Board logo

標題: 求 NAS 推蔍 [打印本頁]

作者: 永恆的回憶    時間: 2019-10-10 14:54     標題: 求 NAS 推蔍

大家好,
我本身已經有兩部 Synology NAS, 1xDS918+ (4*4TB HDD in RAID 10),1xDS216+II xDS216+II (2*3T HDD in RAID 0),
前者為主機,後者只用來 backup。

現在有一個問題,就是睇相好慢,甚至是睇唔到。我有 800GB 相,估計應該有廿萬張相,
用 samba 開嘅時候,每開一個 folder (每月分一個 folder,內有約三千張相),每次都要等兩三分鐘先 load 完。
用 Photostation 開都係好慢,而佢個 ds photo app 經常 load load 下就 freeze,試過幾部手機都係咁。
用 Moments 本來好好地,但每次一移動完啲相,佢唔識更新返,就算手動 re-index,舊相都仍在,變咗一個個吉格。

基於以上太多問題,加上睇中 QNAP 出咗 QuMagie app 想試下,打算買部 QNAP NAS 兼全用 SSD,只放相,
現有一問題,因我啲相現階段加埋已有近 800GB,而且會不斷增加,
我應該買邊部機比理想?TS-251B or TS-453A or TS-453Be?
我只有兩要求,一是必須用 full disk encryption (全碟加密),二是反應要快,samba load 相最好可以同 local 一樣即時 show 到晒 thumbnail 出嚟。

Thanks.
作者: thelonelycoder    時間: 2019-10-10 17:36

本帖最後由 thelonelycoder 於 2019-10-10 17:42 編輯

試下答你,你個 case 慢,糸因爲經 SAMBA 既 IOPS 慢,只要繼續用 SAMBA,轉其他機都系慢。

你有918+,可以考慮改用iSCSI,相信會改善 IOPS 不少。

https://www.synology.com/en-uk/k ... ice_on_Synology_NAS

若要多機共用,放棄用SAMBA改用NFS,都會有改善,但IOPS 唔會快得過用iSCSI。
作者: kof1818    時間: 2019-10-10 17:56

另外有沒有外加nv me ssd 做rw cache  ?
作者: 永恆的回憶    時間: 2019-10-10 19:46

回覆 2# thelonelycoder

請問如果 Windows 10 經 NFS 連入 shared folder,IOPS 是否會比 Samba 高?
如果 IOPS 瓶頸位係 Samba 而唔係 HDD 度嘅話,咁我就先唔考慮整個行 SSD 嘅 NAS。
Thanks.
作者: 永恆的回憶    時間: 2019-10-10 19:47

回覆 3# kof1818

無加,因為我所有 shared folder 全部都有加密,如果加咗 nvme ssd 擔心佢啲 cached data 會係無加密狀態下保存。
作者: thelonelycoder    時間: 2019-10-10 19:56

本帖最後由 thelonelycoder 於 2019-10-10 20:11 編輯

回覆 4# 永恆的回憶

我身邊冇 Win10 機 ,全是 OS X / Linux ,所以試唔到你個case。但你可参考以下

https://blog.ja-ke.tech/2019/08/ ... -sshfs-nfs-smb.html






TL;DR

Conclusion
In trusted home network NFS without encryption is the best choice on Linux. If you want encryption i would switch to SSHFS, it is a way simpler setup, more efficient and often not much slower than plaintext NFS. Samba/SMB is also not far behind, but only really makes sense in a mixed (Windows/Linux) environment.

Thanks for reading, i hope it was helpful.


DSM 6.2 好似已經支援 NFSv4,你可以 Enable 試一下效果

https://www.synology.com/en-glob ... /file_winmacnfs_nfs
作者: Marshall    時間: 2019-10-11 07:34

本帖最後由 Marshall 於 2019-10-11 08:10 編輯

我自己用緊TS453B 16GB RAM,3x4tb ssd (860QVO RAID5)。  大概有20萬張家庭相,600GB 左右。  我嘅體驗係,效能慘不忍睹。  QuMagic 太食resources, j3455 感覺上唔夠力。 同埋部機好多時CPU/disk 高負載時自己reboot或行hang機。

剛在新疍買了tvs472xt,連運費都平香港4千蚊。應該好好多。
作者: hk1823    時間: 2019-10-11 08:20

騎劫  普通行 mirror既nas 有無入門推介   2bay ok la
storage support 6-8 t
Low usage  just for backup  purpose  

via HKEPC Reader for Android
作者: 永恆的回憶    時間: 2019-10-11 09:03

回覆 7# Marshall

等你的 report,thanks!
作者: TimCook    時間: 2019-10-11 14:57

回覆 1# 永恆的回憶


    我有少少斷估,如果你所有 Files 都係加密,慢應該好難避免。
作者: kof1818    時間: 2019-10-11 15:06

Smb 加密左,比正常慢1培
作者: pc1668    時間: 2019-10-11 15:30

本帖最後由 pc1668 於 2019-10-11 20:03 編輯

I'm a fan of encryption.  Tried S's folder encryption as well as Q's folder and volume encryption.  For mid to high-end models, the IO speed of encrypted and un-encrypted volumes are more or less the same.  However, the IO speed of folder encryption (especially the write operation) is much slower than volume encryption (as someone said, "比正常慢1培").  To be honest, volume encryption is the goal if IO speed has the priority.  

Another drawback of folder encryption is the limitation of file name (less than 14x chars).  I cannot use folder encryption for many of my files coz they are exceeding 14x chars (especially for those having double-byte char set, eg. Chinese char).  Volume encryption has no such limitation.  And the max. length allowed is 255 chars (I suppose).

However, we all know that S does NOT support volume encryption, pity !
作者: iamderek    時間: 2019-10-11 17:12

如果用QTS 4.4.1加Samsung 860 SSD,可以轉用硬件加密,效能損耗更少
作者: 永恆的回憶    時間: 2019-10-11 19:28

回覆 12# pc1668

Definitely, the most prominent drawback of Synology NAS to me is without support for volume encryption! I have not tried Synology without folder encryption as majority of my data need to be encrypted, but I can say that the painfully slow IO of encrypted shared folder is a large push factor to discourage me from using it, even I am using a mid-ended model with Intel Celeron J3455 (with AES-NI).

This is why I always want to try QNAP. But for other aspects QNAP seems behaves weaker than Synology, esp. for iOS app support.

This is thus a huge dilemma to me.
作者: 永恆的回憶    時間: 2019-10-11 19:31

回覆 13# iamderek

謝謝你的提意,不過硬盤加密其實唔係咁信得過,之前某品牌已經爆過大穫。

https://www.itpro.co.uk/encrypti ... ties-ssd-encryption
作者: pc1668    時間: 2019-10-11 19:57

本帖最後由 pc1668 於 2019-10-11 20:05 編輯

回覆 14# 永恆的回憶

Folder encryption is relatively slow and it seems there is nothing we can do.  As spoke, I have used Q's volume encryption and the performance was quite good, even for entry level ARM CPU (with hardware support of AES-NI).

Yes, quite a dilemma.  As you are using S, I do not recommend switching to Q for the sake of volume encryption.  DSM is far more stable and mature than QTS.

Btw, what is the memory capacity of your S NAS?
作者: thelonelycoder    時間: 2019-10-11 22:49

其實樓主既use case,一糸用 DAS ; 一糸用iSCSI。要加密又要快,我只諗到以上两個方法。





歡迎光臨 電腦領域 HKEPC Hardware (https://www.hkepc.com/forum/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2