Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Qnap ts-431p nas

  1. #1
    Tortoises R0cks :D Rivas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,248

    Qnap ts-431p nas

    Hi guys,

    anyone has any experience with this ? I wanted a simple UI NAS and it wants create mail servers, keeps saying my pool is full but there is 13tb free, I set it up as raid 0, so now I'm transferring everything back and going to re-do it again.
    I gave read write delete access to all folders and it's still saying pool is full or abnormal disk drive but when I click on HDD it says it's fine.
    Any ideas ?
    To be human is to choose.


    It is better to die on your feet
    than to live on your knees.

    - Emiliano Zapata

  2. #2
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,861
    I'm guessing you allocated all the space on the drives/RAID volume to storage. So turn off the threshold alert.
    Storage Pool....Manage...disable the Alert Threshold.

    Taking backups of it right? With RAID 0, if just 1x drive fails you're tanked!
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  3. #3
    Tortoises R0cks :D Rivas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,248
    Quote Originally Posted by YeOldeStonecat View Post
    I'm guessing you allocated all the space on the drives/RAID volume to storage. So turn off the threshold alert.
    Storage Pool....Manage...disable the Alert Threshold.

    Taking backups of it right? With RAID 0, if just 1x drive fails you're tanked!
    Yes I do have backups thanks for reminding me, it just finished transferring all the files so now I'm gonna redo it. What is the "thin" volume, I was reading QNAP created it because some of the previous ones were not as good, slow updates ?
    It asked me and I think I allocated it to storage
    I did turn off the threshold alert but it says in drives free 13+ tb but when I click on pool it says free 0
    I created raid0 4x4tb wd red nas ....btw I went with wd instead of Seagate
    To be human is to choose.


    It is better to die on your feet
    than to live on your knees.

    - Emiliano Zapata

  4. #4
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,861
    "thin" versus "thick" volumes are two different approaches to virtual disks. Thin is dynamic, say you allocate a 1TB thin volume and you only have 100 gigs on there so far, the actual virtual hard disk file is not 1TB but a certain percentage above the actual amount of data stored on it. So a 1TB thin virtual disk file with just 100 gigs of data on it might just be 185 gigs in size...not 1TB. Versus..a thick virtual disk, there if you designate 1TB that virtual disk file is 1TB..even if you just have 5 megs of data on it. For just basic file storage..not really much performance difference. For heavier read/write...and database storage, you want to stick to thick.

    Thin provisioning allows more flexibility in managing virtual servers with many hosts. Although also allows easy error in oversubscribing if you're not careful.

    WD Reds have been very good to us for NAS units...we use them a lot. Always update firmware on 'em too.

    I'm more familiar with Synology versus QNAP, but one of our engineers like QNAP so we have a few clients with them. Usually there's a hybrid RAID they do which is good and flexible. RAID 0, while very fast, is also high risk, 1 drive goes and all of your data is gone. No redundancy with RAID 0.
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  5. #5
    Tortoises R0cks :D Rivas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,248
    Quote Originally Posted by YeOldeStonecat View Post
    "thin" versus "thick" volumes are two different approaches to virtual disks. Thin is dynamic, say you allocate a 1TB thin volume and you only have 100 gigs on there so far, the actual virtual hard disk file is not 1TB but a certain percentage above the actual amount of data stored on it. So a 1TB thin virtual disk file with just 100 gigs of data on it might just be 185 gigs in size...not 1TB. Versus..a thick virtual disk, there if you designate 1TB that virtual disk file is 1TB..even if you just have 5 megs of data on it. For just basic file storage..not really much performance difference. For heavier read/write...and database storage, you want to stick to thick.

    Thin provisioning allows more flexibility in managing virtual servers with many hosts. Although also allows easy error in oversubscribing if you're not careful.

    WD Reds have been very good to us for NAS units...we use them a lot. Always update firmware on 'em too.

    I'm more familiar with Synology versus QNAP, but one of our engineers like QNAP so we have a few clients with them. Usually there's a hybrid RAID they do which is good and flexible. RAID 0, while very fast, is also high risk, 1 drive goes and all of your data is gone. No redundancy with RAID 0.



    ok, starting now, I was waiting for your answer to be sure, if I have further questions I hope you don't mind me asking you
    To be human is to choose.


    It is better to die on your feet
    than to live on your knees.

    - Emiliano Zapata

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •