The ReadyNAS NV+ v2 shipped with 2 x 1TB Hitachi 7200rpm drives. We mapped one of the default shares on our Windows testbed. The Intel NASPT benchmarks were run. In addition, we ran our standard robocopy benchmark to transfer a 10.7 GB Blu-ray folder structure.

Netgear ReadyNAS NV+ v2 2 x 1TB - CIFS Performance

Netgear's X-RAID2 solution automatically handles RAID level management and volume expansion as more drives are added. The ReadyNAS website has a very high level explanation of how X-RAID2 works. We added a 1 TB Samsung 7200 rpm drive to the mix and measured the time taken to expand the volume (from RAID-1 to RAID-5).

X-RAID 2 Volume Expansion
2 x 1TB RAID-1 to 3 x 1TB RAID-5 07:36:25

With the new 3 x 1TB configuration, we repeated our NAS benchmarks.

Netgear ReadyNAS NV+ v2 3 x 1TB - CIFS Performance

We see a discernible loss in the performance. Does this mean that larger number of drives would tend to lower the performance of the unit? We added another 1TB Samsung 7200 rpm drive in the fourth bay and measured the time taken for volume expansion.

X-RAID 2 Volume Expansion
3 x 1TB RAID-5 to 4 x 1TB RAID-5 10:31:57

With the new 4 x 1TB configuration, the benchmarks were rerun.

Netgear ReadyNAS NV+ v2 4 x 1TB - CIFS Performance

We see that the performance is back on track. Note that these numbers compare very favourably with those obtained in the Synology DS-211+ review. At half the price (for the Duo v2), the Netgear units seem to be very good value for the money.

One of the NAS aspects we have started testing recently is RAID rebuild. With all the four bays occupied, a disk failure was simulated by removing the hard drive in the first bay. A Samsung 1 TB hard drive was put in place of the original Hitachi drive in that bay and the time taken for rebuild was recorded:

ReadyNAS NV+ v2 RAID-5 Volume Rebuild
4 x 1TB RAID-5 Rebuild after Single Hard Drive Failure 04:58:29

During all stages of the volume expansion / rebuild process, the existing data remained accessible. Operation in degraded mode was made evident in the front display as well as the system health tab in the web interface.

ReadyNAS NV+ v2 Platform and Setup Impressions Miscellaneous Factors
POST A COMMENT

39 Comments

View All Comments

  • ganeshts - Thursday, November 10, 2011 - link

    These are not vendor supplied numbers I am talking about.

    A 6281 based NAS was reviewed here: www.anandtech.com/show/4510/lg-n2a2-nas-review

    Look at the NASPT benchmarks and compare with what we got for the NV+ v2. There is a big difference in the robocopy benchmarks (46 and 21 MBps vs 77 and 35 MBps). For the general consumer, who doesn't care about speeds, the LG unit is a better choice at a lower price.

    The DS212 specs seem to indicate that a 6282 is at the heart and it also has USB 3.0. I am yet to benchmark that unit, but I expect it to come in around what the NV +v2 achieved in the 2 bay configuration.
    Reply
  • nasuser - Thursday, November 10, 2011 - link

    You can't use an LG benchmark to then make conclusions about a non-LG device! Just having a similar processor doesn't automatically mean the same performance. Maybe the next time you want to buy a car you'll go test a couple of Volkswagen - then you'll know which Audi to buy as they use the same engines

    If you don't have your own benchmarks then you have no choice but to trust those provided by the supplier - in this case Synology - which shows the very little difference between their $200 unit and the Netgear $200 unit

    But your article makes a major conclusion that the Netgear unit is effectively half the price of its' competition for the same performance, neglects all other aspects of comparison, and so states it is the best value for money. And that conclusion is based purely on extrapolating from a test of an LG device?
    Reply
  • ganeshts - Thursday, November 10, 2011 - link

    I don't trust manufacturer benchmarks because the test cases are not going to be the same across manufacturers. I always draw conclusions from the benchmarks that I have run myself. We have the following:

    1. LG with 6281
    2. DS211+ with 6282
    3. NTGR NV+ v2 2 x 1TB with 6282

    (2) and (3) have similar performance, and (3) is half the price of (2).

    There is a new contender,

    4. DS212 with 6282 and costing 1.5x the Duo v2.

    I am making an educated guess that (4) will have performance similar to (3). I can't imagine how the engine analogy applies to the above description.

    I will approach Synology for a DS212 review unit.
    Reply
  • Daniel Egger - Wednesday, November 09, 2011 - link

    "By sacrificing some features such as NFS and iSCSI and cutting back on the DRAM, Netgear has managed to deliver the members at half the price of the competition's offerings."

    So why is it in your opinion that castrating an already available feature would reduce the cost of such a product? The real reason for that is to lure non-experts into buying a more expensive version ...

