QNAP TVS-472XT THUNDERBOLT 3 4-Bay NAS

[crmaris]

The QNAP TVS-472XT costs a bomb, but has a pair of Thunderbolt 3 ports and can take a GPU for faster media transcoding, and its operating system is probably the best in the NAS market. This NAS is mostly for video editors or small and mid-sized businesses that want a very reliable external storage device with tons of features and options.

Show full review

 

[TheLostSwede]

Those are some very special expansion slots and not standard PCIe at all.
Also, the slow boot times is because the OS resides on the system disks, as that silly USB DOM only holds an OS image which is installed the first time you start the NAS.
And, uhm, no actual NAS performance numbers? Only TB? Feels like half a review.

 

[crmaris]

This is a thunderbolt device, mainly, so I chose to only evaluate the TB3 ports since users that will spend so much to get it, will be because of those ports (which skyrocket the price).

The slow boot time is a major con for me and I would like very much to see this improved in the close future. I don't know/care for the reason but this problem is there for many years now and it is high time for QNAP to find a solution.

 

[codyrocco]

Those are some very special expansion slots and not standard PCIe at all.

so no possibility to install an usual video card, let's say a gt1030? in compatibility list there are some models, even 1050ti [probably throwing out the thunderbolt card, because of video card dual-slot configuration] - but i can't figure if the slot length is universal pcie [at least that white part]; if is... what is the black part of pcie slot in qnap?

 

[TheLostSwede]

so no possibility to install an usual video card, let's say a gt1030? in compatibility list there are some models, even 1050ti [probably throwing out the thunderbolt card, because of video card dual-slot configuration] - but i can't figure if the slot length is universal pcie [at least that white part]; if is... what is the black part of pcie slot in qnap?

The white part looks like PCIe x1, with the black parts being x8 or x4. As I said, very odd slot design.

This is a thunderbolt device, mainly, so I chose to only evaluate the TB3 ports since users that will spend so much to get it, will be because of those ports (which skyrocket the price).

The slow boot time is a major con for me and I would like very much to see this improved in the close future. I don't know/care for the reason but this problem is there for many years now and it is high time for QNAP to find a solution.

With 10Gbps Ethernet, users will only use the TB3 part, right, ok, sure...

Did you try putting in an SSD instead of a HDD? It should in theory speed up the boot times.
This is a common denominator for most NAS appliances of this kind, not just QNAP.
It saves them some cash, as they can keep using cheap 512MB-2GB USB DOMs and most of the customers seems happy so...

 

[codyrocco]

The white part looks like PCIe x1, with the black parts being x8 or x4. As I said, very odd slot design.

i'm watching this product from very beginning - a lot of thoughts about installing some pcie sfp+ network adapter, or maybe some thunderbolt-sfp+ [i have a mikrotik 4x sfp+ switch as backbone at home] ; and maybe upgrading the cpu; looking for some 2x256gb nvme [cache] and 2x16gb ddr4...
but having no compatibility with standard pcie cards will be a no-go, for sure. this is why i'm asking wherever i can for extra info.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Let me check with some people I know at QNAP.

 

[crmaris]

With 10Gbps Ethernet, users will only use the TB3 part, right, ok, sure...

Why pay extra to get the TB3 then from the moment you can spend much less to get a NAS with only 10Gbps.

Did you try putting in an SSD instead of a HDD? It should in theory speed up the boot times.

So I should use SSDs to get the same (?) boot speeds with Synology and HDD combo? And why use SSDs from the moment I need/want large and affordable storage. Such long boot time is not common in NAS servers and I have tested quite many so far.

 

[codyrocco]

some thoughts:
1. assuming as 'true' the possibility that provided Pentium gold is capable to handle raid5 computations on 4bay config
2. taking 4 x 10tb wd red pro, with some 200MB/s write [i also took medium speed, from various online tests], no nvme cache
let's say that, in raid5, maximum speed is calculated in the same way as total capacity - so, 3x200MB/s = 600MB/s write speed - read speed being higher, eq. 700MB/s
...a lot less that 10GBe transfer capacity!
for 4x4TB SATA SSD will have, following my assumption, ~1600MB/s - only if the cpu is able to perform raid5 computations. adding nvme caching will raise these numbers, most probably - but only using thunderbolt; it;s possible to have 12Gb/s using all ethernet ports, but will require correspondents switch, clients and so.
anyway, single thunderbolt connection will give some 3,5GB/s transfer speed, same as a nvme pcie x4; using both ports, speed is halved. i/o numbers will be big enough to help, though, two editors work in the same time (staying near the NAS, giving the fact that thunderbolt cables [even active ones] aren't too long...).
i'd like to be corrected, if my assumptions are wrong.

 

[wolina]

is it possible to upgrade CPU?

 

[codyrocco]

yes, but be careful about TDP - no more than 35W (i3-8100t, i5-8400t) - as in 6-bay and 8-bay versions.