This topic has been marked solved and closed to new posts due to inactivity. We hope you'll join the conversation by posting to an open topic or starting a new one.
10GbE NAS to Switch. Performance gain for devices connected Gigabit ports?
Suppose I buy a Synology DS1621+ with a Synology E10G18-T1 (10GbE Network Interface Card), and I connect them to my with a Netgear GC728X switch’s 10GB Fiber Ports via a Netgear AXC7620: SFP+ Direct Attach cable. Will other 1 GB port devices (PC, Zappiti Media Player, etc.) connected to the Netgear GC728X switch’s 1GB Ports via CAT 6 or 7 cables experience any throughput performance gain when interfacing with the NAS?
Even with read/write SSDs on my current Synology DS420+ NAS, I am only seeing transfer rates of up to 80 MB/s to my PC and Zappiti media player when connected to my Netgear GC728X's 1GB ports with CAT 7 cables.
You asked about the Synology DS1621+ offering much more concurrent bandwidth to the storage blocks, a more performant CPU, ...
It would be a longer excursion on explain this in detail. If you are copying from/to the NAS using say the SMB protocol (most likley SMB 3.x on the PC the performance depends on factors like network bandwidth, CPU power (both sides), less the IOPS, the storage blocks and the logical layout (single or dual SSD [what kind of SSD - in the NVMe slots or SATA SSDs in the HDD slots], if using the SATA HDD/SSD slots the layout RAID0, or a more redundant RAID set-up, ...). Typically the weak point is the storage on your PC (unknown system, very unknown ass storage), and much more the overall CPU power and the performance of your media player.
Making the link to the NAS faster is not to make that single device to perform better, much more it allows to speed up concurrent NAS access. One first tuning effort could be to allow Jumbo Frames >9000 on your network between the PC and the NAS. With your current set-up you hit either the DS420+ or the PC (and/or the Media Player and it's mass storage) limits.
When I take the similar (to the intended DS1621+) QNAP TS-673A you find with a dual 10G Ethernet install the SMB write goes up to some 1500 MB/s, the SMB read to about 2350 MB/s. Both is ways above what a 10Gb Ethernet can provide, so plenty of headroom to serve multiple similar systems like your PC and the Media Player concurrently in reality. If you seek more speed on the computer, consider a 10GbE (you have four ports available on the GC728X) or some MultiGig environment (this would require a different switch to fan-out the 10G to multiple 2.5G links).
What is clear that Syno does provide a "thing" hardware base on this NAS with just a few single GbE adapters. QNAP's choice with two 2.5GbE is much smarter, and with the help of one (or two) 10GbE it can pushed to the limit of what this NAS class can deal with.
This should help to locate the effective bottleneck on your complete set-up.
Re: 10GbE NAS to Switch. Performance gain for devices connected Gigabit ports?
Yes, of course. Multiple 1GbE devices share the 10GbE capacity, and can reach in total what the NAS performance does allow.
Edit: One point just hit my eye is the "T" designation of the Syno 10G adapter: This is a 10G copper Ethernet device, for a DAC connection you need a 10G adapter with an SFP+ slot.
Re: 10GbE NAS to Switch. Performance gain for devices connected Gigabit ports?
Thank you Schumaku,
Even with read/write SSDs on my current Synology DS420+ NAS, I am only seeing transfer rates of up to 80 MB/s to my PC and Zappiti media player when connected to my Netgear GC728X's 1GB ports with CAT 7 cables. Are you saying that I would experience significant performance gains if I switched to the suggested hardware? What could I expect? Thank you again for your patience. I am new to this, and I'm receiving vastly different advice depending on who I ask these questions to.
Model: GC728X|Insight Managed 28-Port Gigabit Ethernet Smart Cloud Switch with 2 SFP and 2 SFP+ Fiber Ports
Even with read/write SSDs on my current Synology DS420+ NAS, I am only seeing transfer rates of up to 80 MB/s to my PC and Zappiti media player when connected to my Netgear GC728X's 1GB ports with CAT 7 cables.
You asked about the Synology DS1621+ offering much more concurrent bandwidth to the storage blocks, a more performant CPU, ...
It would be a longer excursion on explain this in detail. If you are copying from/to the NAS using say the SMB protocol (most likley SMB 3.x on the PC the performance depends on factors like network bandwidth, CPU power (both sides), less the IOPS, the storage blocks and the logical layout (single or dual SSD [what kind of SSD - in the NVMe slots or SATA SSDs in the HDD slots], if using the SATA HDD/SSD slots the layout RAID0, or a more redundant RAID set-up, ...). Typically the weak point is the storage on your PC (unknown system, very unknown ass storage), and much more the overall CPU power and the performance of your media player.
Making the link to the NAS faster is not to make that single device to perform better, much more it allows to speed up concurrent NAS access. One first tuning effort could be to allow Jumbo Frames >9000 on your network between the PC and the NAS. With your current set-up you hit either the DS420+ or the PC (and/or the Media Player and it's mass storage) limits.
When I take the similar (to the intended DS1621+) QNAP TS-673A you find with a dual 10G Ethernet install the SMB write goes up to some 1500 MB/s, the SMB read to about 2350 MB/s. Both is ways above what a 10Gb Ethernet can provide, so plenty of headroom to serve multiple similar systems like your PC and the Media Player concurrently in reality. If you seek more speed on the computer, consider a 10GbE (you have four ports available on the GC728X) or some MultiGig environment (this would require a different switch to fan-out the 10G to multiple 2.5G links).
What is clear that Syno does provide a "thing" hardware base on this NAS with just a few single GbE adapters. QNAP's choice with two 2.5GbE is much smarter, and with the help of one (or two) 10GbE it can pushed to the limit of what this NAS class can deal with.
This should help to locate the effective bottleneck on your complete set-up.
