QNAP comments on USB, eSATA backup issues [Archive]

thiggins

02-04-2009, 03:56 PM

I asked my contact at QNAP to comment on some recent posts that have complained about errors and slow speed of backups made to USB drives. This is the response I received from QNAP (edited for format and clarity).
=====

1) Our implementation of "backup to external storage feature" is based on standard Linux "copy" and "rsync" commands. It allows server managers to back up the selected share folders to the external USB disk instantly or by schedule.

2) For the file disappearance issue described in this thread
http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10704&p=50465

The failure of copied files to show up can be due to SAMBA not updating quickly. Reconnecting to the share in question should force an update and the user should be able to see the files.

We have investigated and answered other complaints of file copy problems via private message. We found that some issues were due to the USB or eSATA drive used. We have found that some inexpensive drives or drive enclosures do not provide reliable file transfer.

In some cases, replacing the USB or eSATA cable might help. But other problems can be caused by USB-to-SATA bridge chip incompatibility. In that case a different drive or enclosure must be used.

3) Slow backup speed
The current NTFS 3G (refered to in http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10484&p=50067) provides the read/write capability for external storage.

We have seen the slow performance (for a 500MHz Marvell ARM, NTFS-3G performance is currently around 2-3MB/s) and have already spent some effort for several months to work/develop with Paragon for a better NTFS-write solution.

The work with Paragon's has yielded a solution that can provide approximately 10MB/s throghput. But we don't yet have a stable release, so currently must continue to use the current NTFS-3G based implementation.

claykin

02-04-2009, 05:18 PM

Tim

Do you know which USB bridge IC Qnap uses?

Are the issues specific to the hardware that uses the Marvell CPU?

I would suspect Qnap uses the Intel SB to control USB and eSata on the Intel CPU NAS boxes. correct?

BTW, the Readynas also suffers from poor NTFS r/w performance through the USB ports. In my tests on Duo's and NV+ I've seen about 2MB/s. FAT32 yields about 5MB/s and EXT3 about 12MB/s.

thiggins

02-04-2009, 06:04 PM

They use a couple of USB bridges depending on processor used. The reviews contain any internal details that I was able to determine by examing the boards.

I don't think the NTFS speed issue is hardware specific. Probably more of a generic driver issue.

Osamede

02-04-2009, 06:31 PM

QNAP is not being honest or frank here. On their own forums, the culprit, has been exposed as both hardware and firmware, so there is a limit to what they can do with just firmware. And the problem (unacceptably low speed or even no speed in transfers) occcurs both via USB and LAN. I mean how many days will it take to back up a 1TB drive at less than 10Mb per seconds top speed, sometimes far less? And what are the chances the thing fails in that time? Quite a lot actually is the experience.

There are many dissatisfied people on their forums owning the QNAP 109 and 209 series with this problem. I myself had to dump a 209 "Pro" for far less than I paid, because QNAP would not take any responsibilty for this. Backup is a crucial function and its isnt something to joke with.

However, with full knowledge of this problems QNAP continue to sell the products in question, dragging new buyers into the same mess. Which is pretty unethical.

One just wishes they would address the issue by doing something eg recalling the products and upgrading them + revsising the model instead of still selling it. But they seem to me more interested in spreading misleading statements than actually doing something. Its rather dissapointing.

claykin

02-04-2009, 07:46 PM

szaka

02-05-2009, 07:06 AM

I don't think the NTFS speed issue is hardware specific. Probably more of a generic driver issue.
Correct. These are the write performance results on a 300 MHZ ARM:
Free NTFS-3G driver: 1.4 MB/sec
Commercial NTFS-3G driver: 9.5-11.5 MB/sec

Both QNAP and ReadyNAS use the free NTFS-3G driver.

Regards, Szaka

--
NTFS-3G: http://ntfs-3g.com

thiggins

02-05-2009, 10:34 AM

QNAP is not being honest or frank here.
That's a pretty bold accusation. Have you contacted QNAP support directly regarding your problems? If you like, I can put them in touch with you directly.

