Single Client Performance - CIFS & iSCSI on Windows

The single client CIFS and iSCSI performance of the WD My Cloud DL4100 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-5 volume. One of the interesting aspects of the My Cloud OS is the support for SMB 3.0. Amongst the NAS units that we have evaluated, this is the only OS with support for the latest SMB version other than QNAP's QTS 4.x. SMB 3.0 was evaluated using a Windows 8 VM. It obviously provides better performance compared to SMB 2.0 (Windows 7 doesn't support SMB 3.0).

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

If the SMB 3.0 results are ignored, we find that the WD My Cloud DL4100 is consistently bettered by either the Synology DS415+ (based on a faster Rangeley SoC) or the QNAP TS-451 (based on a higher-clocked Bay Trail Celeron). In addition, Synology's DSM and QNAP's QTS are much more mature compared to the My Cloud OS.

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 implementation in the My Cloud OS has lot of scope for improvement. In certain workloads, even the ARM-based LenovoEMC ix4-300d manages to score better numbers. Other than that, the behavior of the performance numbers track what was observed for the CIFS benchmarks.

Introduction and Testbed Setup Single Client Performance - CIFS & NFS on Linux
Comments Locked

27 Comments

View All Comments

  • kepstin - Wednesday, March 4, 2015 - link

    Hmm, you say "the board must definitely be sporting a PCIe - USB 3.0 bridge", but then don't bother to look up the PCI ids from the lspci output. The device "1b21" "1142" is an ASMedia ASM1042A USB 3.0 Host Controller.
  • pwr4wrd - Wednesday, March 4, 2015 - link

    Building a custom FreeNas or Nas4Free box depending on your needs is a much better solution than any one of these anemic underpowered and overpriced solutions. Presence of ZFS on FreeNas is by far the most critically important aspect. If data loss prevention and integrity top priority, which should be, there are two great articles by Robin Harris. These articles are titled "Has Raid5 Stopped working?" and "Why Raid5 stops working in 2009" can be found with a quick search. Mr. Harris clearly explains the inadequacy of Raid5 and 6 as viable storage solutions. As far as I am concerned, most of these off the shelf units are not good options for data safety. Considering the rock solid encryption option ZFS offers its value becomes even more important.
  • Black Obsidian - Wednesday, March 4, 2015 - link

    People considering COTS NAS boxes are doing so either because they're a business that needs real support, or a consumer who needs ease-of-use and hand-holding, all of which being areas that a custom FreeNAS/Nas4Free box utterly fails to deliver. While both are great products, their target market doesn't have much overlap with the target market of these COTS boxes.

    The articles by Robin Harris are unimpressive. He assumes that the advertised BER is a maximum, where in fact it appears to be a minimum (and several consumer lines advertise higher than 10^14 anyway). He also over-dramatizes an array rebuild failure due to read error; in that event, you simply create a new array from scratch and restore data from backups, since unlike Harris, you remember that RAID is a solution for AVAILABILITY, not backup.
  • pwr4wrd - Wednesday, March 4, 2015 - link

    I see your points. Our data is very important to us at our business. So we have to approach things as worst case scenario possibility. And some arguments made here make no sense. For businesses that NEED serious support this is NOT that SERIOUS of a product. And yes FreeNas does offer home/soho version of the product that was very well reviewed. For the individual that needs "hand-holding" availability of RAID means next to nothing. A simple back up drive from costco would do fine.
  • Spoogie - Wednesday, March 4, 2015 - link

    This has been debunked, which is why ZFS adoption has not taken hold.

    http://www.high-rely.com/blog/why-raid-5-stops-wor...
  • pbrutsche - Wednesday, March 4, 2015 - link

    Sorry, that link doesn't explain why ZFS hasn't taken hold.
  • Spoogie - Wednesday, March 4, 2015 - link

    The fact that IT pros haven't adopted it in in spite of this sort of debunked fear mongering makes it pretty clear. Don't believe it? Fine, then use ZFS if it makes you feel better.
  • pwr4wrd - Wednesday, March 4, 2015 - link

    How can you fear monger in order to capitalize on a free product?
  • dave_the_nerd - Wednesday, March 4, 2015 - link

    It's not free if you have to buy a support contract and consulting services from iXSystems.
  • dave_the_nerd - Wednesday, March 4, 2015 - link

    Are you running your business without support agreements/maintenance contracts on your servers? *horror*

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now