QNAP TS-853 Pro 8-bay Intel Bay Trail SMB NAS Review
by Ganesh T S on December 29, 2014 7:30 AM ESTSingle Client Performance - CIFS and NFS on Linux
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-853 Pro - Linux Client Performance (MBps) | ||
| IOZone Test | CIFS | NFS |
| Init Write | 78 | 79 |
| Re-Write | 83 | 81 |
| Read | 45 | 115 |
| Re-Read | 48 | 114 |
| Random Read | 29 | 64 |
| Random Write | 81 | 78 |
| Backward Read | 28 | 51 |
| Record Re-Write | 1648* | 1653* |
| Stride Read | 44 | 108 |
| File Write | 83 | 80 |
| File Re-Write | 82 | 81 |
| File Read | 32 | 93 |
| File Re-Read | 33 | 94 |
| *: Benchmark number skewed due to caching effect | ||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
58 Comments
View All Comments
Adrian3 - Tuesday, December 30, 2014 - link
This guy mentions a special transcoding chip: https://forums.plex.tv/index.php/topic/126237-qnap.....and that it's only usable by Qnap's own software - and I wouldn't be using that anyway.
Still not a deal breaker for me - but maybe I should consider some other options.
nathanddrews - Tuesday, December 30, 2014 - link
I browsed the manual and they have special drivers and software to enable the hardware transcoding. The transcoding software has two functions: "real-time for up to five devices" but doesn't specify at what resolution, then also an pre-transcoded option where it will make up to five .MP4 versions of the source video at different resolutions (240/360/480/720/1080) that are simply streamed "as is". The manual is clear enough though that this specific model has dedicated transcoding hardware that uses its own software/drivers to operate. You should probably contact them first if you plan on using Plex or something.ganeshts - Tuesday, December 30, 2014 - link
It can definitely do five stream simultaneous hardware accelerated transcoding using the built-in Quick Sync engine.I have tested it and it works beautifully, but only with QNAP's own mobile apps for real-time processing. You can also set up offline accelerated transcoding if you want to use other playback apps / have plenty of disk space to spare.
I do have a small piece coming up talking about hardware accelerated transcoding in NAS units.
nathanddrews - Tuesday, December 30, 2014 - link
I'd love to see that piece, I can't get QS to do more than one Blu-ray transcode.Gigaplex - Wednesday, December 31, 2014 - link
Are you sure it's using Quick Sync? If it is, then 3rd party software shouldn't have much trouble making use of it.ganeshts - Wednesday, December 31, 2014 - link
I am quite confident that it uses Quick Sync - in particular, it just uses a customized build of ffmpeg with Quick Sync support [ https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/2591 ]mhaubr2 - Monday, December 29, 2014 - link
I like the idea of a shoot-out or comparison with DYI solutions.ap90033 - Friday, January 2, 2015 - link
Yes please!ap90033 - Friday, January 2, 2015 - link
I have been trying to figure out a good fast ZFS NAS but cant come close to the price tag of this. Am I missing something? I am trying to build something that would hold at least 8 drives (like this unit). ECC Ram and controllers, etc jack the price up a bit...fmaxwell - Sunday, April 30, 2017 - link
IT professionals buy NASs just like they buy any other server. Any corporate IT director earning his pay knows that it's idiotic to have his staff building an 8-bay NAS when he can buy one this cheaply. If he's got any experience, he's seen ballooning costs and missed deadlines when some in-house, build-it-yourself project runs into trouble. By the time you add burdened labor on top of the parts cost, most companies recognize that having the IT staff build a NAS makes about as much sense as having the cafeteria staff start a dairy farm.As for home users, get some perspective. When I started out in computers, a single hard drive or a dumb terminal cost more than this. I swear to God that computer prices could drop to an average of $10 for a home-built desktop PC and someone would be posting that it's "madness" for a home user to spend $14 for a pre-built system with a warranty.
I bought this NAS and loaded it up with 8 3TB WD Red drives for my home network. The whole thing cost me under $1,800. How can anyone get all riled up about that when it gives them 18TB of RAID 6 network storage and can act as a server for Wordpress, email, media, etc.? Doesn't your time have any value at all?