Back to Amazon.com

WootBot


quality posts: 17 Private Messages WootBot

Staff

QNAP TS-328 Personal Cloud NAS Storage System

Last Purchase:
a month ago
Order Pace (rank):
Top 7% of Computers Woots
Top 17% of all Woots
Woots Sold (rank):
Top 7% of Computers Woots
Top 16% of all Woots

wootstalkerbot


quality posts: 16 Private Messages wootstalkerbot

[Preview 1][Preview 2][Preview 3][Preview 4][Preview 5]

QNAP TS-328 Personal Cloud NAS Storage System
Price: $199.99
Shipping Options:: $5 Standard (Free with Prime)
Shipping Estimates: Ships in 3-5 Business Days. (Thursday, Aug 23 to Tuesday, Aug 28) + transit
Condition: New

Buy It Search Amazon Search Google

searchneverend


quality posts: 5 Private Messages searchneverend

Does anyone has any experience with this?

I am nerdier than 97% of all people. Are you a nerd?

wenda86


quality posts: 22 Private Messages wenda86

Decent NAS for the price. Recommended to run as RAID 5 in 3 identical disks.

If your switch supports LACP/bandwidth aggregation, you can run the 2*1G connections. Depending on how you access it, it should be able to give you sustained throughput higher than the 1G link. For simultaneous user of 2-3,this is a good idea.

pupyluvr


quality posts: 64 Private Messages pupyluvr

Yo, Woot!... the one thing Edwin knows is that QNAP TS-328 isn't part of The Fast & The Furious Franchise anymore, he was just in the first movie... right dawg

pupyluvr


quality posts: 64 Private Messages pupyluvr
searchneverend wrote:Does anyone has any experience with this?



*I did Drobo customer service once upon a time...

Customer~ Why does it take so long? (They would turn it off over the weekend or something)

Me~ Because you have four 1 terabyte drives (modified RAID 5?) loaded with huge files connected to your computer via USB 2.0 using proprietary software/hardware (1TB used to be huge) (The Ethernet adapter was super slow and even worse)

Customer~ Well, can't you make it go faster?

Me~ Facepalm - another long day

*If I said something wrong it's because I scrubbed my memory banks with alcohol... The only way to be sure

dadrepus


quality posts: 7 Private Messages dadrepus

Could I run a Plex server on this, not just storage? Could it it transcode multiple streams?

tanios


quality posts: 12 Private Messages tanios
dadrepus wrote:Could I run a Plex server on this, not just storage? Could it it transcode multiple streams?



Short answer is no. You really want an Intel processor in the NAS if you're going to try and run Plex on it. Long answer is you can google "plex nas compatibility list" and see a more thorough file describing which NAS can handle what, but don't expect any transcoding from this.

lloydrj


quality posts: 2 Private Messages lloydrj

Anyone have experience on reliability of QNAP vs, Synology? Also, RAID 5 protects against A single disk failure - experience when the device itself fails.

coyoteln


quality posts: 0 Private Messages coyoteln

Okay, does this have the hard drives in it or not? If it does, what is the storage capacity?

John

paulbart


quality posts: 3 Private Messages paulbart
coyoteln wrote:Okay, does this have the hard drives in it or not? If it does, what is the storage capacity?



It does not. Note the word "diskless".

QNAP TS-328 3-bay Diskless Personal Cloud NAS Storage System

brianh81


quality posts: 6 Private Messages brianh81
lloydrj wrote:Anyone have experience on reliability of QNAP vs, Synology? Also, RAID 5 protects against A single disk failure - experience when the device itself fails.



I have had both. I had an 8-bay QNAP array that freaked out during a long, large transfer and trashed the array. I bought an 8 bay Synology with larger drives to do some data recovery from the QNAP fiasco, and it has been running fine ever since.

pupyluvr


quality posts: 64 Private Messages pupyluvr
lloydrj wrote:Anyone have experience on reliability of QNAP vs, Synology? Also, RAID 5 protects against A single disk failure - experience when the device itself fails.



Pray to Jesus or whichever God you trust ~ Tech support

coyoteln


quality posts: 0 Private Messages coyoteln

Okay, diskless can mean many things:
Does it have any existing storage capacity, or do you have
to add drives in order to get storage?

One of the pictures shows 3 drives.

sremick


quality posts: 2 Private Messages sremick

So here's the dirty secret of NASes and RAID in 2018:

RAID5 is dead.

The issue: the MTBF on modern capacity drives is now such that, if you have a drive fail and then swap in a replacement drive, during the time it takes to resilver onto the new drive you're almost guaranteed to experience a read failure... and now you have NO REDUNDANCY. Poof goes your data.

In my professional life (I work in IT and manage thousands of systems and users), I've seen this happen several times in recent years to people who didn't follow policy, went rogue, and ordered their own personal external RAID array.

Go RAID6 (or in ZFS parlance, RAIDZ2) or don't bother. Otherwise it's just a pretty shiny expensive fire extinguisher that when you go to use it you discover it doesn't work. A false sense of security doesn't help you.

tc1uscg


quality posts: 36 Private Messages tc1uscg
sremick wrote:So here's the dirty secret of NASes and RAID in 2018:

RAID5 is dead.