Chaplin

02-05-2009, 02:17 PM

There is all the same a big problem to make the backup. I wanted to purchase the 639Pro but I think of waiting if there is no simple, effective, approachable, flexible, fast and easy solution of use.

barlew

02-05-2009, 03:45 PM

Hello

Although this is my first post here at Small Net Builder, I have been following this Backup 'issue' for a while as im looking to buy the Qnap 209 Pro II for home network use and streaming to my Network Media Tank, HDX 1000.

I have a question about Qnap's response:
"In some cases, replacing the USB or eSATA cable might help. But other problems can be caused by USB-to-SATA bridge chip incompatibility. In that case a different drive or enclosure must be used."

I will be looking to back up to an external HD via eSata but have yet to purchase one. Do Qnap provide, or is there an independent list, of drives or enclosures that are compatible with the Qnap USB-to-SATA bridge chip?

thiggins

02-05-2009, 04:09 PM

I will be looking to back up to an external HD via eSata but have yet to purchase one. Do Qnap provide, or is there an independent list, of drives or enclosures that are compatible with the Qnap USB-to-SATA bridge chip?
I don't have one. I suggest contacting QNAP support directly and asking.

QNAPIvan

02-06-2009, 05:50 AM

Dear all:
Sorry to step into the discussion here and appologize if there is any bad feeling caused. Allow me to give you some feedback to the concerns above.

1. About the USB chip we used.

On the TS-109/209/409 ARM platform, the USB hub chip is Genesys GL850G. which should be popular especially in external USB hub products.

On the TS-509 Pro & the coming TS-809 Pro, the USB interface is from the ICH7. TS-439 Pro and TS-639 Pro Pro is using ICH7M which should share the same compatibility level with x86 PCs.

2. In the past, same with other competitive NAS products. The file system on external disk only supported FAT, EXT3, and "NTFS read only". Seldom vendors provide the "NTFS write" feature.
We tried to integrate the NTFS write capability by both Paragon's solution & NTFS 3G-parallely. We experienced the NTFS 3G shows slow performance at around 3MB/s on 500MHz ARM platform.

3. NTFS write (NTFS-3G) performance on our newly launch x86 platform.

TS-639 Pro & TS-509 Pro: 10-12MB/s around.

TS-109/209/409: 3MB/s around.
PS: The copy & dd command is used.
To clarify the concerns here, QNAP didn't stop the effort of looking for other alternative solution to improve the performance level for NTFS write. However we accept the complains because the inconveinence caused.

4. Some discussion concerns on the TS-109 & TS-209's EXT3 with patch format because the the hard disk cannot be mounted by a general Linux EXT3 PC.
Allow me explain:
(1) There is a Live CD can be provided by QNAP support team, incase users need to set up the environment on a PC, the CD can automatically set up to duplicate the file system of patched EXT3. The same environment is also here in QNAP lab incase user dont want to buy another NAS to retrieve the data.
(2) The patched EXT3 on TS-109 & TS-209 can be mounted by the PC with EXT4 format for data recovery.
(3) The file system we use for TS-409/509/439/639/809 series is standard EXT3.

Cheers!

barlew

02-06-2009, 06:35 AM

Hi QNAPIvan

Could i clarify something before making my purchase of an TS-209 Pro2 and an external HD enclosure to connect via eSata for back up purposes.

You say:
"On the TS-109/209/409 ARM platform, the USB hub chip is Genesys GL850G. which should be popular especially in external USB hub products."

I raised the issue of compatibility with Qnap support:

"As i am about to purchase a TS-209 Pro 2 and will have an external HD connected via eSata I will need a list of drives or enclosures that are compatible with the Qnap USB-to-SATA bridge chip. Can you supply me with one?"

And the response from Simon Chang-Ou was to go by the Qnap compatibility list. Unfortunately this list only contains 2 clear options, and 1 other with a note i dont understand:

Brand - Model - Note
STARDOM - eSATA/USB 2.0 Combo - i302-1S-SB2
Cooler Master - eSATA/USB 2.0 RX-3SB-S
VANTEC - NexStar.3 - Must change another eSATA cable

Not sure what "Must change another eSATA cable" means?

So what you are implying is that most external HD enclosures connecting via eSata should work but Qnap compatibility list only recommends 3.

