I don’t think there’s likely to be much of a need for another update that addresses the TS-473A as a unit. I’ve now had the unit for about two years. This is what has worked well, and what hasn’t.
The biggest disappointment was the tech support provided by QNAP. This is, perhaps, unsurprising, as tech support tends to be the dark underbelly of tech products these days. There’s no glory in providing good customer support (although a counter-example has convinced my son on a certain high-cost purchase, which is a story for another time). It would be preferable for the equipment and software to just work, but when it doesn’t, having competent people handling the support is a challenge.
It’s worth noting the hardware again. I still have no complaints about the TS-473A from a hardware perspective. It is inferior to the Synology system I have in terms of the drive bays, but the Synology isn’t a complete x64 system that can be used in multiple ways, and my understanding is that the Synology NAS systems are also not generic enough to install arbitrary x64 operating systems on them.
During my early experiments with the TS-473A one of the latches for a drive sled broke. They are rather flimsy, and I wasn’t handling it particularly harshly. The latch still works, but the “lock” broke off, and the drive can no longer be locked into place.
I contacted QNAP support, as the device was basically new, and was told that this was not covered under warranty, but that I could buy a new drive sled for (IIRC) $25. Well, it’s perhaps not surprising that it wasn’t covered under warranty, and it is at least nice that replacement sleds are available, but it’s not superlative service.
Never mind, I have a 25% failure of drive locks, but that’s mostly significant in terms of keeping from accidentally pulling a drive while it’s in use.
Last year’s update was about the changes in the way we handled our media server needs. I had started using Container Station to manage docker images of the servers that our family uses. (Primarily Jellyfin.)
Over the course of the last year, we found that this solution was very imperfect. At irregular intervals the servers would disappear from the network without explanation. When I investigated, I found that the docker containers were no longer running, and no amount of persuasion would get them running again.
Container Station does have pretty nice tools for cloning docker containers, but it was hit-or-miss to get these to actually run (frequently failing with the same error as the original containers) and when they did I sometimes had to mess with changing IP addresses for the servers, changing ports, etc. In short, my non-technical wife had to bear with her movies being in constant flux vis-à-vis where they were on the network.
This all came to a head around Thanksgiving of this year (end of November for non-US readers). The servers had come down, and no amount of cloning and coaxing would return them to service. In desperation, I contacted customer support.
I opened the support ticket on December 4, and I contacted them yesterday to tell them that my solution was to no longer use their software. During the interval, I sent them log files, screen shots, videos of using the system, etc. Although my case was “escalated” to a level 2 technical team, I was never given the privilege of communicating with them directly, needing to pass all communication back and forth via the same level 1 tech who was handling the issue.
The Tier 2 team really wanted to remote into my system. One of the reasons this was significant for me is that the QuTS Hero OS spends a lot of effort trying to convince users that we need an account with QNAP, and that we need to be syncing our NAS with their cloud. Well, QNAP is a popular enough storage solution that they have become a preferred target for hackers. It’s quite a compliment when one’s OS is individually targeted for compromise, however it exemplifies the problem with single-point-of-failure systems. If all of your eggs are in one basket, you need to make very certain that your basket is protected from threats to eggs.
My NAS is not Internet-exposed, and I was not keen on either exposing it to the Internet, and then giving credentials to outsiders, nor to having a remote session with these outsiders.
A brief note: Communication was significantly hampered by the fact that the support seems to be in Taiwan. Although the English was fine, the timing of support replies makes me think that their time zone is roughly opposite mine. While this is understandable, it made the whole process take much longer than it would otherwise. I don’t know if they would have made an effort to schedule a remote session during my availability, or if the mysteriously obscured level two team would have required me to make my system available at 1 am. If you’ve had experience with their support in this regard, I’d appreciate a comment.
In any case, although I had already sent them logs, etc., they insisted that the only way forward was to give outside access to my system, and that’s something I am very loathe to do. I decided that it was time to try the other feature that pulled me to the QNAP unit in the first place.
I spent several days using rsync to copy everything from the QNAP to an 8TB drive in my Synology JBOD unit. This done, I installed a graphics card in the QNAP and began to play around with various alternative OSes. I also made VMs of these OSes on my system, to look at them from that angle.
I was hoping to be able to pull the existing zfs pool into the new NAS system to avoid having to copy everything back in, so I focused on Linux-based products, since QuTS is Linux-based, and bsd and Linux handle zfs slightly differently.
In the end, I installed TrueNAS SCALE, the Linux variety of TrueNAS. Although it was able to see the zfs pool left behind by QuTS, it wasn’t able to import it, and I ultimately reformatted the four drives and rebuilt the pool.
That said, I’m very impressed with TrueNAS running on the QNAP hardware. It’s considerably more responsive that QuTS was, and has a nice interface, including a dashboard that shows me system information like core temperature, RAM utilization, etc. Once I committed to reformatting the storage pool, it did so quickly, and I was able to restore everything (using rsync, again) quite quickly. It not only supports docker, but it also supports the same sort of VM installation that I never particularly used on QuTS.
The docker management console is worlds better than Container Station, including the fact that it prefers bridging the network connections to the containers. This means I no longer need to try to manage static IPs for each of the servers.
I no longer have to bounce around between several similarly-named tools to try to figure out which one does the specific management task I’m looking for, and my all-important Jellyfin server was up and running in no time at all. Although iX systems does try to upsell the TrueNAS software, with cloud-backing and service contracts, and so on, it is so far a background thing, and I don’t feel I’m being badgered into it.
I’m looking forward to installing one of the llm applications featured in the “App Discovery” portion of the software. I haven’t yet pulled an arbitrary docker container from Docker Hub, since everything I’ve needed has been included.
Bottom line
I’m still pretty happy with the hardware of the TS-473A. For the price, a Ryzen-based PC with four hot-swappable drive bays and high-speed Internet built-in is a good deal. It booted to a variety of external thumb-drives without needing to dig into the bios (but, a caution — if you insert a bootable usb device and then reboot, you may be puzzled as to why your NAS isn’t starting if you don’t have a screen attached).
QuTS Hero is an ambitious effort by a hardware vendor to have a plug-and-play OS that does what you need. Unfortunately, it seems more tailored to QNAP’s business needs than mine.
Fortunately, TrueNAS SCALE installed without a hitch, and if I buy another QNAP device (probably to mirror my NAS offsite) I will probably just put TrueNAS on out of the gate.