https://www.bhphotovide
expiredTattyBear | Staff posted Nov 20, 2023 04:01 PM
Item 1 of 4
Item 1 of 4
expiredTattyBear | Staff posted Nov 20, 2023 04:01 PM
QNAP TR-004 4-Bay USB 3.2 Gen 1 RAID Expansion Enclosure
+ Free Shipping$175
$219
20% offAmazon
Visit AmazonGood Deal
Bad Deal
Save
Share
Leave a Comment
Top Comments
You can use DAS as part of a NAS solution, but these are basically muti-bay drive enclosures.
In other words, these don't support RTSP because they are not network attached. These plug in via USB into another device (like a computer or NAS system).
Would recommend a USB 3.2 enclosure (10gbps vs 5gbps).
For example this one for $20 more:
Yottamaster Type-C 10Gbps 4 Bay Hard Drive Enclosure Daisy Chain, External Direct Attached Storage HDD Enclosure Support 4x18TB Capacity-Can Expand 2 USBC Devices for up to 216TB Capacity https://a.co/d/eFj2hgh
edit
The OWC below is another great option.
https://eshop.macsales.
going from plain USB-C to Thunderbolt is a huge improvement in reliability
98 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Otherwise it will revert automatically down to USB 3.0 (USB 3.1 Gen 1) speeds of 5 Gbps instead of 10 Gbps.
edit
As others have mentioned, you may not necessarily need USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) speed for your use case. It may be more cost effective to stick with USB 3.0, but I would still highly recommend ensuring it supports UASP.
Unraid achieves basically the same functionality you're describing, with the added bonus of a well supported and very user friendly interface to manage it all and even docker/VM capability out-of-box.
Unraid now also supports ZFS for those who want a more "hard core" solution.
Maybe they changed their tune, but I want something that maintains the integrity of my data in addition to the quantity, plus the dismissive attitude of some forum members turned me off.
Having said that, it's really easy to use and does a lot of things under one roof. Plus it's incredibly popular so the forums are lively and info/help is everywhere.
I would definitely consider revisiting it down the road or recommending it to people who prioritize differently than I do.
OMV is a little quirky but it works for me.
And even with ZFS on unRaid, you have to choose between bitrot protection or pool flexibility and ability to spin down drives not in use. I'm sure a lot of people don't care about any of that (it is wildly popular), but it's not a great fit for me.
Snapraid checks most of my boxes and I actually like that it syncs on a schedule instead of immediately.
It doesn't hurt that it's free, but it's not like unRaid is expensive.
Otherwise it will revert automatically down to USB 3.0 (USB 3.1 Gen 1) speeds of 5 Gbps instead of 10 Gbps.
edit
As others have mentioned, you may not necessarily need USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 Gbps) speed for your use case. It may be more cost effective to stick with USB 3.0, but I would still highly recommend ensuring it supports UASP.
That's 625MB/s, so unless you have Raided SSDs in here or something else a little exotic, your drives aren't going to get very near that limit.
It seems like we're headed more towards software RAID and if you're doing unRaid/TrueNAS/OMV you are probably loading this with drives and exposing them individually anyway so 5Gbps isn't worth worrying about IMO.
Now someone is going to come and say they mirror SATA SSDs and/or run RAID 5 or 10 on unicorn 15k rpm drives or something, haha. Hey, it's fast enough for me but do your HW and see if you need something with more headroom for your particular setup.
That's 625MB/s, so unless you have Raided SSDs in here or something else a little exotic, your drives aren't going to get very near that limit.
It seems like we're headed more towards software RAID and if you're doing unRaid/TrueNAS/OMV you are probably loading this with drives and exposing them individually anyway so 5Gbps isn't worth worrying about IMO.
Now someone is going to come and say they mirror SATA SSDs and/or run RAID 5 or 10 on unicorn 15k rpm drives or something, haha. Hey, it's fast enough for me but do your HW and see if you need something with more headroom for your particular setup.
I have never hit 100% USB saturation in any circumstance. I suspect most haven't and won't either for a variety of reasons.
80% of the rated speed is much more likely to happen in the real world (as has been my experience).
Based on this, a single 2.5in SSD can saturate/bottleneck a USB 3.0 connection.
I have both the OWC and Yottamaster 10Gbps enclosures.
I've hit 1000+ MB/s on both but still well under the theoretical limits of 1250 MB/s (by about 20% less in fact).
These are UASP capable enclosures. A non-UASP enclosure (like this QNAP) would very likely perform under 80% of the rated USB 3.0 limit.
So yes, you are correct that some may not need more than 500 MB/s throughput, but if you already have USB 3.1 Gen 2 hardware you can double your bandwidth for a few bucks more.
My goal is not to prove you wrong, but rather to lay out all the cards on the table for folks to make an informed decision.
I have never hit 100% USB saturation in any circumstance. I suspect most haven't and won't either for a variety of reasons.
80% of the rated speed is much more likely to happen in the real world (as has been my experience).
Based on this, a single 2.5in SSD can saturate/bottleneck a USB 3.0 connection.
I have both the OWC and Yottamaster 10Gbps enclosures.
I've hit 1000+ MB/s on both but still well under the theoretical limits of 1250 MB/s (by about 20% less in fact).
These are UASP capable enclosures. A non-UASP enclosure (like this QNAP) would very likely perform under 80% of the rated USB 3.0 limit.
So yes, you are correct that some may not need more than 500 MB/s throughput, but if you already have USB 3.1 Gen 2 hardware you can double your bandwidth for a few bucks more.
My goal is not to prove you wrong, but rather to lay out all the cards on the table for folks to make an informed decision.
I'm guessing the vast majority are using spinners on this in individual mode or maybe simple RAID 1 / 10, for which I think 5Gbps is a pretty good fit. If you're using SSDs or a RAID mode with vastly better speeds, this probably isn't the best option.
As you mention, with any theoretical limit (but especially USB), you're never going to see those advertised speeds because of overhead and other issues.
I was eyeing that Yottamaster before pulling the trigger on a Terramaster, it's a very nice looking unit. For the Terramaster, the mfr actually says real-life speeds should be around 410MB/s, so it's certainly something to be cognizant of.
Any trouble with the drive on top being a little warmer since it has a horizontal drive layout with all the other drives underneath vs vertical? Probably not with the fan, but I'm always curious about stuff like that.
I'm guessing the vast majority are using spinners on this in individual mode or maybe simple RAID 1 / 10, for which I think 5Gbps is a pretty good fit. If you're using SSDs or a RAID mode with vastly better speeds, this probably isn't the best option.
As you mention, with any theoretical limit (but especially USB), you're never going to see those advertised speeds because of overhead and other issues.
I was eyeing that Yottamaster before pulling the trigger on a Terramaster, it's a very nice looking unit. For the Terramaster, the mfr actually says real-life speeds should be around 410MB/s, so it's certainly something to be cognizant of.
Any trouble with the drive on top being a little warmer since it has a horizontal drive layout with all the other drives underneath vs vertical? Probably not with the fan, but I'm always curious about stuff like that.
Temps for both the Yotta and OWC appear about the same.
I slightly prefer the overall aesthetic of the OWC. All the parts are aluminum/metal and has a slightly more premium fit/finish. The lockable front cover (also pure aluminum) is preferable since I don't plan to swap out disks often.
The Yotta is also very nice. The trays are easily removable which is both good and potentially an issue as it feels slightly less "secure" (anyone could simply pull a drive out).
They both support UASP, but the edge definitely goes to Yotta.
The Yotta controller passes all of the individual disk information transparently to the host. So when you connect the enclosure each drive shows up as though it were connected via SATA.
Meaning, I can see all the vendor info, SMART data, device IDs, serial numbers, everything like a complete passthrough.
The OWC does not do this completely. When you attach the OWC, it gets recognized as 4 separate drives (even with no disks in the unit) and each bay is labeled as "QuadRAID Drive A", "QuadRAID Drive B", etc.