The doesn’t really help unless Qnap adds more products to their compatibility list.

szaka

02-06-2009, 08:23 AM

We experienced the NTFS 3G shows slow performance at around 3MB/s on 500MHz ARM platform.

Dear QNAPIvan,

May I ask you that when you refer to your NTFS-3G benchmark results then please note that QNAP is using the much lower performing and free NTFS-3G driver. As a reference data, for instance the free driver performs 1.4 MB/s on a 300 MHz ARM, meanwhile the professional and optimized NTFS-3G driver performs 9.5-11.5 MB/sec on the same hardware. On a 2.5 GHz Core 2 Duo our current best result is 1.375 GB/sec (yes, it's Gigabyte).

We tried to contact QNAP several times since September, 2008 and offered our help and reliable, high-performance driver for evaluation but we never got a reply.

Best Regards,

Szabolcs Szakacsits
Chairman & CTO
NTFS-3G Technology Ltd.
http://ntfs-3g.com

claykin

02-06-2009, 10:36 AM

Clearly, QNAP doesn't want to pay for an optimized NTFS driver.

QNAPIVAN says they are using a ICH7M in the new x86 design. The ICH7M supports only 2 x SATA 300 ports. So, QNAPIVAN, what chip are you using to control SATA and eSATA on the new x86 design?

QNAPIvan

02-06-2009, 11:24 AM

Clearly, QNAP doesn't want to pay for an optimized NTFS driver.

Clearly? Why you would like to make this kind of judgement?

QNAPIVAN says they are using a ICH7M in the new x86 design. The ICH7M supports only 2 x SATA 300 ports. So, QNAPIVAN, what chip are you using to control SATA and eSATA on the new x86 design?
Marvell SATA controller is used for the internal SATA drives and the internal SATA interface of ICH7 is reserved for the eSATA.

QNAPIvan

02-06-2009, 11:32 AM

On a 2.5 GHz Core 2 Duo our current best result is 1.375 GB/sec (yes, it's Gigabyte).
We tried to contact QNAP several times since September, 2008 and offered our help and reliable, high-performance driver for evaluation but we never got a reply.
http://ntfs-3g.com

Dear Mr. Szabolcs Szakacsits:
Thanks for your sharing.
The performance number of the solution is new to me and very impressive. The NTFS-commercial information I knew is around Q4 last year from our forum. As I said at that moment we have kicked off the project with the alternative solution provider on ARM & the other platform. Unfortunately we cannot come out the stable release in time till now. However we look forward the cooperation opportunities on other new platform. We will mail you for following discussion.

Cheers!

QNAPIvan

02-06-2009, 11:45 AM

So what you are implying is that most external HD enclosures connecting via eSata should work but Qnap compatibility list only recommends 3.
The doesn’t really help unless Qnap adds more products to their compatibility list.

Dear balew:
Sorry for the insufficient information of USB device compatibility list. We will improve it. Actually we have purchased more models of USB devices and updated the list on certain series. We will update the list for TS-109/209 soon.

Regarding your concerns,
1. There is no eSATA on TS-209. Please note before you purchase.
2. Your question: "Not sure what "Must change another eSATA cable" means?"
For the model of Vantec, their eSATA cable's quality is not good. After change to another eSATA cable, the box can work stably with the NAS.
3. QBack-35S (http://www.qnap.com/pro_detail_feature.asp?p_id=84)is something can be considered.

Cheers!

claykin

02-06-2009, 04:58 PM

Clearly? Why you would like to make this kind of judgement?

Marvell SATA controller is used for the internal SATA drives and the internal SATA interface of ICH7 is reserved for the eSATA.

My bad for making that assumption. Wish you luck getting an optimized NTFS driver integrated.

Osamede

02-07-2009, 10:50 AM

That's a pretty bold accusation. Have you contacted QNAP support directly regarding your problems? If you like, I can put them in touch with you directly.
1) Its not in the least "bold". They have been informed about this on their forums for some time and the insinuation made here is that its only a firmware problem. Its not.

2) I have been on their forums when I owned the product. Why would I need you to put me in touch with them? I dont own their product anymore - I dumped it.

Thanks for your "support" though.

claykin

02-07-2009, 01:24 PM

1) Its not in the least "bold". They have been informed about this on their forums for some time and the insinuation made here is that its only a firmware problem. Its not.

