Multi-Client iSCSI Evaluation

As virtualization becomes more and more popular even in home / power user settings, the importance of the iSCSI feature set of any COTS NAS can't be overstated. Starting with our ioSafe 1513+ review, we have started devoting a separate section (in the reviews of NAS units targeting SMBs and SMEs) to the evaluation of iSCSI performance. The Asustor ADM only allows for iSCSI LUNs to be created as regular files and doesn't allow for multiple sessions to a single target. Even the Seagate NAS Pro units have this capability. Fortunately, from a review perspective, we only had one iSCSI configuration to evaluate.

We evaluated the performance of the Asustor AS7008T with file-based LUNs only. The standard IOMeter benchmarks that we used for multi-client CIFS evaluation were utilized for iSCSI evaluation also. The main difference to note is that the CIFS evaluation was performed on a mounted network share, while the iSCSI evaluation was done on a 'clean physical disk' (from the viewpoint of the virtual machine).

Performance Numbers

The four IOMeter traces were run on the physical disk manifested by mapping the iSCSI target on each VM. The benchmarking started with one VM accessing the NAS. The number of VMs simultaneously playing out the trace was incremented one by one till we had all 25 VMs in the fray. Detailed listings of the IOMeter benchmark numbers (including IOPS and maximum response times) for each configuration are linked below:

Asustor AS7008T - LUNs (Regular Files) - Multi-Client Performance - 100% Sequential Reads

 

Asustor AS7008T - LUNs (Regular Files) - Multi-Client Performance - Max Throughput - 50% Reads

 

Asustor AS7008T - LUNs (Regular Files) - Multi-Client Performance - Random 8K - 70% Reads

 

Asustor AS7008T - LUNs (Regular Files) - Multi-Client Performance - Real Life - 65% Reads

Synology provides multiple ways to create iSCSI LUNs, each with different pros and cons (we are only looking at the bandwidth and response time numbers in the graphs above). The problem for the AS7008T lies in the fact that there are only two network links. This severely hampers the benchmark numbers and causes performance to degrade beyond a couple of clients for the real life 60% random / 65% reads workload. The other traces have the same behaviour as the multi-client CIFS workloads, but Synology just provides more alternatives to the end-user.

Multi-Client Performance - CIFS on Windows Encryption Support Evaluation
Comments Locked

29 Comments

View All Comments

  • bernstein - Sunday, November 30, 2014 - link

    Holy crap $1500?! subtracting i3-4330, GA-H97N, 2GB RAM, a 2x SATA3 PCIe controller, some usb stick for the os & a psu thats over $1100 just for the case & that custom operating system...
    to which i can only say: apple would be twice as rich if it had such margins...
  • tocker - Sunday, November 30, 2014 - link

    We have not had the best run with the Asustor NAS devices - seem to have some bugs they need to sort out - We have found that even as backup targets they do bizarre things like stop sharing the folders via CIFS/SMB. (log in and reshare, problem solved)
    We expect a NAS to run for months/years without issues, and sadly this had not been the case for these units.
  • bill.rookard - Sunday, November 30, 2014 - link

    I have to agree. When you build a NAS, it needs to be rock-solid, always on, and always available. Oh, and reliable disks help too. I have a FreeNAS 7 based system in my basement (Rack-mounted, Gigabyte board, Phenom II x 2 processor, 4gb ram, 5x2tb drives in RAID5) and it has been restarted maybe a half dozen times in as many years - most of those being deliberate power-downs for reconfigurations of the hardware (ram upgrades/chassis swap/1 drive replacement & rebuild) and it has been probably the most reliable OS I've ever dealt with.

    Considering FreeNAS is a free, open source project, I would think that the people at Asustor would be able to come at least as close.
  • leexgx - Tuesday, December 2, 2014 - link

    mine is i7-920 with 8 GB ram not ECC but never had stability issues its both CPU and ram underclocked as well (only 1 of the 3 ram slot works got the mobo for like £40-50 when i was doing folding@home with 3x9800GX2 ) 6 HDDs gets rebooted for updates every so 3-6 months (running 2003 server (the XP x64 based one) the later versions of MS server (vista at the time it was Built so been running for long time) was giving me issues with network performance
  • mrdude - Sunday, November 30, 2014 - link

    >$1500 for an i3 with 2GB of non-ECC RAM and only dual ethernet?

    That's a steal!
  • bill.rookard - Sunday, November 30, 2014 - link

    No kidding, for $1500.00 it should almost come populated with at least 8x2tb drives.
  • bernstein - Monday, December 1, 2014 - link

    not almost... at $1500 it has to come with at least 8x3TB, everthing less is just ripping consumers off...
  • Wkstar - Sunday, November 30, 2014 - link

    EMachines came in 1999 and knocked the computer world prices in half. Somebody will come and do the same to NAS.. There prices are crazy
  • Kerryl - Monday, December 1, 2014 - link

    Don't throw out your tongue...Asustor seems to be lower-priced in the league of i3 NAS. Over $2000 out there for even lower cpu configuration:

    http://www.amazon.com/QNAP-TS-1079-PRO-10-Bay-iSCS...

    http://www.amazon.com/Synology-DiskStation-Diskles...
  • techticket - Monday, December 1, 2014 - link

    at the core-i3 QNAP TS-879-PRO-U cost $2000+ from newegg.....

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now