We put the NAS drives in the QNAP TS-EC1279U-SAS-RP through some IOMeter tests with a CIFS share being accessed from up to 25 VMs simultaneously. The following four graphs show the total available bandwidth and the average response time while being subject to different types of workloads through IOMeter. IOMeter also reports various other metrics of interest such as maximum response time, read and write IOPS, separate read and write bandwidth figures etc. Some of the interesting aspects from our IOMeter benchmarking run are linked below:
We see that the sequential accesses are still limited by the network link, but, this time, on the NAS side. On the other hand, our random access tests show markedly better performance for drives such as the Seagate Enterprise Capacity, Seagate Constellation, WD Re, etc. Not only is the total available bandwidth higher, the average response times also go down.
Hi, are the bandwidths in graphs (page 5...) really supposed to be in Mbps (mega-bits per second)? Although it's correct bandwidth unit, the values seem to be really low (fastest tests would be about 30MB/s), the values provided I'd expect to be in MBps for the numbers to correspond...
Why are you not focused on reliability, thankfully I see most of the other commentors are making similar points to mine, where did all the 10^16 and 10^17 drives go?
Why are we not exited about the newly leaked 10^18 drive?
When it comes to storage, you can keep size and you can keep speed, Im not interested. I just want reliability.
Hey. This test setup is wrong. There is on SAS disk but there is no SAS HBA in the list of test setup. according to other tests benchamarks HGST SAS disk is the fastest from this list but it suffers because of poor or very poor controller. this comparison is worth nothing without good SAS HBA. and remember good HBA also increase SATA disk performance. embedded intel controllers are very simple and limited performance. good SAS HBA is about 150$ so it is not a big deal. regards
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
dzezik - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link
that is why we do not use RAID but ZFS. think about itNavvie - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link
Thanks. Interesting read.colinstu - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
bought 4x 4TB SEs last year, at least I'm not missing out on anything!dzezik - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link
are you sure You still have Your data on the disk and not random zeros and ones. how can You be sure without daily scrubbing.HollyDOL - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
Hi, are the bandwidths in graphs (page 5...) really supposed to be in Mbps (mega-bits per second)? Although it's correct bandwidth unit, the values seem to be really low (fastest tests would be about 30MB/s), the values provided I'd expect to be in MBps for the numbers to correspond...ganeshts - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
Thanks for catching it. It is indeed MBps. I have fixed the issue.GrumpyOldCamel - Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - link
raid5, seriously?Why are you not focused on reliability, thankfully I see most of the other commentors are making similar points to mine, where did all the 10^16 and 10^17 drives go?
Why are we not exited about the newly leaked 10^18 drive?
When it comes to storage, you can keep size and you can keep speed, Im not interested.
I just want reliability.
Gear8 - Saturday, September 13, 2014 - link
Where measuring the heating ??? Where degrees Celsius ???dzezik - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link
Hey. This test setup is wrong. There is on SAS disk but there is no SAS HBA in the list of test setup. according to other tests benchamarks HGST SAS disk is the fastest from this list but it suffers because of poor or very poor controller. this comparison is worth nothing without good SAS HBA. and remember good HBA also increase SATA disk performance. embedded intel controllers are very simple and limited performance. good SAS HBA is about 150$ so it is not a big deal. regardsKingSmurf - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link
Just wondering this review states for the WD Se:Non-recoverable read errors per bits read < 1 in 10^14 and MTBF of 800k
while on WD's Specsheet it says for the Se:
Non-recoverable read errors per bits read < 1 in 10^15 and MTBF of 1 M (800k is the 1 TB only)
Did WD suddenly change the Spec Sheet - or was this review... let's say less than thorough?