FORUMS: list search recent posts

QNAP 873e now vs. 882XT next month

COW Forums : NAS - Network Attached Storage

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Michael Tiemann
QNAP 873e now vs. 882XT next month
on Dec 1, 2018 at 3:53:16 pm

The 882XT has a pretty high price premium over the 873e. It also offers two pre-installed TB3 ports, USB 3.1 ports (where previously there were only USB 3.0 ports) and a pre-installed 10G port.

Bob Zelin has posted extensively on the goodness of the 873e (with the proper 10G port(s) installed and the proper drives properly configured!). I'm openly wondering whether the 882XT provides real-world benefits over the 873e, or whether the 873e really is the unbeatable value player for 4K-8K video editing (again, properly configured).

Thoughts?

Manifold Recording
Pittsboro, NC
https://manifoldrecording.com/


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: QNAP 873e now vs. 882XT next month
on Dec 1, 2018 at 6:20:39 pm

QNAP gives me a headache. Let me assure you, if you wat for the TVS-882XT (which I don't even see on their website - I have no idea of where you heard about this model) - 6 months from now, there will be another model.

Will it be better than the TVS-873e ? I have no idea. It LOOKS like it will be better - but I have never tested one (never even heard of it until you mentioned it). I can tell you this. I install QNAP's almost every day. Some are great, and some are complete garbage. And I never know if they are good or bad, until someone buys one, and I install it and I either realize that " this is great" or "oh boy - this is a real piece of junk". I installed my first
TVS-873e (with optional LAN-10G2T-X550) at NAB 2018 just this past April. I was expecting nothing from this cheap box (I was used to installing the now discontinued TVS-871T, TVS-1282T, TS-1685), and had installed previously low end QNAPs like the TS-831X, and TS-1635, both which is are complete piece of garbage. But like every manufacturer - they make some great products and they make some crap. So the TVS-873e turned out to be great - and it was cheap. And it dramatically outperformed the TVS-453BT3 that QNAP was aggressively promoting ( a little 4 bay).

So I never know until someone volunteers to buy one, and I get to install it. That is how I find out.
The 10G port in the TVS-882XT will probably be the same as the QNAP QXG-10G1T which is the Aquantia AQC-107, which is the same chip that Apple uses in the iMac Pro. Will the CPU's perform properly on this new model, so it can handle video editing from multiple users ? I have no idea. Maybe - probably - but I can't tell you until I try one.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Michael Tiemann
Re: QNAP 873e now vs. 882XT next month
on Dec 1, 2018 at 6:44:20 pm

I suck. I mis-remembered the product number, which is actually the 872-XT: https://qnapdirect.com/collections/bays/products/qnap-tvs-872xt-i5-16g-8-ba...

I tried to edit the post to correct the product number, but I don't have sufficient privilege to do so. Sorry to sow confusion, and I take your point about needing to get hands-on experience before saying anything constructive.

Manifold Recording
Pittsboro, NC
https://manifoldrecording.com/


Return to posts index


Bob Zelin
Re: QNAP 873e now vs. 882XT next month
on Dec 2, 2018 at 6:22:01 pm

Hi -
ok, I did all the reading I could on the new "unreleased" TVS-872XT.
It appears that the TVS-872XT is the 2018 - 2019 replacement of the old discontinued (but wonderful TVS-871T, which is the QNAP that I first started with. I see no US dealers advertising the price, but on the UK Span website, it is selling (in 16 gig version) for about $2100, which is about $900 less than the TVS-871T sold for (and about $1000 less than the TVS-1282T3). I am no fan of SSD Caching or Qtier for video editing applications.

So yes, based on my reading, the TVS-872XT, which has a built in 10G port and built in T3 ports, will probably be a better investment, and better value than the TVS-873e. So if you can wait, I would probably wait until it's released.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Neil Sadwelkar
Re: QNAP 873e now vs. 872XT next month
on Dec 23, 2018 at 6:22:25 am

Here's a comparison between the TVS-873e and the new TVS-872XT

https://www.qnap.com/en-in/product/contrast.php?cp[]=298&cp[]=357&ref=produ...

-----------------------------------
Neil Sadwelkar
neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com
twitter: fcpguru
FCP Editor, Edit systems consultant
Mumbai India


Return to posts index

Michael Tiemann
Re: QNAP 873e now vs. 872XT next month
on Dec 23, 2018 at 10:34:15 am

I'm afraid the forum software messed up the link you posted.

BTW, I have an 872xt arriving shortly. I will be loading it with 8x WGST He12 drives and connecting it to a QNAP QSW-1208-8C-US 10GbE switch. I wonder how many days it will take to build the RAID.