    However none of the brands deliver something I would consider to be a killer feature: All of the NASes allow for repartitioning while destroying existing data; what I would like to see instead is some utilisation of LVM to partition space on the fly and maybe even allow snapshotting and snapshotted backups.

    All the smaller NAS products currently on the market are in fact toys without something along these lines.
    Reply
  • nurgle - Wednesday, November 09, 2011 - link

    At the $400-$600 range, Wouldn't it just make a lot more sense to just use a computer? Even at the $199 range it seems you could pick up some old atom pc and use that instead. Not to mention you could run all the applications you would want on it (FTP, SFTP, FTPS, SSH, webserver, dhcp, nfs, cifs/smb, dns, firewall, NNTP, NTP, and on and on. I mean all these NAS things are just a stripped down linux box in the first place. Why not just have a linux box?

    I get the laziness thing. I also get the people are too dumb thing. But it seems like a lot of people who are neither lazy or dumb are compelled by these devices.
    Reply
  • irev210 - Wednesday, November 09, 2011 - link

    Size, power consumption, web GUI.

    Obviously this is something you can build yourself, but here are a few things to consider (coming from an avid QNAP fan).

    1) Build quality -
    My qnap is built like a tank. Sanyo OSCON caps, high quality cokes/mosfets, high quality delta PSU, ADDA fan

    2) Power consumption -
    The PSU size is perfect for the size of the NAS, so you get the most efficient A/C to D/C conversion.

    3) noise -
    Obviously it is designed to be quiet

    4) Software -
    Their web-based software is nifty, easy to use, and takes seconds to configure

    There are a TON more reasons, I suggest you take a quick look at some of the neat features at qnap.com

    Nowadays, I am lazy. Convenience and total cost of ownership are much bigger priorities for me.
    Reply
  • KennethAlmquist - Wednesday, November 09, 2011 - link

    Having just built a system, I would say:

    1) Build quality: You can buy good quality components and still save money over a pre-built NAS. My build:
    - Intel 620 2.6Ghz dual core Sandy Bridge processor ($69)
    - Intel DB65AL motherboard ($85)
    - 2 x 1 GB memory (had on hand, ~$20 otherwise)
    - FSP AU-400 Aurum Gold 400W Power Supply ($76)
    - NZXT Source 210 case ($40) + front fan ($8)
    That's $100 less than the NV+ v2 without drives, including a brand name motherboard and a high end power supply.

    2) Power consumption: The Aurum Gold has an efficiency of around 86% with a 40 watt load. I assume that the NAS manufactures get better value for their money by going with power supplies with lower wattage ratings. I don't see any reason to believe that they use more efficient power supplies. High efficiency at low power is expensive, so I'd hazard a guess that the NAS manufactures go for 80% efficiency.

    Under load the system I built draws 49 watts, compared to 28 watts for the two drive Netgear unit, but that's with a much faster processor and 8 times a much memory. The NAS may have more energy efficient disks; I didn't get the Western Digital WD20EARS drives I wanted because of events in Thailand. An apples to apples comparison might give Netgear a 10 watt advantage. At that rate you are not going to get $100 worth of electricity savings in a reasonable amount of time.

    3) Noise: The build I did is virtually inaudible. The only NAS I can compare it to is the Iomega StorCetner ix2, which is a lot noisier.

    4) Software: If QNAP doesn't sell their software separately from their hardware, that suggests that they have looked at the market and concluded that their software doesn't provide a compelling advantage over the competition. Presumably the appeal is that they install and mostly configure the software for you, and it works well enough that you don't have to worry about it. And yes, I do understand the appeal of that. But if you have the time and inclination to deal with the hardware and software yourself, you can do better than a pre-built NAS.
    Reply
  • T2k - Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - link

    You are clearly clueless about this market, I must say.

    Build quality with $40 case and $8 fans? ROFLMAO!

    Aside of these stupid claims most NAS boxes are not only about quarter of the size of your fugly build (NZXT, OMFG) but also noiseless, cost actually the same than your ugly build and come with 3-5 years of warranty, all included, no need to keep contacting 5-6 different el cheapo PC parts vendor when they die.

    But your most hilarious point was the last one:
    "If QNAP doesn't sell their software separately from their hardware, that suggests that they have looked at the market and concluded that their software doesn't provide a compelling advantage over the competition."

    :D :D :D
    Did it ever fuckin' occur to you that they chose to keep it proprietary because THAT IS the main differentiator for a NAS box? And that they maintain their own fork, you don't need to shit, only install single updates?

    Boy, you are one hopelessly clueless bloke.
    Reply
  • C_H_I_P - Wednesday, November 09, 2011 - link

    Is it me, or is the SKU for version 1 and 2 the same ? Reply
  • C_H_I_P - Thursday, November 10, 2011 - link

    Figured it out for myself.
    V2 == RND4000-200EUS
    V1 == RND4000-100EUS
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now