2) I have been on their forums when I owned the product. Why would I need you to put me in touch with them? I dont own their product anymore - I dumped it.

Thanks for your "support" though.

What did you purchase to replace your 2 drive QNAP? Are you happy with it?

QNAPIvan

01-15-2010, 04:42 PM

claykin

01-15-2010, 07:33 PM

QNAP has integated the NTFS solution into the new firmware to boost the performance, it grately improved the speed when user back up their NAS device to the external storage with NTFS file system.

SS-439 Pro is the first one with new firmware solution that we sent to Tim, the related articles can be found here:
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/nas/nas-reviews/31041-new-to-the-charts-qnap-ss-439-pro-turbo-nas

Cheers,

Nice job QNAPIvan. You guys have really innovated in 2009.

If QNAP could just expand their built in backup options, I'd be thrilled and may jump on board. Sorry, I'm hard to please....

Osamede

01-16-2010, 07:41 PM

I am rather less impressed. When I owned the QNAP and complained about this problem we were either ignored or told it wasnt a problem. It wasnt until we went on external websites warning potential buyers about this problem, and asking reviewers to document backup performance in their tests, that QNAP took it seriiously. In other words when customers could no longer be duped.

The decent thing to do would be at least apologize and admit that you were wrong QNAP. This isnt innovation - its catching up to real life needs that you were informed of long ago.

claykin

01-16-2010, 09:39 PM

Osamede

01-19-2010, 05:33 PM

I hear ya. On the other hand which NAS maker had a decent NTFS driver that could perform like EXT2/3? I'm still waiting for Netgear to jump on board with a newer NTFS driver.
Not at all the issue for me - issue for me is whether the vendor that stands by their product, as opposed to their response basically being "I dont hear you, but hey look at my shiny new product - buy it". Why on earth would I give you more of my money? You haved proved that you wont do right by customers if they encounter a serious flaw in your shiny new product. No way.

kamina

03-08-2010, 08:51 AM

Not at all the issue for me - issue for me is whether the vendor that stands by their product, as opposed to their response basically being "I dont hear you, but hey look at my shiny new product - buy it". Why on earth would I give you more of my money? You haved proved that you wont do right by customers if they encounter a serious flaw in your shiny new product. No way.

Serious flaw? Bad performance in backups is not really a serious flaw unless you are losing / corrupting data at the same time. Especially when this has pretty much been a standard for all manufacturers.

Sure it would have been nice if they would have changed the design with just feedback from customers, but I think you are blowing this way out of proportion.

Osamede

03-08-2010, 02:38 PM

Issue is well covered - since we began, this website has since included backup in its analysis of product. And QNAP, having been exposed, has gone out and addressed it.

Besides which anyone calling backup of data "non-issue" either knows little about computing - or is deliberately to excuse the inexcusable

And on your 3rd post no less - you not a shill are you? Nahhh..... ;)

kamina

03-10-2010, 04:59 AM

Issue is well covered - since we began, this website has since included backup in its analysis of product. And QNAP, having been exposed, has gone out and addressed it.

Been exposed? Sure, the pressure from here has probably been a major player in their decision to include the new drivers, but who else has done so?

Besides which anyone calling backup of data "non-issue" either knows little about computing - or is deliberately to excuse the inexcusable

A non-issue? Where did I call it a non-issue? I had a Qnap TS-119 (edit, I actually had a TS-109) (sold quite some while ago), and felt the backup speeds to EXT-3 was too slow. I don't think I would have ever beared even slower speeds...

However you are calling out Qnap and saying they have a flaw in their product. Me saying it is not a flaw does not mean I consider it a non-issue (ok, for me it is since I don't have any Windows machines and as such no need for NTFS drives).

The ability to backup your NAS is a feature. The filesystems supported are a feature. Slow backup to NTFS drives due to bad drivers in the Linux kernel is a limitation. If the data was corrupted it would be a flaw. If the drive was left in an inconsistent state it would be a flaw.

As far as I'm aware Qnap is the first one who has worked around this limitation by purchasing a license for a proprietary driver from a third party. It's a good move and others will probably follow, but you are still complaining about them despite them being the only consumer NAS manufacturer I'm aware of who has done so?

