Asustor AS-304T: 4-Bay Intel Evansport NAS Review
by Ganesh T S on March 26, 2014 11:15 AM ESTSingle Client Performance - CIFS & NFS on Linux
We have recently revamped our Linux-client testing for NAS units, shifting from IOMeter to IOZone. A CentOS 6.2 virtual machine was used to evaluate NFS and CIFS performance of the NAS when accessed from a Linux client. In order to standardize the testing across multiple NAS units, the following parameters were used to mount the NFS and Samba shares:
mount -t nfs NAS_IP:/PATH_TO_NFS_SHARE /PATH_TO_LOCAL_MOUNT_FOLDER
mount -t cifs //NAS_IP/PATH_TO_SMB_SHARE /PATH_TO_LOCAL_MOUNT_FOLDER
Note that these are slightly different from what we used to run in our previous NAS reviews. The following IOZone command was used to benchmark the shares:
IOZone -aczR -g 2097152 -U /PATH_TO_LOCAL_CIFS_MOUNT -f /PATH_TO_LOCAL_CIFS_MOUNT/testfile -b <NAS_NAME>_CIFS_EXCEL_BIN.xls > <NAS_NAME>_CIFS_CSV.csv
IOZone provides benchmark numbers for a multitude of access scenarios with varying file sizes and record lengths. Some of these are very susceptible to caching effects on the client side. This is evident in some of the graphs in the gallery below.
Readers interested in the hard numbers can refer to the CSV program output here. These numbers will gain relevance as we benchmark more NAS units with similar configuration.
The NFS share was also benchmarked in a similar manner with the following command:
IOZone -aczR -g 2097152 -U /nfs_test_mount/ -f /nfs_test_mount/testfile -b <NAS_NAME>_NFS_EXCEL_BIN.xls > <NAS_NAME>_NFS_CSV.csv
The IOZone CSV output can be found here for those interested in the exact numbers.
A summary of the bandwidth numbers for various tests averaged across all file and record sizes is provided in the table below. As noted previously, some of these numbers are skewed by caching effects. A reference to the actual CSV outputs linked above make the entries affected by this effect obvious.
| Asustor AS-304T - Linux Client Performance (MBps) | ||
| IOZone Test | CIFS | NFS |
| Init Write | 55 | 44 |
| Re-Write | 61 | 46 |
| Read | 23 | 95 |
| Re-Read | 23 | 96 |
| Random Read | 13 | 38 |
| Random Write | 45 | 42 |
| Backward Read | 13 | 31 |
| Record Re-Write | 35 | 710* |
| Stride Read | 21 | 68 |
| File Write | 61 | 45 |
| File Re-Write | 58 | 44 |
| File Read | 16 | 66 |
| File Re-Read | 16 | 66 |
| *: Performance number skewed by caching effect | ||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
View All Comments
CalaverasGrande - Friday, March 28, 2014 - link
For my presonal NAS I simply can't afford to pay for the amount of backup that would entail. Instead I replicate the core of the data between two units at different locations.The stuff that I work with/use on a regular basis is not replicated. If I did it would replicate accidental deletions and changes.
I'm working on getting some of my friends and family on board with this arrangement so that we are replicating each others data. Hence preserving it in case of theft fire or disaster.
freespace303 - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link
Have you heard of Backblaze? Unlimited backup for $5 a month. I heard about it on a TwiCH podcast.patu - Thursday, March 27, 2014 - link
What mount options did CentOS use? Distro can change the default mount options.Hrel - Thursday, April 3, 2014 - link
Can someone please explain to me why all NAS enclosures that have more than 2 bays are SO expensive? I mean, for $500 I can build a full power desktop and just install FreeNAS on it. At the same time I can buy a 2-bay NAS spec'd like this one for around $100. Then make the case twice as large and the price jumps up $400?!?! I am thoroughly confused by this phenomena.Shouldn't a 4 bay enclosure be, at most, $200?