Multi-Client Performance - CIFS on Windows

We put the QNAP TS-451 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. The tool 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 can be found here. Since we have two network links, they can be teamed in 802.3ad dynamic link aggregation mode.

QNAP TS-451 Multi-Client CIFS Performance - 100% Sequential Reads

 

QNAP TS-451 Multi-Client CIFS Performance - Max Throughput - 50% Reads

 

QNAP TS-451 Multi-Client CIFS Performance - Random 8K - 70% Reads

 

QNAP TS-451 Multi-Client CIFS Performance - Real Life - 65% Reads

The real competition here is the Thecus N4800, which is based on the previous-generation Atom D2700. While the QNAP TS-451 wins out in some of the multi-client benchmarks (in terms of both total bandwidth as well as average response time), the N4800 does manage to win a few too. Ultimately, it is the target market (home users) as well as the power consumption numbers (which we shall see in the next section) that tend to make the Bay Trail platform an attractive upgrade option for NAS owners with previous-generation Atom-based units.

Encryption Support Evaluation Miscellaneous Aspects and Concluding Remarks
Comments Locked

55 Comments

View All Comments

  • BMNify - Monday, July 28, 2014 - link

    just to add "the hardware you're suggesting looks like DIY enterprise architecture" its also possible to actually buy NICE looking and cheap Free Standing Rack Cabinets for the home too now such as the Orion Free Standing Rack Cabinets with glass front for one

    http://www.rackcabinets.co.uk/cabinets/data-racks/...

    a 9U glass fronted cabinet for £240.00 (inc VAT) to sit next to your desk in the SOHO room or a cupboard if your not into showing off your home made rack... :)
  • Trickie - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link

    Came across this when researching the x51 series last week. A x53 model is in the pipeline with a j1900 chip. Guessing they will be targeting small business with this model and be charging an even bigger premium as a result even though the chip cost $10 more.
    The extra grunt will suit my use case much better (vm's). What I need to make the jump to a NAS from a desktop is hardware transcoding support within plex. See http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=953...
  • azazel1024 - Monday, July 28, 2014 - link

    That is interesting that the J1800 doesn't support AES-NI instructions. I was going to post a self righteous comment about "well of course it does!", and then I checked Intel ARK and saw they list it as not supporting it. My humble little z3740 in my tablet DOES support AES-NI though.

    I always find it odd what Intel choose to enable and disable on their various SKUs *shakes head slowly*
  • takeshi7 - Monday, July 28, 2014 - link

    You should review the Seagate NAS Pro 4-bay next. I'm curious how the Intel based Seagate compares to this QNAP.
  • halfflat - Monday, July 28, 2014 - link

    Still no ECC RAM? Can't really take it seriously.
  • ganeshts - Monday, July 28, 2014 - link

    Look at the target market : Home media enthusiasts / power users - who want to stream their huge media collections / backup their smartphone photos / need a backup for small amounts of data that they generate on their laptops (say, tax returns or documents or similar things). Why go in for ECC RAM overkill (and associated increased platform cost?)

    ECC RAM is necessary only for mission-critical applications. If you feel ECC RAM is necessary for a non-ZFS mdadm-based software RAID system like the TS-451, I would love to hear the arguments in its favor.
  • darkfalz - Monday, July 28, 2014 - link

    Would prefer a 6 bay. At 25% space penalty, RAID-5 with 4 drives is a bit painful. With 6 bays you're down to at more acceptable 17% space penalty. Give me 6x6TB in RAID-5 NAS and I'll be happy (currenting running 5x4TB in a HTPC but feeling cramped already!)
  • wintermute000 - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link

    there is a 6 bay model, its just not the one reviewed lol
  • basroil - Monday, July 28, 2014 - link

    Those are some really nice numbers for iSCSI (which you need for Lightroom to work), far better than other qnap devices...

    Really got to say Anandtech rocks, the really do listen to feedback and test for cases that readers are interested in! (hell, I like the service so much I disabled all adblock like scripts for the site, something I never do)
  • roman.md - Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - link

    759$ - overpriced

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now