The issue: the MTBF on modern capacity drives is now such that, if you have a drive fail and then swap in a replacement drive, during the time it takes to resilver onto the new drive you're almost guaranteed to experience a read failure... and now you have NO REDUNDANCY. Poof goes your data.

In my professional life (I work in IT and manage thousands of systems and users), I've seen this happen several times in recent years to people who didn't follow policy, went rogue, and ordered their own personal external RAID array.

Go RAID6 (or in ZFS parlance, RAIDZ2) or don't bother. Otherwise it's just a pretty shiny expensive fire extinguisher that when you go to use it you discover it doesn't work. A false sense of security doesn't help you.



I will second that. I let my system use X-Raid (A netgear setup on my ReadyNas104 box). Uses 3 of the 4 drives for data, drive 4 is for snapshots. I've had 1 failure. It recovered all my data but took a very very long time IMO. But I use the same approach I use when I make my Bug Out Bags.. One is none, two is one. I keep two 8tb external segate drives plugged into mine that back up my back ups. :-)

And if you need help to figure out what brand/size drive you want to feed these things, this place has a good list of brands and failure rates. I'm sure there are lots of other sources for this info.

TC1 USCG Ret

tphili17


quality posts: 7 Private Messages tphili17
sremick wrote:So here's the dirty secret of NASes and RAID in 2018:

RAID5 is dead.

The issue: the MTBF on modern capacity drives is now such that, if you have a drive fail and then swap in a replacement drive, during the time it takes to resilver onto the new drive you're almost guaranteed to experience a read failure... and now you have NO REDUNDANCY. Poof goes your data.

In my professional life (I work in IT and manage thousands of systems and users), I've seen this happen several times in recent years to people who didn't follow policy, went rogue, and ordered their own personal external RAID array.

Go RAID6 (or in ZFS parlance, RAIDZ2) or don't bother. Otherwise it's just a pretty shiny expensive fire extinguisher that when you go to use it you discover it doesn't work. A false sense of security doesn't help you.



Exactly! Now, if I could only remember how to set up Raid6 with 3 drives and not have it be completely pointless...

Raid5 is fine here. You get the read benefits of 2-disk striping with enough redundancy to handle a drive failure and still keep your data. Of course, if you are using this as the data backbone of a 5-9's system, then there is a lot you should reconsider. But for home use, Raid5 is not dead.

sremick


quality posts: 2 Private Messages sremick
tphili17 wrote:Exactly! Now, if I could only remember how to set up Raid6 with 3 drives and not have it be completely pointless...


Sarcasm != auto-win

Raid5 is fine here. You get the read benefits of 2-disk striping with enough redundancy to handle a drive failure and still keep your data.


Except that you likely DON'T keep your data. You need to re-read what I wrote. When there's a read failure during resilvering and you have ZERO REDUNDANCY, in many instances you now LOSE YOUR ENTIRE POOL. How do you "keep your data" when your data is now all gone?

I'm not making this up. I've seen it happen for real, over and over.

Of course, RAID is NOT a "backup", so presumably you were following good practices and actually have a backup to lean on, in which case I suppose you do still have your data. RAID is for high-availability, NOT "backup".

I'm sorry that this makes RAID more expensive. I understand that people would MUCH rather only have to buy 3 disks vs 6. However, spending the money on 3 disks that probably won't help you when it comes time is not better than spending the money on 6 disks that actually will.

That's just the new reality with drives >1TB being the norm. But as usual, when something needs to cost more money, people get up-in-arms defensive of the incorrect practices because the incorrect practices are cheaper.

But hey, waste your money on an expensive solution that will fail when you need it to save you if that's what you consider fun. It's your wasted money, not mine. I get plenty of "I told you so" opportunities at my day job with the fools who don't listen and then lose all their data.

mcox84


quality posts: 0 Private Messages mcox84
lloydrj wrote:Anyone have experience on reliability of QNAP vs, Synology? Also, RAID 5 protects against A single disk failure - experience when the device itself fails.



I've used Synology, Drobo and QNAP. I'm a fan of the QNAP, it wasnt very long ago where Synology was literally a clone of the QNAP, you could load their firmwares side by side, log into the GUI's, cover the logo and not tell which was which. IIRC the QNAP itself is a linux kernal. Not sure if that's still the case. I have friends who swear by their Drobo's, but they never impressed me. I'm not saying Synology is bad by any means. FTR, and full disclosure, I've never used the QNAP Home/SOHO units, all the units I've deployed were SMB or Enterprise grade. We had the 2 disk configured for mirror and a USB enclosure plugged into that backing up the QNAP (I never can remember if that's RAID 1 or 0 without looking it up) for smaller clients, then went to the 8-12 disk units. We'd run them as SMB targets for VEEAM backups and they were AMAZING we were backing entire clusters in hours.

mcox84


quality posts: 0 Private Messages mcox84
coyoteln wrote:Okay, diskless can mean many things:
Does it have any existing storage capacity, or do you have
to add drives in order to get storage?

