Test TS-639 Pro + Mac OSX

Questions about using NAS on Mac OS.
Post Reply
bryn
Starting out
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 5:20 pm

Test TS-639 Pro + Mac OSX

Post by bryn » Sun May 24, 2009 4:29 pm

Dear friends,
I'm the happy owner of a QNAP TS-639 Pro. Inside it I have placed six Western Digital 2.0TB drives, configured as RAID 5. I have started making a series of tests under Mac OSX and I must say I'm really pleased of the results, even if it looks the AFP (AppleTalk Filing Protocol) implementation on the QNAP still does have some small bugs here and there.
Below you can find a graph of the test performed on my TS-639 Pro, showing the write/read performance with files ranging from 4KB and 100MB, using both AFP and iSCSI.

Image

From the graph above, you can see how the AFP reading perfomance is definitely better than the iSCSI protocol, at least while reading files smaller than 20MB, reaching a reading peak of about 106MB/sec. On the other hand, writing speed under AFP is very low with files smaller than 4MB (always under 20MB/sec) and it's almost always slower that iSCSI, which may reach writing speeds of about 50MB/sec.

Please note that the tests have been made with an Apple PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5GHz with 4.5GB di RAM and Mac OSX 10.5.6.

Note:
Lettura = Reading speed
Scrittura = Writing speed
QNAP TS-639 Pro fw 4.0.1

Cybix
Getting the hang of things
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 7:53 am

Re: Test TS-639 Pro + Mac OSX

Post by Cybix » Sun May 31, 2009 10:32 pm

your network environment? (switch)

bryn
Starting out
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: Test TS-639 Pro + Mac OSX

Post by bryn » Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:46 pm

Switch: Netgear GS605 v2 (5 port 10/100/1000M Switch)
Computer: Apple PowerMac G5 Quad - 4.5GB RAM - Ethernet Gigabit
QNAP TS-639 Pro fw 4.0.1

EvilTed
Starting out
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:03 pm

Re: Test TS-639 Pro + Mac OSX

Post by EvilTed » Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:43 am

OS-X gives by far the best results using NFS in my testing.
Samba was second best and AFP was last.

ET

sodium
Easy as a breeze
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:09 pm

Re: Test TS-639 Pro + Mac OSX

Post by sodium » Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:48 pm

There are a lot of AFP speed improvements in 10.5.7 and 10.5.8, you did not mention the FW level of the NAS (there are improvements there also :) )

testing with file size < main Memory does not provide accurate information (you are testing the performance of the memory) and please do not stop at a file size of 100Mbyte (you will be surprised what happens at the 1Gbyte, 10 Gbyte and 50 Gbyte range :) )
Three things in life are certain: Death, taxes & lost data. Guess which has occurred.

User avatar
ookami
New here
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:45 pm

Re: Test TS-639 Pro + Mac OSX

Post by ookami » Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:44 am

Hi, on my qnas 459 pro I get the following results using xbench (free tool for mac)

NFS

Code: Select all

   
   System Info      
      Xbench Version      1.3
      System Version      10.6.3 (10D573)
      Physical RAM      4096 MB
      Model      MacBookPro5,2
   Disk Test      
      Sequential      
         Uncached Write   3.42   2.10 MB/sec [4K blocks]
         Uncached Write   123.23   69.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]
         Uncached Read   13.33   3.90 MB/sec [4K blocks]
         Uncached Read   117.41   59.01 MB/sec [256K blocks]
      Random      
         Uncached Write   345.25   36.55 MB/sec [4K blocks]
         Uncached Write   226.04   72.36 MB/sec [256K blocks]
         Uncached Read   476.82   3.38 MB/sec [4K blocks]
         Uncached Read   462.81   85.88 MB/sec [256K blocks]



And the same test on a iSCSI disk

Code: Select all

   System Info      
      Xbench Version      1.3
      System Version      10.6.3 (10D573)
      Physical RAM      4096 MB
      Model      MacBookPro5,2
      Drive Type      QNAP iSCSI Storage
   Disk Test      
      Sequential      
         Uncached Write   73.94   45.40 MB/sec [4K blocks]
         Uncached Write   34.47   19.50 MB/sec [256K blocks]
         Uncached Read   25.40   7.43 MB/sec [4K blocks]
         Uncached Read   117.11   58.86 MB/sec [256K blocks]
      Random      
         Uncached Write   331.93   35.14 MB/sec [4K blocks]
         Uncached Write   55.37   17.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]
         Uncached Read   1024.33   7.26 MB/sec [4K blocks]
         Uncached Read   296.91   55.09 MB/sec [256K blocks]



Now, I would looove to use iSCSI for all my stuff, but its just too ** unstable on snow leopard using the globalSAN solution.
Even without using sleep-mode on my mac (which is a sure "kernel-kill-hang") I still get occational crashes, leading to finder.app's demise.
(And trying to restart finder, shutdown finder but is unable to start it again. (-10810 error) :cry:
It's really a shame this protocol cannot be used on snow leopard with a little less "anxiety".
(this was one of the main reasons for me to get this NAS for use with video editing and to serve vmware images.) Instead I am left with NFS, which kinda does the job... but not to the point where I can say that I am not still disappointed. :?

"oh but have you tried used AFP instead?"
Yes, thank you for asking good sir! that was the second reason I got this NAS...and "naturally" it turns out using this protocol crashes the NAS on the current FW. *sigh* Really looking forward to having the AFP problem solved so that I might use the Timemachine feature.
All in all, the feature package that sold the product is just not available with the current issues.

Okay then why not use SMB instead?
Well I am living in a guesthouse, where the local LAN has a lot of users, and I don't want my NAS showing up in peoples home network folders because of this.

