|NETGEAR ReadyNAS NV+ v2 NAS Server|
|Reviews - Featured Reviews: Network|
|Written by Bruce Normann|
|Tuesday, 31 July 2012|
Page 12 of 15
Intel NASPT Test Results
NASPT brings an important perspective to our test protocol, as it is designed to measure the performance of a NAS system, as viewed from the end user's perspective. Benchmarks like ATTO use Direct I/O Access to accurately measure disk performance with minimal influence from the OS and the host platform. This provides important, objective data that can be used to measure raw, physical performance. While it's critical to measure the base performance, it's also important to quantify what you can expect using real-world applications, and that's exactly what NASPT does. One of the disadvantages of NASPT is that it is influenced by the amount of memory installed on the client, and it was designed for systems that had 2-4 GB of RAM. Consequently, two of the tests give unrealistic results, because they are measuring the speed of the buffer on the client, instead of the actual NAS performance. For that reason, we will ignore the results for "HD Video Record" and "File Copy to NAS".
Shown here is a single run, which turned out to be typical. The numbers in the chart below are an average of five runs. With a single, basic GbE interface in place, the results look somewhat similar to the first set of data I have from this test. No individual test pushes past the ~ 120 MB/s theoretical barrier, but several of them are in the 70-90 MB/s range. Some of the tests have very low transfer rates, and that's due to the nature of the test. The Content Creation test for example, simulates a user creating a web page, accessing multiple sources for the content. The Directory Copy tests use several hundred directories and several thousand files to test a typical backup and restore scenario. That's one of the most real-world type of tests, and it's useful to have a standard set of test data to use, because my directory of 1,000 random files is never going to be the same as your directory of 1,000 random files.
To summarize things, here's a consolidated chart of the "Fast" NASPT tests, and another for the "Slow" ones. First, the tests with relatively fast transfer rates. The ReadyNAS NV+ v2 does pretty well against the well-healed TS-879U-RP from QNAP if you just look at the raw numbers. At somewhere between one eighth and one tenth the price, I'd say it does extremely well. Hi-Def Play & Record takes a hit, no doubt due to the lower write performance of the ReadyNAS NV+ v2, but all the other results are near to 70-80% of the performance of the biggest, fastest NAS I've ever tested. Once again, these units were both tested with a normal, GbE network connection, in order to eliminate that as a variable. Running the TS-879U-RP with one or two 10GbE interfaces turns that monster loose, like Ken Block in a Ford Focus.
The "Slow" tests show a mixed bag of results. The Directory Copy IN and Directory Copy OUT show exactly what I would expect, given the excellent Write performance of the TS-879U-RP. Most NAS devices can't handle RAID 5 writes as easily, because they are constrained by the CPU. That's undoubtedly the case here.
This was my second set of official tests with the Intel NASPT benchmarking tool, and I'm reasonably happy with the results. I'm not too pleased that two of the tests are so dependent on the amount of memory in the host PC, to the point of making their test results completely unusable. I'm also not willing to hobble the Windows 7 test bench to 2GB of RAM just to run this test suite. The fact that 10 of the 12 tests are not affected by this issue means I will choose to ignore the HD Video Record and File Copy to NAS results unless a patch is issued to fix this problem. All of the other tests give predictable and meaningful results that represent real-world scenarios, so I'll continue to use this benchmark in the future.
NAS Comparison Products