QNAP TS-451 Bay Trail NAS Performance Review
by Ganesh T S on July 28, 2014 9:00 AM ESTEncryption Support Evaluation
Consumers looking for encryption capabilities can opt to encrypt a iSCSI share with TrueCrypt or some in-built encryption mechanism in the client OS. However, if requirements dictate that the data must be shared across multiple users / computers, relying on encryption in the NAS is the best way to move forward. Most NAS vendors use the industry-standard 256-bit AES encryption algorithm. One approach is to encrypt only a particular shared folder while the other approach is to encrypt the full volume. QNAP supports only volume-level encryption for now in QTS.
On the hardware side, encryption support can be in the form of specialized hardware blocks in the SoC (common in ARM / PowerPC based NAS units). In x86-based systems, accelerated encryption support is dependent on whether the AES-NI instruction is available on the host CPU. The Celeron J1800 doesn't have AES-NI capabilities, but the CPU does have some more grunt compared to the previous generation Atoms. The following graphs show its effectiveness.
The encryption-enabled performance numbers of the TS-451 simply blow it past the other contenders. If the absence of AES-NI can still result in this good a performance with a RAID-5 volume, we are left wondering what QNAP could do with AES-NI acceleration in Avoton / Rangeley.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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 JimKSyed0 - 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!