Single Client Performance - CIFS & iSCSI on Windows

The single client CIFS and iSCSI performance of the Asustor AS6204T 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.

The Asustor AS6204T provides acceptable performance in all workloads without particularly standing out in any particular one. That said, it manages to be in the top half of the performance pack in almost all of them.

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 iSCSI performance is slightly better than CIFS performance, but, again, nothing to make the unit stand out in the crowd.

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

Both CIFS and iSCSI have scope for performance improvements. It has to be kept in mind that ADM (the Asustor OS) is still a fledgling compared to other mature operating systems such as QNAP's QTS and Synology's DSM. The important takeaway here is that the system provides acceptable performance for all the workloads.

Introduction and Testbed Setup Encryption Support Evaluation
POST A COMMENT

29 Comments

View All Comments

  • Der2 - Thursday, November 05, 2015 - link

    Nas life. Reply
  • zeeBomb - Thursday, November 05, 2015 - link

    I have heard a lot about these surverlliance stations for quite some time now...appears to be the next big thing. Thank YOU for delivering these results! Reply
  • asendra - Thursday, November 05, 2015 - link

    I'm hoping Sinology releases in 2016 a 4bay braswell NAS, a DS416+ if you will, hopefully with a N3700. They have already announced some 2016 models with braswell, just not the ones I want.
    I would buy the current DS415+, but because I'm in no need of one right now, I just hope they get to it before I need to make the purchase.
    Reply
  • galfert - Thursday, November 05, 2015 - link

    I think the DS716+ is the device to get this year. No need to wait for a DS416+. If you need more than two drives you can get the 5 bay expansion model for the DS716+. That is why it is called a DS7xx+ model...because you can have 7 drives. So it is better than a DS4xx model which can't support the expansion module.

    For me the DS716+ is the device I've been waiting for. Powerful Intel CPU, Expandable RAM, Expansion module support, Transcoding of video, virtualization support, Hardware Encryption support. It has everything I need. Previously you had to compromize. I have a DS214play and a DS713+ and the DS716+ can replace both of them.
    Reply
  • asendra - Friday, November 06, 2015 - link

    You know, I hadn't considered that option. It would be a more expensive one, but it could work, in fact I could use a dx213 instead, wich gives me plenty storage for my needs.
    If when I need to buy one this next year they haven't released yet the new 4bay braswell ones, I might go with this option instead of the older ds415+.
    Another thing I wanted to wait for so I could see how it develops It's Btrfs support.
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, November 05, 2015 - link

    Is the rebuild time graph showing numbers in seconds? Hours would be a lot more immediately meaningful. /3600 isn't a particularly easy mental computation. Reply
  • romrunning - Thursday, November 05, 2015 - link

    Your article says: "Their Braswell lineup consists of four models, with each model name following the pattern AS6X0YT, where X (1 or 2) refers to the number of cores in the Braswell SoC in the model and Y (2 or 4) refers to the number of bays."

    Yet the Asustor AS6204T has 4 cores. So by your definition, it should have been named the "AS6404T".

    So it sounds like your definition should be updated.
    Reply
  • romrunning - Thursday, November 05, 2015 - link

    Forget the above - the wording isn't as clear. I thought you were saying it was a direct relationship where the number = amount of cores. It could have been written that the second numeral denotes whether the CPU is dual-core (X=1) or quad-core (X=2). Reply
  • romrunning - Thursday, November 05, 2015 - link

    This also reminds me - with today's advanced CMS/commenting systems, why can't we edit or delete our own comments on Anandtech?? Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, November 05, 2015 - link

    Which editor/reviewer do you want to furlough to hire a web developer to replace the comment system? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now