asked on
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.
Storage
Last Comment
Aaron Tomosky
ASKER
Meant to say, if you lose power on Synology while rebuilding the raid, you are usually dead in the water.
What did you already test?
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...
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.
ASKER
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.
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.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
ASKER
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.
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.
ASKER
yes
ASKER
Thanks, Aaron. I will also follow your solution. Sorry, I did not give you credit.
No credit needed. If you need help let me know. The forum at zfsguru.com is also pretty active