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

  • climbmonkee - Monday, August 4, 2014 - link

    My comment may be better directed to the forums, but I'll post here first. As a home user with a growing media library (plus small kids and lot's of home video footage), who's looking to buy a NAS for the first time: is the QNAP a good recommendation or is there something else that is better suited for me?
    My primary uses would be media streaming and daily back-ups, with the unit on 24/7. I'm interested in a 4 bay model and would prefer a good GUI. I had just decided on purchasing the Synology DS414 but am a little confused on if I should change that decision based on the new(er) architecture of the QNAP and possibly other NAS units in the second half of 2014. It seems that this review is positive and with the faster rebuild times makes it very intersting. However, my uses are fairly simple and currently I'm not interested in the virtualization aspects that seems to be the basis of most comments here. Maybe I'm missing something, don't know.

    Either way, stick with the Synology, or look at the QNAP (or even something else?) Thanks for the help!
  • JimmyWoodser - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link

    I am in the same situation and the same needs. I would appreciate advice on the QNAP TS-451 or the Synology DS-415play please. Regards Jim
  • KSyed0 - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link

    I voted Synology (DS412+ newly purchased - they don't seem to have a newer replacement yet).

    Feature-wise, very comparable to the QNAP at the equivalent price, but the winner for me was the SHR, which is a type of RAID, allowing you to mix and match drives. With the QNAP or other NAS boxes, I'd have to buy matching sized HDs. With the Synology, I started with 0.5+1+1+2, and was able to replace the drives one by one and let it rebuild and resize. I now have 1+2+3+3, with no wasted space.

    For home use, that's great.

    MKS
  • Pheran - Wednesday, August 6, 2014 - link

    Thanks for the review! I'd love to see a review of the TS-851 compared against the Synology DS1813+ et al.
  • Spoogie - Friday, February 13, 2015 - link

    Very concerned about its 1080p transcoding. Some users say it's fine, while others say it stumbles. Please look closely at how it performs in this area in your future tests!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now