And on your 3rd post no less - you not a shill are you? Nahhh..... ;)

Yes yes, I know people who don't spend their life posting here can't look at things logically. Do you have a habit of starting to attack people when they find flaws in your logic?

convergent

03-10-2010, 03:52 PM

I agree with you karmina, I just placed an order for the TS-659 and the NTFS backup performance to USB was one of the things I looked at. I have a ReadyNAS NV+ that I bought 4 years ago. I tried to do backup to USB on it with NTFS and it was SO slow that it would have not finished the backup in a day and it was a daily backup... no go. I ended up going with ext3. A month ago I had a drive failure and because my USB backup was ext3, I was not able to easily access the data... if it were NTFS, I would have been able to plug the drive into my Mac and use it immediately.

Osamede, I get that you are dissatisfied because this wasn't resolved when you originally asked for it, but companies don't always respond to every request for a feature from every user. If you can backup fast to ext3 of slow to NTFS, then that isn't a defect... that's the way it is and actually the way the competition is still. They now have a good solution and its one of the reasons I bought the product over other similar competitive offerings. I also applaud QNAP for coming onto this forum and discussing the problem openly. Not too many vendors will do that outside their own controlled forum.

claykin

03-10-2010, 07:23 PM

Osamede

I hear ya and you have a point. Qnap is often coy and quiet in their forums when they have an issue they want to brush under the rug. While I agree its an issue, its not really a flaw. All linux based NAS vendors suffered from poor NTFS and to some extent FAT32 performance. It seems that Qnap was the first to address this with a licensed driver. Yippee.

Kamina

I believe Synology also has a newer NTFS driver in the latest firmware (if not, check the current beta).

Convergent

Your NV+ is 4 years old. Did you expect blazing performance out of a 2005 launched product? meanwhile Netgear continues to support the NV+ with firmware updates and they recently released a V4.1.7 beta for it. Unfortunately no new NTFS driver....yet. A little birdie told me its coming but I'm not sure if its coming to the Sparc based NAS' (NV+/Duo, etc) or only the x86 based (NVX, Pro, etc).

You could have read your EXT3 backup using this free Mac driver. http://sourceforge.net/projects/fuse-ext2/

BTW, EXT3 is the most reliable way to backup your data. its native and without the need for a translation driver that can only muck things up.

convergent

03-10-2010, 10:20 PM

I don't think I ever said that I expected the NV+ to be "blazing fast" by today's standards. Four years ago, it was pretty obvious that even though the specs for it said it supported NTFS, there wasn't any way to practically use it since it took longer to do the backup then the time interval between the backups. So ext3 was the only real USB backup option. I was telling that story to point out that other vendors have a problem with NTFS, and that its not a bug... its the nature of the beast. I further explained that ext3 has limitations for immediate use of the data with a failed NAS, assuming your office doesn't have Linux workstations. I am aware of ext3 options for Macs, but they are not really production ready... not sure if its the one you mentioned, but one hasn't even been updated for Snow Leopard. Given the importance of my data, I elected to wait until my NAS was back online rather than risking damaging my only backup by using questionable drivers. I needed the data then, but needed to not take a chance on losing it more. When my TS-659 arrives, I will test backing up to USB vs. using the NV+ as a backup... and pick the one that will work best. Bottom line is that QNAP has added capability here buy licensing drivers to improve the NT performance. All this stuff has pros and cons and each person's needs are going to be different.

claykin

03-10-2010, 11:05 PM

I agree with you that everyone's needs are different. For me, I prefer to keep my backup drives formatted EXT3. Reliability is high.

The majority of the EXT/3 tools for Windows/Mac are read only. A few allow writing, but its usually off by default. So, I believe you are safe in read only mode. I've never had a problem or heard of anyone else having an issue corrupting data with a read only EXT driver.

I'm not a Mac user but the readme claims it works with OSX 10.6.

I'm sure you'll enjoy your new Qnap. Performance should be excellent and hopefully reliability is the same. I suspect you may find the built in backup functionality is lacking when compared to the Readynas.

