Synology DS415+ Review: DSM on Intel Rangeley
by Ganesh T S on October 30, 2014 7:30 AM EST- Posted in
- NAS
- Storage
- Intel
- Synology
- Silvermont
- Enterprise
- Rangeley
Single 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.
| Synology DS415+ - Linux Client Performance (MBps) | ||
| IOZone Test | CIFS | NFS |
| Init Write | 85 | 81 |
| Re-Write | 83 | 80 |
| Read | 49 | 136* |
| Re-Read | 50 | 137* |
| Random Read | 28 | 65 |
| Random Write | 78 | 76 |
| Backward Read | 28 | 54 |
| Record Re-Write | 50 | 1695* |
| Stride Read | 45 | 115 |
| File Write | 83 | 80 |
| File Re-Write | 83 | 80 |
| File Read | 34 | 95 |
| File Re-Read | 36 | 95 |
| *: Benchmark number skewed due to caching effect | ||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
DanNeely - Thursday, October 30, 2014 - link
It's US Gov Speak (if you follow the link it comes from US Govt Acquisition rules). I suspect it's less generally known than that it appears common in a casual search because US Gov/Contractors collectively represent millions of people.Laststop311 - Thursday, October 30, 2014 - link
Beast quad core cpu for a NAS.Morawka - Friday, October 31, 2014 - link
where is the ipad air 2 review. you guys even got early review units right? you went to the keynote.jabber - Friday, October 31, 2014 - link
When there are 4539 iPad Air 2 reviews all saying pretty much the same thing why bother? Why not review something else that enthusiasts might be interested in.iPads are for baby boomers and your mum and dad.
mexell - Friday, October 31, 2014 - link
RAID5 for drives this large is calling for trouble. Several enterprise vendors discourage usage of RAID5 for large 7.2k drives because the risk of a second-drive loss (or just effects of bit rot) during a rebuild is just too high.I am aware that both RAID6 and RAID10 in a four-bay unit mean 50% capacity loss compared to 25% for RAID5, but in the end, it's your personal media archive that's at risk.
So, a comparison of RAID10 and RAID6 speeds would have been nice.
skarnm2 - Friday, October 31, 2014 - link
I think you would go with 5+ disk versions for Raid 6.FalconX69 - Friday, October 31, 2014 - link
Can someone explain why I7 or xenon based Nas drives are so expensive when the chip is only a few hundred dollars more then these atoms? Wish symbology or qnap would allow custom nas units but with reasonable prices.RockyMcNuts - Tuesday, November 25, 2014 - link
You can put a Synology-compatible OS on custom hardware, or use an open source NAS OS like FreeNAS. At least if it's for a home project, not sure I would do this for a commercial project.http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5525/workshop-xpen...
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-networking-media-...
http://xpenology.com/forum/
sin_tax - Saturday, November 1, 2014 - link
Would the more powerful CPU allow this to be a suitable box for Plex Media Server? Can it handle transcoding one or more 1080p streams?asendra - Monday, November 3, 2014 - link
I would love to know the answer to this. I need a box that can handle Plex, only 1 stream, at 1080p.Currently I have my big gaming PC with PMS, but I prefer a low power NAS, or a HTPC+NAS with Plex/PMS.
Currently I'm debating between this or a custom box with a J1900 quad @ 2Ghz. Prefer the simplicity of Synology and how compact it is, but don't like the price and I'm not sure if it can handle it...