One of the pictures shows 3 drives.




it has 3 drive bays, the QNAP does not come with the disks, you'll have to order those separate. I recommend going to QNAPs web-page and looking at their recommended drives and specs on capacity.

mcox84


quality posts: 0 Private Messages mcox84
sremick wrote:Except that you likely DON'T keep your data. You need to re-read what I wrote. When there's a read failure during resilvering and you have ZERO REDUNDANCY, in many instances you now LOSE YOUR ENTIRE POOL. How do you "keep your data" when your data is now all gone?

I'm not making this up. I've seen it happen for real, over and over.

Of course, RAID is NOT a "backup", so presumably you were following good practices and actually have a backup to lean on, in which case I suppose you do still have your data. RAID is for high-availability, NOT "backup".

I'm sorry that this makes RAID more expensive. I understand that people would MUCH rather only have to buy 3 disks vs 6. However, spending the money on 3 disks that probably won't help you when it comes time is not better than spending the money on 6 disks that actually will.

That's just the new reality with drives >1TB being the norm. But as usual, when something needs to cost more money, people get up-in-arms defensive of the incorrect practices because the incorrect practices are cheaper.

But hey, waste your money on an expensive solution that will fail when you need it to save you if that's what you consider fun. It's your wasted money, not mine. I get plenty of "I told you so" opportunities at my day job with the fools who don't listen and then lose all their data.



this is a Home/SOHO unit, RAID 5 is probably fine, I wouldn't run business on it, and i'd probably have a USB drive plugged in with it replicating to that, but for a Home SOHO it'll work.

timeshareguy


quality posts: 0 Private Messages timeshareguy

Compare to ts 251

Taranach


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Taranach
mcox84 wrote:it has 3 drive bays, the QNAP does not come with the disks, you'll have to order those separate. I recommend going to QNAPs web-page and looking at their recommended drives and specs on capacity.


Wooting since July 2K4

slaker1


quality posts: 3 Private Messages slaker1

Just to mildly amplify what sremick has said, the point of mathematical certainty for a hard read error on a single contemporary hard drive is somewhere around 12TB. Even pushing in to the 6 or 8TB range for a 3-disk array, there's still a substantial likelihood that a hard read error will occur. A read error with no redundancy usually means a useless array, though some devices will let you continue to read data in some kind of degraded mode.

The hard limit for a RAID6/RAIDZ2 array is around 30TB, by the way.

RAID is not a backup tool. RAID is an availability tool. If you're looking to back up many terabytes of data such that a single 8 or 10TB drive isn't good enough for you, look at Crashplan Small Business or Backblaze or maybe an AWS storage plan, or else buy yourself an LTO tape changer.

re: Plex. You pretty much don't want to run Plex Media Server on anything with an ARM CPU unless you're planning to pre-encode all your media to highly compatible formats (720p h.264 with 2-channel AAC audio, probably) and unless you know your NAS box will never have to serve for more than one user. Plex Media Server running on an ARM CPU is pretty sad otherwise. If you *really* want a quality, low-cost Plex Server, get on Ebay and find yourself a lease-returned i7 desktop, like maybe a Dell Precision or something. Or get an nVidia Shield Set top Box, which has a specially modified Plex installation with wider support for hardware encoding. If you already have a decent desktop someplace, you can just run Plex Media Server on that and point its storage to your NAS box.

theomen


quality posts: 0 Private Messages theomen

Note that it only comes with one 2.5" drive tray and you buy the rest. Those are $32 each so expect to spend $100 on 3.5" drive trays in addition to the drives themselves.

Jonas4321


quality posts: 40 Private Messages Jonas4321
lloydrj wrote:Anyone have experience on reliability of QNAP vs, Synology? Also, RAID 5 protects against A single disk failure - experience when the device itself fails.



Yes to both. Have a QNAP as my central device backup storage (holds Aomei drive images of all of my computers and file-level backups of these computers but done daily instead of the periodically of the full image backups). My QNAP experienced a drive failure a few weeks ago and replacement was a piece of cake.
While this is a backup device for me, I also have a single-spindle drive connected to it that the QNAP automatically gets its contents backed up to daily, so I was not at all concerned when the single drive failure in my RAID5 configuration went south - it rebuilt in a reasonable time and with great ease. I am a fairly astute computer geek (25 years side business of computers and network support), but it was easier than I had hoped for.

As for my Synology, it is another 4-drive system in RAID5 configuration that is used as a server for portable training networks - I have not had a failure in that system yet, but it was somewhat easier to setup than the QNAP.

For me, they are interchangeable for centralized shared-access storage, just keep a separate backup of important stuff.

No Advertisement Here
That's why I haven't made thousands of posts...

dwasifar


quality posts: 11 Private Messages dwasifar

Wow, this is a good discussion. Smart people offering good experience. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

I'm using RAID1 on my personal server, but I have multiple redundant backups (external drive, failover server, and offsite), plus I use enterprise drives, watch the drives' SMART status, and replace them at the end of their warranty periods whether they show any degradation or not. So far I haven't had any failures. But even so, I might go to RAID5 or RAID6 next time.

lloydrj


quality posts: 2 Private Messages lloydrj

THANK YOU to all for the information shared!