The first project I'm loading up has will have about 25TB of R3D media and close to 30TB of media overall. I already have 14TB of R3D media and over 17TB overall. But I still have more to shoot in early January. I then have two other projects that will shoot about 10TB each before the end of January.

The QNAP will be working hard right off the bat!

Manifold Recording
Pittsboro, NC
https://manifoldrecording.com/


Return to posts index


Bob Zelin
Re: QNAP 873e now vs. 872XT next month
on Dec 24, 2018 at 3:41:25 am

BTW, I have an 872xt arriving shortly. I will be loading it with 8x WGST He12 drives and connecting it to a QNAP QSW-1208-8C-US 10GbE switch. I wonder how many days it will take to build the RAID.

REPLY -
It takes about 10 minutes to build the RAID. It will "optimize" for about 24 hours, but you can start to use the RAID after the RAID group (RAID 5 or RAID 6) is built. About 10 - 15 minutes tops. Yes, you will get full speed at that time.


The first project I'm loading up has will have about 25TB of R3D media and close to 30TB of media overall. I already have 14TB of R3D media and over 17TB overall. But I still have more to shoot in early January. I then have two other projects that will shoot about 10TB each before the end of January.

REPLY - 60 to 90 minutes per terabyte over a 10G connection. So prepare for a full 2 days to do the data transfer.
And yes, your system will slow down when trying to transfer 30 TB of data. Don't do big data transfers while you are trying to edit. This applies to any system, from any manufacturer.


Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Alex Gardiner
Re: QNAP 873e now vs. 872XT next month
on Dec 24, 2018 at 9:40:47 am

[Bob Zelin] "Don't do big data transfers while you are trying to edit. This applies to any system, from any manufacturer. "

Many people underestimate this fact. +1

alex@indiestor.com


Return to posts index

Michael Tiemann
Re: QNAP 873e now vs. 882XT next month
on Dec 26, 2018 at 6:37:30 pm

Well, it looks like I get to follow up on my own question(s).

TL;DR: the 872XT is quite fast when using the thunderbolt bridge to connect to my late 2017 iMac Pro. The Blackmagicdesign Disk Speed Test reports over 1000MB/sec write speed and over 1400MB/sec read speed, the latter being fast enough to play 2160p60 10 Bit YUV 4:2:2 faster than real-time (and write it at about 44 fps). The XT is what makes the 872XT worth its premium.

The 10Gbe network speeds are fast, but not blazingly fast. I fault Mojave, mostly, for that.

Here's a look under the hood at some raw numbers, first from the storage side:

[~] # qcli_storage -t
fio test command for LV layer: /sbin/fio --filename=test_device --direct=0 --rw=read --bs=1M --runtime=15 --name=test-read --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=32 &>/tmp/qcli_storage.log
fio test command for File system: /sbin/fio --filename=test_device/qcli_storage --direct=0 --rw=read --bs=1M --runtime=15 --name=test-read --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=32 --size=128m &>/tmp/qcli_storage.log
Start testing!
Performance test is finished 100.000%...
VolID VolName Pool Mapping_Name Throughput Mount_Path FS_Throughput
1 DataVol1 288 /dev/mapper/cachedev1 1.10 GB/s /share/CACHEDEV1_DATA 723.16 MB/s


[~] # qcli_storage -T
'fio test command for physical disk: /sbin/fio --filename=test_device --direct=1 --rw=read --bs=1M --runtime=15 --name=test-read --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=32 &>/tmp/qcli_storage.log
fio test command for RAID: /sbin/fio --filename=test_device --direct=0 --rw=read --bs=1M --runtime=15 --name=test-read --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=32 &>/tmp/qcli_storage.log
Start testing!
Performance test is finished 100.000%...
Enclosure Port Sys_Name Throughput RAID RAID_Type RAID_Throughput Pool
NAS_HOST 1 /dev/sdg 235.72 MB/s /dev/md1 RAID 6 1.21 GB/s 288
NAS_HOST 2 /dev/sdh 240.79 MB/s /dev/md1 RAID 6 1.21 GB/s 288
NAS_HOST 3 /dev/sdf 239.00 MB/s /dev/md1 RAID 6 1.21 GB/s 288
NAS_HOST 4 /dev/sde 252.49 MB/s /dev/md1 RAID 6 1.21 GB/s 288
NAS_HOST 5 /dev/sdd 236.57 MB/s /dev/md1 RAID 6 1.21 GB/s 288
NAS_HOST 6 /dev/sdc 253.76 MB/s /dev/md1 RAID 6 1.21 GB/s 288
NAS_HOST 7 /dev/sdb 240.28 MB/s /dev/md1 RAID 6 1.21 GB/s 288
NAS_HOST 8 /dev/sda 241.76 MB/s /dev/md1 RAID 6 1.21 GB/s 288


Those numbers give us the "guaranteed not to exceed" capabilities of the disk array.

