QNAP TS-451 Bay Trail NAS Performance Review
by Ganesh T S on July 28, 2014 9:00 AM ESTLinux Client Performance - CIFS and NFS
A CentOS 6.2 virtual machine was used to evaluate NFS and CIFS performance of the NAS when accessed from a Linux client. We chose IOZone as the benchmark for this case. In order to standardize the testing across multiple NAS units, we mount the CIFS and NFS shares during startup with the following /etc/fstab entries.
//<NAS_IP>/PATH_TO_SMB_SHARE /PATH_TO_LOCAL_MOUNT_FOLDER cifs rw,username=guest,password= 0 0
<NAS_IP>:/PATH_TO_NFS_SHARE /PATH_TO_LOCAL_MOUNT_FOLDER nfs rw,relatime,vers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,namlen=255,hard,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2, sec=sys,mountaddr <NAS_IP>,mountvers=3,mountproto=udp,local_lock=none,addr=<NAS_IP> 0 0
The following IOZone command was used to benchmark the CIFS share:
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.
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.
| QNAP TS-451 - Linux Client Performance (MBps) | ||
| IOZone Test | CIFS | NFS |
| Init Write | 67 | 69 |
| Re-Write | 69 | 74 |
| Read | 34 | 125 |
| Re-Read | 34 | 125 |
| Random Read | 21 | 62 |
| Random Write | 62 | 71 |
| Backward Read | 21 | 49 |
| Record Re-Write | 788* | 1317* |
| Stride Read | 32 | 106 |
| File Write | 68 | 79 |
| File Re-Write | 69 | 80 |
| File Read | 24 | 89 |
| File Re-Read | 24 | 92 |
| *: Number skewed by caching effect | ||
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!