Single Client Performance - CIFS & iSCSI on Windows

The single client CIFS and iSCSI performance of the Netgear RN202 was evaluated on the Windows platforms using Intel NASPT and our standard robocopy benchmark. This was run from one of the virtual machines in our NAS testbed. All data for the robocopy benchmark on the client side was put in a RAM disk (created using OSFMount) to ensure that the client's storage system shortcomings wouldn't affect the benchmark results. It must be noted that all the shares / iSCSI LUNs are created in a RAID-1 volume.

The main surprise in the results below is that the RN202 performs better than the RN312 for certain access traces. This could be due to performance upgrades in the firmware. In general, the reads are very fast - easily the best amongst the NAS units we have evaluated, while writes tend to come towards the middle of the pack. The fast reads skew the numbers heavily in the read-centric workloads.

HD Video Playback - CIFS

2x HD Playback - CIFS

4x HD Playback - CIFS

HD Video Record - CIFS

HD Playback and Record - CIFS

Content Creation - CIFS

Office Productivity - CIFS

File Copy to NAS - CIFS

File Copy from NAS - CIFS

Dir Copy to NAS - CIFS

Dir Copy from NAS - CIFS

Photo Album - CIFS

robocopy (Write to NAS) - CIFS

robocopy (Read from NAS) - CIFS

We created a 250 GB iSCSI LUN / target and mapped it on to a Windows VM in our testbed. The same NASPT benchmarks were run and the results are presented below. The observations we had in the CIFS subsection above hold true here too.

HD Video Playback - iSCSI

2x HD Playback - iSCSI

4x HD Playback - iSCSI

HD Video Record - iSCSI

HD Playback and Record - iSCSI

Content Creation - iSCSI

Office Productivity - iSCSI

File Copy to NAS - iSCSI

File Copy from NAS - iSCSI

Dir Copy to NAS - iSCSI

Dir Copy from NAS - iSCSI

Photo Album - iSCSI

robocopy (Write to NAS) - iSCSI

robocopy (Read from NAS) - iSCSI

The iSCSI performance is similar to the CIFS performance. The writes suffer heavily, but the read performance is again very good enabling the unit to emerge as the clear leader in certain workloads. Note that the test share was configured with bit-rot protection (something users expect from any btrfs-enabled NAS) and a weekly snapshot schedule, but no compression was in play during the benchmarking process.

Introduction and Evaluation Methodology Encryption Support Evaluation
Comments Locked

22 Comments

View All Comments

  • mikato - Monday, November 9, 2015 - link

    How can you mention the QNAP TS-231 in the last sentence of the article like
    "Taken in the context of units such as the QNAP TS-231, the $282 diskless pricing of the RN202 is a bit too high for our liking."
    and not mention it anywhere else???? How does the Netgear ReadyNAS RN202 compare to that??

    Argh!
  • rama13 - Friday, June 10, 2016 - link

    It has the worst HELP, FAQ and manual I have ever seen!
    Almost never ever ever I have solved my problem or found my answer from them (or support) and always I have done try and error or just guess to solve the issues! then just ask myself why they have not mentioned this simple solution in just one sentence instead of confusing people and ask you to contact expensive support!!!!!!

    I will never buy any #Netgear products because of this kind of support!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now