(edit #1)
Just wanted to say that despite all my complaints, I still think this is a great product and I look forward to being able to use all the features.

(edit #2)
Seriously!? 2 firmware upgrades later and base functionality is still broken!?! :cry:
Don't get me wrong, its not that they should'nt release FW even if only to fix other bugs, I am just disappointed that I still cant use what I paid money (a lot of money) to get. :(

P3R
Guru
Posts: 12375
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:39 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden (UTC+01:00)

Re: Test TS-639 Pro + Mac OSX

Post by P3R » Fri May 14, 2010 8:17 pm

morice wrote:The Qnap and the switch are in "trunk mode"? (802.3ad) Use jumbo frame? (9000) all these setting do a different performance on LAN...
The only switch I see mentioned in this thread (Netgear GS605) doesn't support 802.3ad as far as I can see.

P3R
Guru
Posts: 12375
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:39 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden (UTC+01:00)

Re: Test TS-639 Pro + Mac OSX

Post by P3R » Mon May 17, 2010 8:39 pm

Jumbo frames yes, 802.3ad no. I commented on the latter.

bottlething
Starting out
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: Test TS-639 Pro + Mac OSX

Post by bottlething » Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:13 pm

hi there,

Regarding the ISCSI & globalSAN, I agree 100% after trying (all) releases (beta & stable).....

But try their ancient 3.3 - Nothing I do to my MacBookPro, network or QNAP disturbs the ISCSI share :) I can even reboot the switch while the ISCSI is mountet, without any problems...

and putting the mac to sleep is a trivial thing around here..!



[quote="ookami"]Hi, on my qnas 459 pro I get the following results using xbench (free tool for mac)

[b]NFS[/b]
[code]
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.6.3 (10D573)
Physical RAM 4096 MB
Model MacBookPro5,2
Disk Test
Sequential
Uncached Write 3.42 2.10 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 123.23 69.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 13.33 3.90 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 117.41 59.01 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random
Uncached Write 345.25 36.55 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 226.04 72.36 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 476.82 3.38 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 462.81 85.88 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[/code]

[b]And the same test on a iSCSI disk[/b]

[code]
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.6.3 (10D573)
Physical RAM 4096 MB
Model MacBookPro5,2
Drive Type QNAP iSCSI Storage
Disk Test
Sequential
Uncached Write 73.94 45.40 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 34.47 19.50 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 25.40 7.43 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 117.11 58.86 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random
Uncached Write 331.93 35.14 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 55.37 17.73 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 1024.33 7.26 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 296.91 55.09 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[/code]

Now, I would looove to use iSCSI for all my stuff, but its just too ** unstable on snow leopard using the globalSAN solution.
Even without using sleep-mode on my mac (which is a sure "kernel-kill-hang") I still get occational crashes, leading to finder.app's demise.
(And trying to restart finder, shutdown finder but is unable to start it again. (-10810 error) :cry:
It's really a shame this protocol cannot be used on snow leopard with a little less "anxiety".
(this was one of the main reasons for me to get this NAS for use with video editing and to serve vmware images.) Instead I am left with NFS, which kinda does the job... but not to the point where I can say that I am not still disappointed. :?

[b]"oh but have you tried used AFP instead?"[/b]
Yes, thank you for asking good sir! that was the second reason I got this NAS...and "naturally" it turns out using this protocol crashes the NAS on the current FW. *sigh* Really looking forward to having the AFP problem solved so that I might use the Timemachine feature.
All in all, the feature package that sold the product is just not available with the current issues.

[b]Okay then why not use SMB instead?[/b]
Well I am living in a guesthouse, where the local LAN has a lot of users, and I don't want my NAS showing up in peoples home network folders because of this.

[b](edit #1)[/b]
Just wanted to say that despite all my complaints, I still think this is a great product and I look forward to being able to use all the features.

[b](edit #2)[/b]
Seriously!? 2 firmware upgrades later and base functionality is still broken!?! :cry:
Don't get me wrong, its not that they should'nt release FW even if only to fix other bugs, I am just disappointed that I still cant use what I paid money (a lot of money) to get. :([/quote]

bryn
Starting out
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: Test TS-639 Pro + Mac OSX

Post by bryn » Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:55 pm

Dear friends,
After a couple of years since my first post, I decided to add some information related to additional tests I made with a Solid State Drive (251GB Apple SSD TS256C) and an internal Hard Disk (2TB Hitachi HDS722020ALA330) compared with the same TS-639 Pro RAID 5 setup I used for the first tests.

Below is the result for the latest tests:

Image

As you can see, the QNAP NAS accessed through AFP allows constantly faster reads than even the internal drive. The SSD, as expected, is on another planet though...

Average speed:
    1] SSD Read - 223.2 MB/sec
    2] SSD Write - 218.2 MB/sec
    3] QNAP TS-639 (AFP) Read - 85.0 MB/sec
    4] Internal HD Write - 79.6 MB/sec
    5] Internal HD Read - 73.9 MB/sec
    6] QNAP TS-639 (Samba) Read - 50.3 MB/sec
    7] QNAP TS-639 (Samba) Write - 38.5 MB/sec
    8] QNAP TS-639 (AFP) Write - 20.7 MB/sec

Tech notes:
  • Test made using QuickBench 4.0 (from Speed Tools Utilities Pro v.3.6)
  • Apple iMac 3.4 GHz Intel Core i7 with 16 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 RAM
  • Mac OS X 10.6.8 (Snow Leopard)
  • QNAP TS-639 Pro NAS RAID 5 with 6x2 TB HDs
  • Wireless-N ADSL2+ Modem Router Gigabit Netgear DGN3500
QNAP TS-639 Pro fw 4.0.1

Post Reply

Return to “Mac OS”