QNAP Announces the TS-831X 8-bay 10 GbE NAS

[btarunr]

QNAP Systems, Inc. today announced the internal testing results of the QNAP TS-831X Turbo NAS and proved that a TS-831X with eight solid-state drives (SSDs) can reach read speeds of 1499 MB/s and write speeds of 665 MB/s with its all-native SATA 6 Gb/s ports and integrated dual 10 GbE SFP+ LAN ports, making it the perfect solution for high-bandwidth applications.

As SSD are becoming increasingly prevalent on the market due to their falling costs, higher performance, zero noise and low power consumption, they have become the greatest choice for uncompromising I/O performance and 10 GbE applications. A TS-831X with eight native SATA 6 Gb/s ports allows users to enjoy an SSD cache with no slot position restrictions. Even in a RAID 5 or RAID 6 setup, the full SATA 6 Gb/s ports can still ensure the highest throughput performance without internal I/O and data access being constricted by non-SATA 6 Gb/s ports.



The QNAP TS-831X is a cost-effective storage solution designed for growing businesses looking for faster data access, backup, restoration, private cloud and to future-proof their IT infrastructure for 10 GbE networks.



For more information, visit the product page.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Octavean]

It seems odd that they would compare this QNAP 10Gbe model to the Synology DS1815+ since it targets a different use case and (likely) price range.

They should be comparing it to the Synology DS2015XS which has dual 10GbE SFP+ LAN and a higher frequency processor (and is likely in a similar price range). Its also been on the market for a while.

 

[TheLostSwede]

It seems odd that they would compare this QNAP 10Gbe model to the Synology DS1815+ since it targets a different use case and (likely) price range.

They should be comparing it to the Synology DS2015XS which has dual 10GbE SFP+ LAN and a higher frequency processor (and is likely in a similar price range). Its also been on the market for a while.

It's not odd when you're $50 cheaper than the competition...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01F7TLRJ6/?tag=tec06d-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00P3RPMEO/?tag=tec06d-20

That said, this is ARM vs Intel, so I doubt most people would get this, as there are too many software limitations on the ARM based models.

 

[Octavean]

It's not odd when you're $50 cheaper than the competition...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01F7TLRJ6/?tag=tec06d-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00P3RPMEO/?tag=tec06d-20

That said, this is ARM vs Intel, so I doubt most people would get this, as there are too many software limitations on the ARM based models.

I think you are missing the point. The Synology DS1815+ isn't comparable with respect to the features of this QNAP With dual 10GbE SPF+ ports. The Synology DS1815+ doesn't have this feature regardless of price. The Synology DS2015XS does have dual 10GbE but cost ~$1700, which is a great deal more of a difference then the ~$50 you cited.

 

[meteora]

Did anyone notice that the last two drive slots of DS1815+ is SATA 1.5Gb/s? Can anyone confirm this?

 

[TheLostSwede]

I think you are missing the point. The Synology DS1815+ isn't comparable with respect to the features of this QNAP With dual 10GbE SPF+ ports. The Synology DS1815+ doesn't have this feature regardless of price. The Synology DS2015XS does have dual 10GbE but cost ~$1700, which is a great deal more of a difference then the ~$50 you cited.

Nope, didn't miss the point and the point you made is exactly the point QNAP is trying to make. Their hardware is superior at a cheaper price. Except it's not really an apples to apple comparison.

 

[Ricki Martin]

Did anyone notice that the last two drive slots of DS1815+ is SATA 1.5GHz? Can anyone confirm this?

Yeah, I realize that there're two slots of DS1815+ only can run up to SATA I (1.5 Gbps). That's ridiculous. I just wonder where I can buy a SATA I, 1.5Gbps drives?

 

[Octavean]

Nope, didn't miss the point and the point you made is exactly the point QNAP is trying to make. Their hardware is superior at a cheaper price. Except it's not really an apples to apple comparison.

That was the point, it's not an apples to apple comparison.