• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 272
  • Last Modified:

Network Attached Storage and their "boosted performance numbers..."

Ok. I have a simple question. I need a good ISCSI NAS that is not Synology. I need performance greater than 100 Mbs range. I tested several NAS unit and their numbers in the miserable 20 - 40 Mbs Mbs range. What gives? Looking for about 16TB in storage. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Synology is a good product but if you have to rebuild the raid, connect the UPS to it, otherwise you lose everything. Not acceptable. And it is ironically the highest rated product by most. Do not get it sometimes.
0
dronethought
Asked:
dronethought
  • 5
  • 2
  • 2
  • +1
1 Solution
 
dronethoughtAuthor Commented:
Meant to say, if you lose power on Synology while rebuilding the raid, you are usually dead in the water.
0
 
Thomas Zucker-ScharffSystems AnalystCommented:
What did you already test?
0
 
Aaron TomoskyTechnology ConsultantCommented:
Wanna build one? Zfsguru with a few drives and 2 ssd for cache will do whatever you want. Raid 6 (raid z2) if you want double rebuild failure resiliency, you can do triple mirrors, etc...
0
Technology Partners: We Want Your Opinion!

We value your feedback.

Take our survey and automatically be enter to win anyone of the following:
Yeti Cooler, Amazon eGift Card, and Movie eGift Card!

 
kevinhsiehCommented:
Uh, do you need NAS or iSCSI, because those are not the same thing. Are you looking for just throughput or do IOPS matter? What is the workload? For NAS BlueArc has some of the fastest systems around. They're owned by HDS now. For iSCSI I would start with Nimble Storage. Do you need converged NAS+iSCSI SAN? NetApp, EMC, Tegile come to mind.
0
 
dronethoughtAuthor Commented:
Thank you for your responses.

I am trying to get this answered: So what drives the transfer speed? Is it the processor? RAM? Hard drive type. I use ISCSI because ISCSI gives me better performance all the way around. Not much better but better and easy to setup with Windows 2012 Server.

I have only tested Synology 1813+, Seagate Business 2bay,  WD My cloud ex4. All are maxed out with the most RAM I could install. The Synology is the fastest, Seagate the slowest. Western Digital, no comment. I need a NAS unit to give me what my xeon based server with raid 10 storage, 16 gigs or ram, Windows 2012 Server gives me: 125 mbps consistently. The Synology is the fastest at 70 mbps, also Raid 10.
0
 
kevinhsiehCommented:
The drive type, number of drives, RAID type, processor, NIC, software, cache, workload, and protocol all affect performance. Large files give better throughput than small files. SMB3 could perform better than ISCSI and will almost certainly better than most SAMBA implementations. RAM mainly affects caching which is useful for random IO but not streaming throughput.

If Windows gives you the throughput you are looking for, why don't you just use Windows?
0
 
dronethoughtAuthor Commented:
Kevin,
Processor? Therefore I have to go WIndows to get the Xeon chips? Is this simply a processor issue. If an SSD is installed on an older computer, the data will only transfer at the processor speed. Not 200MB/s. Faster processor, faster throughput on a NAS. Same on a server. Cannot compare a server to a NAS unit.
0
 
dronethoughtAuthor Commented:
yes
0
 
dronethoughtAuthor Commented:
Thanks, Aaron. I will also follow your solution. Sorry, I did not give you credit.
0
 
Aaron TomoskyTechnology ConsultantCommented:
No credit needed. If you need help let me know. The forum at zfsguru.com is also pretty active
0

Featured Post

Get expert help—faster!

Need expert help—fast? Use the Help Bell for personalized assistance getting answers to your important questions.

  • 5
  • 2
  • 2
  • +1
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now