Osamede

03-11-2010, 04:37 AM

Qnap is often coy and quiet in their forums when they have an issue they want to brush under the rug.
And that for me has always been the point. On this issue QNAP was basically ignoring their own customers on their own forum. Wouldnt really respond in any meaninglful way.

And then when it was publicised outside, they start acting like communication is their number one priority.

Sorry, but its phony, phony, phony. A company that acts like this will do it again when some other problem crops up. And that is why they lost me as a custmer for life. I paid my own money for their product, so I dont see why I should have to tolerate some shill coming here to attack me for pointing out that fundamentally QNAP acted with dishonour on this matter.

convergent

03-11-2010, 08:36 AM

I'm sure you'll enjoy your new Qnap. Performance should be excellent and hopefully reliability is the same. I suspect you may find the built in backup functionality is lacking when compared to the Readynas.

All I'm looking to do is daily incremental backups of my shares... is that something that QNAP won't do? My plan was to either do it either the way I am now to USB drives, or to setup the NV+ as a BSOD and use rsync to backup the QNAP. The advantage of that approach is that I could locate it elsewhere in my house and also be able to access it immediately if something on the QNAP failed. I'll play around with both options once I have the QNAP in hand tomorrow.

kamina

03-11-2010, 09:27 AM

And that for me has always been the point. On this issue QNAP was basically ignoring their own customers on their own forum. Wouldnt really respond in any meaninglful way.

And then when it was publicised outside, they start acting like communication is their number one priority.

Sorry, but its phony, phony, phony. A company that acts like this will do it again when some other problem crops up. And that is why they lost me as a custmer for life. I paid my own money for their product, so I dont see why I should have to tolerate some shill coming here to attack me for pointing out that fundamentally QNAP acted with dishonour on this matter.

Duh...

Licensing a proprietary driver for all their NAS devices is not cheap. It's quite natural that they will not talk much about the issue while they are trying to figure out if they will invest in it or not. On the other hand once the decision is made, it's easy to communicate about it.

This is all pretty simple stuff if you ever worked in a company developing and selling products. The company want's to make money. Of course they fix bugs, but beyond that they are investing money in either improving existing or creating new features. They will make the choices on what they do based on what they think will bring in the most money. Communicating something such as this to the users before the decision is made would be unwise, as there would really be no turning back. I do recollect seeing Qnap mention that the speed is a limitation of the driver ages ago, but might remember incorrectly. Don't really know what more they could have done at the time.

This will work the same for any public company, even if some show it more obviously.

What I found to be very interesting was that they apparently (don't have a qnap NAS now, so have not looked into it so closely) also released the driver for a lot of discontinued models. I'll assume they are paying a bulk sum allowing this because otherwise it would be a very strange business decision.

Osamede

03-11-2010, 05:28 PM

The company want's to make money.
This is a cliche we hear all the time - . "The company wants to make money"....so what? Do customers want to buy products that pose a major threat to their data? Nope.

But you show no respect for customers and their hard-earned money, although you are eager for the company to collect take that money under false pretences? This is the type of banality one would normally hear from a company shilll.

Communicatingg something such as this to the users before the decision is made would be unwise, as there would really be no turning back. I do recollect seeing Qnap mention that the speed is a limitation of the driver ages ago, but might remember incorrectly. Don't really know what more they could have done at the time.

Actually this statement is directly false. First they ignored it, then they pretended it was a hardware issue. Then when it was uncovered as a matter of refusing to spend money on drives they went silent for some time, only coming out when the issue spread over forums such as this one.

You use words yourself but I am not sure you understand what they mean. "Communicating" and probelm solving are what customers expect when a company puts up a user forum on the internet. Silence and obfuscation are fundamentally incompatible with this concept.

Better you find something else to to instead of acting as though consumers who paid their money have no right to expect decent treatment and timely communication. I am certain that you work in the consumer electronics industry, because you display a distinct lack of understanding of these concepts that is common to the industry. It is also part of the reason that these companies spend their existence in a race to the bottom of the barrel. If you want to run a successful long-term business, you respect treat the customers you have properly. You dont shaft them, ignore them and to churn them for others. That is a loser's game. And the industry doesnt get it. But those of us who buy these products wouldnt not have any money to buy them if we showed your type of poor attitude towards our own customers.