Netgear's Marvell Based ReadyNAS NV+ v2 Review
by Ganesh T S on November 9, 2011 8:30 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
- NAS
- NetGear
In addition to the raw performance numbers, there are a number of other features which prospective customers might care about. These include the one-touch backup features, extensibility with the help of add-ons and mobile apps availability. Power consumption and noise are important factors too.
One Touch Backup
Backup jobs can be created in the web interface. Source and destination options include folders in the internal volume as well as the various USB ports in the system. These backup jobs can be scheduled at pre-determined intervals or even just disabled.
The one-touch backup button can be configured to execute one or more of the configured backup jobs. We set up a backup job to copy over the contents of the drive connected to the rear top USB 3.0 port to a backup folder in the internal volume. One touch backup was performed for 100 GB of data (with multiple small files and folders) on a OCZ Enyo USB 3.0 SSD. As can be seen in the gallery above, the backup jobs use 'cp' internally. The WD MyBook Live uses the rsync command which gives more flexibility in the backup process. This is something Netgear should probably look at in future firmware upgrades. The transfer rates for the NV+ v2 (with various volume configurations) are recorded below.
| ReadyNAS NV+ v2 One-Touch Backup Transfer Rates over USB 3.0 | |
| 2 x 1TB RAID-1 Volume | 26.53 MiB/s |
| 3 x 1TB RAID-5 Volume | 16.15 MiB/s |
| 4 x 1TB RAID-5 Volume | 23.79 MiB/s |
The backup transfer rate seems to be fundamentally limited by the RAID array itself, as evident from the NASPT / robocopy benchmarks and the results above.
Add-Ons
One of the big plus points of the ReadyNAS lineup is the wealth of community developed add-ons available. A visit to the ReadyNAS website reveals that almost every add-on has two versions available, one for x86 and the other for SPARC. With today's introductions, ARM versions need to be added too. As of now, the number of add-ons available for the new platform is quite limited.
Netgear assured us that the porting process for the add-ons would be simple and available to end users / developers with access to the SDK. For the purpose of this review, we used the EnableRootSSH, ReadyNAS Photos II and ReadyNAS Remote add-ons. Except for the EnableRootSSH add-on, the others needed quite a bit of poking around to get them up and running. I am quite sure that things will improve as the ARM based platforms go out to more developers / end-users.
The ReadyNAS Photos II add-on helps users manage photographs on the NAS and access to it over the Internet. With uPnP forwarding set up, each photographer account on the NAS can be accessed through photos.readynas.com. The add-on also provides very fine grained access control for the photographs. Other NAS vendors also provide similar add-ons (like Synology with their Photo Station app). Due to the large number of options available, the usage of the add-on is not as straightforward as I would have liked. That said, it does manage to get the job done.
Mobile Apps / Remote Access Add-On
The ReadyNAS Remote solution allows access to the NAS volumes from a PC / Mac / mobile device in an external network. This needs the FTP service to be enabled on the unit (Netgear indicated that a non-FTP based version is currently being developed for mobile devices). The PC client installs its own network adapter on the system. I was unable to get the client to install on my Windows 7 Ultimate x86 based laptop, but it installed fine on another PC running Windows 7 Ultimate x64 (albeit, with an unsigned driver warning). Once logged in, the client mapped the NAS volume onto a network location. This way, the NAS volume is integrated quite nicely with Windows Explorer. All said, this setup is much more complicated compared to the PC WD2go solution provided by Western Digital in their MyBook Live lineup.
Mobile apps to replicate the remote access functionality are available for both Android and iOS. One of the quirks I observed during the testing was the fact that the PC client would log out whenever I logged into the Android client. In most situations, this is not desirable, but it is not a showstopper. Users can always create separate accounts for access via mobile devices. All in all, the mobile apps / remote access add-on seem to be unnecessarily complicated. Hopefully, things get better in the future.
DLNA
The web interface allows the various folders to be configured with the ReadyDLNA service. The unit is still pending certification, though. I am not a big fan of DLNA and its certification program. So, I will leave this sub-section with just the fact that DLNA services can be configured on a per-folder basis in the ReadyNAS NV+ v2.
Power Consumption
The table below presents the power consumed by the unit in various stages of operation. Note that these are typical numbers and can vary in the field depending on the type of hard disk being used in the system.
| ReadyNAS NV+ v2 Power Consumption | |
| Power Off | 0.9 W |
| 2 x 1TB RAID-1 Volume with High Network Load | 24 W |
| 3 x 1TB RAID-5 Volume with High Network Traffic | 28.3 W |
| 4 x 1TB RAID-5 Volume with High Network Traffic | 34 W |
| 4 x 1TB RAID-5 Volume Rebuild | 36.8 W |
| Idle (4 x 1TB RAID-5) | 12.3 W |
Since the unit happens to be based on a dedicated RISC based RAID / NAS controller, the power consumption is quite low. The hard disks contribute to the bulk of the power consumption. The temperatures never exceeded 40 C, and the fans rotated at less than 2000 rpm even during periods of heavy activity.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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.
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 enginesIf 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?
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.
Daniel Egger - Wednesday, November 9, 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.
nurgle - Wednesday, November 9, 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.
irev210 - Wednesday, November 9, 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.
KennethAlmquist - Wednesday, November 9, 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.
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.
C_H_I_P - Wednesday, November 9, 2011 - link
Is it me, or is the SKU for version 1 and 2 the same ?C_H_I_P - Thursday, November 10, 2011 - link
Figured it out for myself.V2 == RND4000-200EUS
V1 == RND4000-100EUS