their nas, then I guess vms have become too consumer imo, lol.
Yep, and most people don't realize that you can virtualize something like this on something as old as an i7-2600 that will run it and other vms very nicely. Same thing a fancy nas box will do, but for about half the price and twice the life.
But suddenly you're being bound by many other things - e.g. setting this up and taking care later on. I'll probably be larger, more power hungry and louder.
Suggesting someone an off-the-shelf NAS over a DIY configuration (or vice versa) makes very little sense. The overall function may be similar, but these are two vastly different setups - with very different entry and maintenance costs. And a different usage experience as well.
I don't get where this is coming from. Modern NASes work just like they used to for 2 decades.
They have way more functionality, which needs some (very user-friendly, UI-based) setup, but you may or may not use them. If you're OK with just setting up a network drive at home, they're as plug-and-play as ever.
But we're mostly using the same network connection and the same HDDs. I don't know what you expect. Slightly over 110 MB/s is a natural limit given by the mainstream networking standard. NAS makers create devices for the existing environment.
As 2.5GbE becomes a new mainstream standard, we'll see a boost in NAS sequential transfers.
That really depends how you calculate "bang for buck".
Some people will like the fact that they've spent a weekend choosing parts, assembling them and setting up the environment. Some people prefer to do other things.
Similarly, some people love to cook for the whole family, some prefer eating out. Some love cleaning their car, some prefer to pay to get it done.
Even if we assume this is a PC enthusiast forum and most people here like to do do this kind of things, a single day still has just 24 hours. And it's a home NAS. It's not rocket science. You aren't really learning anything useful on the way. It's just wasted time.
Personally, I have a very long list of things that I prefer doing instead (both IT-related and not). So I save time (and as a result: money) and get a Synology NAS - probably the best bang for buck option for me. 🙂
Here are some advantages of ZFS solution. First the raid is not locked in your vendor. You can replace the hardware anytime around the disk (that is a big advantage when trying to recover data after your NAS died). Second you can use the actual machine running the raid you don't require a dedicated box so you need to consider that when doing power calculations. Third if you want just the file sever and nothing more you can use low power parts (and modern parts which use less power than 10 year old technology). Last maintenance is not that difficult if you do a few things like label your disk so it is easy to figure out which one died and ZFS has a lot of advantages over older file system by incorporating protection against bit rot. It isn't enough just to be consistent across the raid but actually know which copy is the valid copy. One of the biggest problem with disks is this ability to zero out bad blocks which can create holes in the data. This is something zfs block hash is very good at detecting and fixing.
-
Anyway the choice is the buyer they should just be aware of all the options. To be honest it is #1 that and #2 that well prevent me from never buying a nas box. I don't need the extra hardware and i don't need to worry about trying to reassemble the data if the actual nas box dies.
-
Anyway the choice is the buyer they should just be aware of all the options. To be honest it is #1 that and #2 that well prevent me from never buying a nas box. I don't need the extra hardware and i don't need to worry about trying to reassemble the data if the actual nas box dies.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
QNAP offers NAS units with FreeBSD And ZFS, too. Besides their prior run-of-the-mill Linux and MDRAID/Samba boxes.
This argument was clearly not thought through. 🙂
I can also take the drives from my Synology - be it RAID, btrfs or SHR (yes, also true for the "locked" Synology storage pool) - and mount them on a Linux machine. QNAP users probably can do the same thing (with ZFS instead of btrfs).
Furthermore, I can take the drives from my Synology NAS and put them into another Synology NAS (not every one - they provide a compatibility chart) and it will be properly recognized.
Moving drives to a NAS from a different vendor NAS or from a DIY server are not guaranteed to work.
In other words: my Synology NAS gives me *more* recovery/migration options, not less, than a DIY alternative. 😉
Well yes, a DIY server is more flexible. But this is a very subjective situation.
Some people keep their NAS in the living room, which probably rules out the option of replacing it with a DIY server (even in a posh mITX case).
Personally, I actually prefer having separate boxes - simply because I can replace and re-purpose the server component whenever I want.