Now, looking at the network fabric...the Thunderbolt bridge:

michael$ iperf3 -c 169.254.9.151
Connecting to host 169.254.9.151, port 5201
[ 5] local 169.254.91.32 port 50480 connected to 169.254.9.151 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 1.96 GBytes 16.9 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 1.88 GBytes 16.1 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 2.05 GBytes 17.6 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 2.00 GBytes 17.2 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 2.00 GBytes 17.1 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 2.04 GBytes 17.6 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 1.98 GBytes 17.0 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 2.10 GBytes 18.1 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 2.14 GBytes 18.4 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 2.05 GBytes 17.6 Gbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 20.2 GBytes 17.4 Gbits/sec sender
[ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 20.2 GBytes 17.4 Gbits/sec receiver


And the 10G ethernet connection:

michael$ iperf3 -c 192.168.1.19
Connecting to host 192.168.1.19, port 5201
[ 5] local 192.168.1.41 port 50960 connected to 192.168.1.19 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 964 MBytes 8.08 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 904 MBytes 7.59 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 979 MBytes 8.21 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 1000 MBytes 8.39 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 1.07 GBytes 9.13 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 388 MBytes 3.27 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 933 MBytes 7.82 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 1.06 GBytes 9.10 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 1.06 GBytes 9.15 Gbits/sec
[ 5] 9.00-10.01 sec 931 MBytes 7.77 Gbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate
[ 5] 0.00-10.01 sec 9.15 GBytes 7.85 Gbits/sec sender
[ 5] 0.00-10.01 sec 9.15 GBytes 7.85 Gbits/sec receiver


I'll point out a few things in the above: the first is that the results vary in just that run from over 9Gbps to barely 3Gbps. I've occasionally see less than 1Gbps show up, and sometimes less than 1Mbps! But generally it tends to be mid-7 to mid-8 going from the iMac Pro to the QNAP. Reversing the flow (with -R option), the numbers drop about 1.5-2Gbps. That's right: the Mac is faster when it's writing than when its reading over its 10Gbe port.

Not so a MacBook Pro using an OWC TB3->10Gbe adapter. That unit (which looks like a re-branded Sonnet Solo) consistently maintains over 9Gbps each way (when running Mac-to-Mac over a QNAP 10Gbe switch). Since both the iMac Pro and the MacBook Pro are running Mojave 10.14.2, I would say that Apple has done something wrong that's hurting their 10Gbe port speeds.

Running the disk speed test, write speeds from the iMacPro tend to be well over 700MB/sec (enough to write 2160p30 10bit YUV 4:2:2 in real-time) and just under 600 MB/sec (enough to read 2160p24 10bit YUV 4:2:2 but often not quite enough to do 2160p30). And this asymmetry is no surprise because we know that our network speeds are similarly asymmetric.

I will also say that when running iperf3 with the -P option, I can typically fully saturate the 10Gbe connection with -P4 (four parallel readers or four parallel writers), which means that it could theoretically serve about 8 layers of 8K R3D media at REDCODE 8:1 at 24p.

But the thunderbolt interface is faster, more symmetric, and more consistent in its delivery of bandwidth.

P.S. The 12TB drives format down to 10.91TB after QNAP takes their chunk, and they format to a RAID6 with 64.8TB worth of capacity. Formatted capacity = 90% of unformatted capacity.

Manifold Recording
Pittsboro, NC
https://manifoldrecording.com/


Return to posts index


Bob Zelin
Re: QNAP 873e now vs. 882XT next month - reply from Bob
on Dec 26, 2018 at 9:50:29 pm

Hi Michael -
When I searched how to contact you directly this morning, I discovered who you actually are.
I am humbled and honored to meet you. I have direct engineering contacts with all the companies that you mention, if you are interested. I am sure they would be interested to talk with you.
I am actually quite shocked that you decided on the QNAP, when it appears that you have access to anything that
you want.

Let me know if it's ok to contact you directly.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Michael Tiemann
Re: QNAP 873e now vs. 882XT next month - reply from Bob
on Dec 26, 2018 at 10:11:28 pm

Sure! Sent you a reply to your email.

Manifold Recording
Pittsboro, NC
https://manifoldrecording.com/


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2019 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]