The OWC controller is overriding some of the disk meta data with its own info. The serial numbers for the disks are not passed either.
This can be a potentially big issue for certain setups that keep track of the disks via serial number for software RAID configurations.
My tests were performed using Windows Storage Spaces and I did in fact run into issues with the OWC as Storage Spaces was detecting the 4 drives with the same ID. It would not allow me to perform certain actions (like removing disks from a pool) through the GUI. I had to use powershell to remove disks using another identifier (their "friendly names").
Lame, but it was not a deal breaker for me. What ended up being the deal breaker was the noise level of the OWC power supply.
Not sure if I got a dud, but it has some major coil whine (high pitch whine) that's unbearable in my home office. I also noticed it was pulling quite a bit more watts than the Yotta (I have a power meter).
The Yotta idles at around 5w without any disks, the OWC was 10-15w and I saw it peek to over 60w with 4 disks. The Yotta was pulling closer to 40w.
The Yotta is also significantly quieter even with the fan running it was quieter than the OWC without the fan because of the coil whine.
Needless to say, I'll be returning the OWC.
edit
In terms of performance, using CrystalDiskMark, they were both basically identical except for random read/writes. The OWC was double the performance (~40 MB/s vs ~20 MB/s).
Not sure if it's due to the higher power consumption, but it wasn't a big differentiator for me personally.
Temps for both the Yotta and OWC appear about the same.
I slightly prefer the overall aesthetic of the OWC. All the parts are aluminum/metal and has a slightly more premium fit/finish. The lockable front cover (also pure aluminum) is preferable since I don't plan to swap out disks often.
The Yotta is also very nice. The trays are easily removable which is both good and potentially an issue as it feels slightly less "secure" (anyone could simply pull a drive out).
They both support UASP, but the edge definitely goes to Yotta.
The Yotta controller passes all of the individual disk information transparently to the host. So when you connect the enclosure each drive shows up as though it were connected via SATA.
Meaning, I can see all the vendor info, SMART data, device IDs, serial numbers, everything like a complete passthrough.
The OWC does not do this completely. When you attach the OWC, it gets recognized as 4 separate drives (even with no disks in the unit) and each bay is labeled as "QuadRAID Drive A", "QuadRAID Drive B", etc.
The OWC controller is overriding some of the disk meta data with its own info. The serial numbers for the disks are not passed either.
This can be a potentially big issue for certain setups that keep track of the disks via serial number for software RAID configurations.
My tests were performed using Windows Storage Spaces and I did in fact run into issues with the OWC as Storage Spaces was detecting the 4 drives with the same ID. It would not allow me to perform certain actions (like removing disks from a pool) through the GUI. I had to use powershell to remove disks using another identifier (their "friendly names").
Lame, but it was not a deal breaker for me. What ended up being the deal breaker was the noise level of the OWC power supply.
Not sure if I got a dud, but it has some major coil whine (high pitch whine) that's unbearable in my home office. I also noticed it was pulling quite a bit more watts than the Yotta (I have a power meter).
The Yotta idles at around 5w without any disks, the OWC was 10-15w and I saw it peek to over 60w with 4 disks. The Yotta was pulling closer to 40w.
The Yotta is also significantly quieter even with the fan running it was quieter than the OWC without the fan because of the coil whine.
Needless to say, I'll be returning the OWC.
edit
In terms of performance, using CrystalDiskMark, they were both basically identical except for random read/writes. The OWC was double the performance (~40 MB/s vs ~20 MB/s).
Not sure if it's due to the higher power consumption, but it wasn't a big differentiator for me personally.
"The Yotta controller passes all of the individual disk information transparently to the host."
Yep, this was on the concerns list when I was shopping and part of why I dismissed the OWC. My distro is reliant on the disk info being passed through, or, at least, it's a hell of a lot easier when the individual disk info is passed through.
Plus points for info on power usage, I wish more people would break out the kill-a-watt (or whatever) and check their gear.
Leave a Comment