I can turn it off when it isn't needed for a long time, like when I go on vacation (=> power consumption issue later on).
I can also turn the server off for maintenance, change the OS, test stuff etc.
In the meantime, the NAS - which is a crucial element of many workflows for two of us here - remains up and running.
As for the power consumption:
Both my NAS and the server idle at around 5W each (and they are idle for >20h a day). This is important for me because of heat and noise.
I could probably beat this with a DIY setup, but obviously not by a significant margin.
And definitely not if I wanted to run this on a recycled old PC (>40W in idle - unacceptable).
And this is just a long string of stuff I don't have to care about. 🙂
But once again: most modern NASes offer either ZFS or btrfs.
However, we are talking about DIY vs the qnap TS-431K which is the unit on sale @ newegg. The minute we open this up to other NAS there are other considerations; such as building an 12x3 array or total cost of the nas box or read time (i have a 6+2 and right now i'm reading over 700MB/s - something that would require a NAS with 10 gig interface (yes they exist) and 10 gig switch.
--
The point is that we can bring any number of arguments in play but i think we should restrict this to QNAP TS-431K vs DIY to be relevant to this thread.
--
The point is that we can bring any number of arguments in play but i think we should restrict this to QNAP TS-431K vs DIY to be relevant to this thread.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
Amazon.com: Asustor AS4004T | Network Attached Storage + Free exFAT License | Personal Private Cloud | Home Media Server | 10GbE Port, 1.6GHz Dual-Core, 2GB RAM DDR4 (4 Bay NAS): Electronics
Buy Asustor AS4004T | Network Attached Storage + Free exFAT License | Personal Private Cloud | Home Media Server | 10GbE Port, 1.6GHz Dual-Core, 2GB RAM DDR4 (4 Bay NAS): Network Attached Storage - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
www.amazon.com
4-bay Asustor with ARM (I think? Or Marvell?) CPU, with 1x 10GbE-T AND 2X 1GbE-T. 1100MB/sec read, 500MB/sec write.
$359.99
Why do you require a free exFAT license (the description mentions that). DIdn't MS release exFAT into the public domain?
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
No, exFAT is patented Microsoft intellectual property. You need a license to use it, legally. (Yes, even for Linux. Just like MP3.)
No. MS released it to the public domain:
--
Ok not completely public domain - but linux kernel:
https://www.paragon-software.com/exfat-license/
exFAT in the Linux kernel? Yes! - Microsoft Open Source Blog
We’re pleased to announce that Microsoft is supporting the addition of Microsoft’s exFAT technology to the Linux kernel.
cloudblogs.microsoft.com
Ok not completely public domain - but linux kernel:
https://www.paragon-software.com/exfat-license/
I have older nas units and things have changed dramatically. The very light stable linux base just for file serving has been replaced by a full blown OS that has all the disadvantages of one. And it's just a matter of time before it goes into the territory of too much bloat, etc to the point a new 'lite' version will come out to just be a nas again.
My point is that saturation of gigabit should be a given in a modern nas that isn't a single drive. My older synology ds215j will almost saturate gigabit with a single drive and so does my netgear ready nas with a single drive, and I know the readynas build is definitely at least a decade old at this point. And a new qnap can't do this? Not acceptable.
Bang for buck typically doesn't factor in anything other than performance and price. The emotional aspects are usually left out of that calculation, but are valid point to explore when making a purchase decision.
See, that's where a lot of people would disagree with you--the learning may have more value than the nas. This is whole premise behind home labbing where people have mini datacenters in their home that are anywhere from 100x to 10000x more powerful than anyone would ever need in a home.
It's interesting how synology gets touted as the top dog in nas units, and while they are exceptionally performing units (I didn't expect my older one to be as fast as it is), they are too chatty and want to be too much more than they need to be imo. I like the older nas units that pretty much shut up and served files and that's it--no reaching out to the Internet for anything or any of that nonsense.
The amount of other hobbies I have are just as vast as computing. I have almost as many cars as I have computers. Only so much time in the day to play though as you mentioned.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
