Testbed Setup and Testing Methodology

Our rackmount NAS testbed uses the same infrastructure and methodology as the other units with a tower form factor. Performance evaluation is done under both single and multiple client scenarios. In the multiple client scenario, we run tests with all available network ports teamed with 802.3ad dynamic link aggregation. For these tests, we use the SMB / SOHO NAS testbed described earlier. This is the first 10 GbE-equipped NAS we have evaluated. Special mention must be made of the Netgear ProSafe GSM7352S-200 in our setup. It provided us with the necessary infrastructure to properly evaluate the capabilities of the Synology RS10613xs+.

AnandTech NAS Testbed Configuration
Motherboard Asus Z9PE-D8 WS Dual LGA2011 SSI-EEB
CPU 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2630L
Coolers 2 x Dynatron R17
Memory G.Skill RipjawsZ F3-12800CL10Q2-64GBZL (8x8GB) CAS 10-10-10-30
OS Drive OCZ Technology Vertex 4 128GB
Secondary Drive OCZ Technology Vertex 4 128GB
Tertiary Drive OCZ RevoDrive Hybrid (1TB HDD + 100GB NAND)
Other Drives 12 x OCZ Technology Vertex 4 64GB (Offline in the Host OS)
Network Cards 6 x Intel ESA I-340 Quad-GbE Port Network Adapter
Chassis SilverStoneTek Raven RV03
PSU SilverStoneTek Strider Plus Gold Evoluion 850W
OS Windows Server 2008 R2
Network Switch Netgear ProSafe GSM7352S-200

Thank You!

We thank the following companies for helping us out with our NAS testbed:

Supermicro was gracious to loan us their mini rack (CSE-RACK14U). An interesting aspect of the mini rack is the fact that its height is that of the standard workplace desk (30.64"). This allowed us to use our existing NAS testbed (tower form factor) and power measurement unit easily along with the rackmount components (the NAS under test, the Netgear ProSafe switch etc.)

We have been using the Western Digital 4TB RE (WD4000FYYZ) disks as test hard drives for NAS reviews. As we saw in our previous reviews, RAID rebuilds take days to get done. With a large number of bays, usage of hard disks was going to be very cumbersome. In addition, hard disks just don't bring out the performance potential of the rackmount units. Therefore, evaluation of the Synology RS10613xs+ was done by setting up a RAID-5 volume with twelve OCZ Vector 4 120 GB SSDs. Tests were also done using Intel SSD 520 240 GB disks that were supplied by Synology along with the review unit. However, to keep benchmark results consistent across different NAS units, the results we present are those obtained using the OCZ Vector SSDs.

Thank You!

We thank the following companies for helping us out with our rackmount NAS evaluation:

In order to evaluate single client performance, we booted up one VM in our testbed and ran Intel NASPT on the CIFS share in the NAS. iSCSI support evaluation was also done in a similar manner with a 250 GB iSCSI LUN mapped on the VM. For NFS, we ran IOMeter benchmarks in Linux. For evaluation of multiple client performance, we accessed a CIFS share from multiple VMs simultaneously using IOMeter and gathered data on how the performance changed with the number of clients / access pattern. Without further digression, let us move on to the performance numbers.

Introduction and Setup Impressions Single Client Performance - CIFS and iSCSI on Windows
Comments Locked

51 Comments

View All Comments

  • JayJ - Friday, December 27, 2013 - link

    In at least 2 of the links it is stated that when a RAID 5 rebuild is in process and a URE is encountered, all data is lost.

    I'm not sure what crap hardware that author has been using. When a URE is encountered during a rebuild the rebuild halts and you're back where you started - with a degraded array.

    Now I'm not saying "RAID 5 is the BEST!" but the "facts" presented are false.

    FYI I've rebuilt several hundred RAID 5 arrays over the last 15 years and have experienced a URE during rebuild exactly 2 times. You can cut down on UREs by performing a scheduled "Patrol Read" or functional equivalent. There is no way to know if the data is readable unless you read it. You can have a (fictional) "SUPER DUPER RAID 3000" with a ridiculous amount of redundancy but it's still theoretically possible to lose your data due to URE unless it's read and verified.
  • Computer Bottleneck - Saturday, December 28, 2013 - link

    How do you feel about drives like the Western Digital Re which has a URE spec of 10^15 compared to other drives with a URE spec of 10^14 in RAID 5?
  • 802.11at - Friday, December 27, 2013 - link

    Given the choice, I'll take RAID 10 all day in my enterprise environment.
  • 802.11at - Friday, December 27, 2013 - link

    But FWIW, our HP LeftHand SAN is comprised of 6 nodes with 8 HDDs each in RAID 5 with the volumes actually running on a networked RAID 10.
  • theangryintern - Monday, December 30, 2013 - link

    Nice try, guy who writes for smbitjournal
  • Brutalizer - Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - link

    The second link is quite wrong in the premises. It says that filesystems are really reliable today, well, they are not. There are lot of research showing how all filesystems are flawed today (except ZFS) with respect to data corruption protection. Only ZFS protects the data against data corruption. Read the research papers you will find here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Data_integrity
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_error_rates...
  • tomdb - Thursday, December 26, 2013 - link

    How much are consumer grade (if any exist) 10 GbE NAS's, switches and PCIe cards?
  • bobbozzo - Thursday, December 26, 2013 - link

    $3000 for a 6-bay Netgear w 10gigE
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7523/netgear-launche...
  • bobbozzo - Thursday, December 26, 2013 - link

    I don't think there are any 'consumer' 10gb switches yet.
  • Master_shake_ - Saturday, December 28, 2013 - link

    infiniband is getting cheaper in price

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now