Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gunrunnerjohn]

Here's my latest round of NAS tests, you can clearly see why I prefer the Synology.

It's interesting how much performance difference there is between the DNS-321 and DNS-323, I thought it was less before...


Synology DS209 Gigabit, no jumbo frames, RAID-1 EXT3 1.5TB Seagate 5400 RPM Drives

Running a 2000MB file write on drive I: once...
------------------------------
Average (W):     31.87 MB/sec
------------------------------
Running a 2000MB file read on drive I: once...
------------------------------
Average (R):     62.97 MB/sec
------------------------------



DNS-323 Gigabit, no jumbo frames, single EXT3 1.5TB Hitachi 5400 RPM Drive

Running a 2000MB file write on drive j: once...
------------------------------
Average (W):     13.03 MB/sec
------------------------------
Running a 2000MB file read on drive j: once...
------------------------------
Average (R):     17.3 MB/sec
------------------------------


DNS-321 Gigabit, no jumbo frames, single EXT3 1.5TB Hitachi 5400 RPM Drive
Running a 2000MB file write on drive K: once...
------------------------------
Average (W):     9.34 MB/sec
------------------------------
Running a 2000MB file read on drive K: once...
------------------------------
Average (R):     11.81 MB/sec
------------------------------

[vishnumrao]

Wow thats a lot of difference between the Synology and the DNS 323. I wish I had seen these posts before I bought my DNS 323. 

[gunrunnerjohn]

They're in a different class, the Synology is my prime NAS now, I use the others for unattended backups where the speed isn't an issue.

[tentimes]

That figure you have for the read on the 321 is the exact amount for a 100M ethernet cutoiff. I had the same problem until I manually set all devices on my system to gigabit ethernet. Previously they had been set to auto negotiation and reported 1gig buit they were not running at 1 gig. The figures you have are too low for the 323.

On another point, I was doing a lot of drive shifting since yesterday (about 3gig worth of stuff!) and my linux machine with sata drives was only maxing out at 50MB/sec. That's internal moving from one eco drive to another eco drive.

I definitely think the time has come for the next generation data transport - 1gig cards are just way too much for what most computers are capable of in a real world scenario.

[gunrunnerjohn]

The DNS-321 is indeed on a gigabit switch, and has end-to-end gigabit connectivity.

Speed 1000 Mbps

[tentimes]

Yea - mine said that too, but it wasn't. I had auto set and the readout said 1000. Also, the detail section of the network readout for my NIC card said 1000. But it wasn't - both readouts were lying

If you go to your NIC settings, set to Gigabit only, then take the DNS off auto and set to 1000 in the setting instead, I reckon you will find a big difference.

Or, if you are convinced you are right then no need to bother really

[gunrunnerjohn]

Well, since the NIC that is used to benchmark that NAS is the same one that did the test to the Synology box, it's pretty hard to believe it's running at 100mbit.  If it is, I'd sure like to hear you explain how that works.

I manually configured the DNS-321 for gigabit only and ran the same test.  I also checked the switch connect indications to insure that a gigabit connection was being made by the DNS-321 and the feed into the switch.  Finally, due to the fact that some switches are known to have problems mixing 100mbit and gigabit traffic, I disconnected the NDAS 100mbit drives also on the switch, leaving only the incoming gigabit feed and the DNS-321.  A transfer to my laptop on the same switch managed to hit 40mbytes/sec, surely indicating the switch was actually receiving and handling gigabit traffic.

With that configuration, I tried your little experiment, and I got the same result. 

The results:

Running warmup...
Running a 2000MB file write on drive N: once...
------------------------------
Average (W):     9.62 MB/sec
------------------------------
Running a 2000MB file read on drive N: once...
------------------------------
Average (R):     13.45 MB/sec
------------------------------

Or, if you are convinced you are right then no need to bother really

Any more "pearls of wisdom" you care to throw my way?  Perhaps you shouldn't assume everyone but you is incompetent. 

[Tank_Killer]

I have my finger on the trigger of a synology DS210+  I like the IP camera feature, and it looks like their software doesnt suck.

[gunrunnerjohn]

I've had a few issues with the Synology software as well, the USB backup was problematic until I get a special version of patched firmware.  For some brands of external USB drives, the backup still has issues.

The principal reason I got it was for the network speed.

[Tank_Killer]

syonology does 4k sectors?

[tfiveash]

@tank-killer: If you look at this link http://www.synology.com/support/hd.php?lang=us and put in the model (210+) it shows support for the 4k sectors.

@grj: Like you I finally gave up on D-Link so I ordered a DS210+. I should get it in a few days. I was going to get a DS209 but I got this DS210+ for about the same money. Thanks for the advice.

For as much time as I have put into trying to make the dns-323 work it has not been worth the difference in price between the DS209 and the dns-323.

Terry

[gunrunnerjohn]

syonology does 4k sectors?

I picked my model, the DS209, and checked the drive compatibility list, here it is: http://www.synology.com/support/hd.php?lang=us&product_id=29

[gunrunnerjohn]

Like you I finally gave up on D-Link so I ordered a DS210+. I should get it in a few days. I was going to get a DS209 but I got this DS210+ for about the same money. Thanks for the advice.

For as much time as I have put into trying to make the dns-323 work it has not been worth the difference in price between the DS209 and the dns-323.

Well, it's really somewhat of an unfair comparison.  The DS209 cost twice what the DNS-323 costs, so I would expect it to offer some substantial performance improvements.  However, if the average performance that most folks get with the DNS-323 isn't sufficient, it's a good move.

[tentimes]

Do you not get tempted though at the upper price rang to have a go at building your own? I've been doing a lot of linux building lately and been looking at some neat cases and HTPC parts and am thinking that my next project will be to build a NAS. I think I can do it cheaper than one of the premium NAS's and faster. The main thing will be the case - it has to look cool and be small I might even see if I can talk someone into building me a custom case...

[gunrunnerjohn]

I wasn't tempted at all.  If you consider the true cost of ownership, the Synology comes out ahead of anything I could build.  It's not only the cost of the NAS, but also the power to run a real Linux box.  Building a custom case will most certainly cost more than the Synology all by itself! 

I have in the past had a PC running headless for my file/print server, but I find the NAS to be much more efficient in terms of size and power.

I don't doubt I could put something together that would outperform most NAS boxes, but I really have no need for that kind of performance.  The Synology does all I need and more, and I typed into an order form and the completed product arrived at my doorstop in a few days for $300 total.   All I had to do is stick the disks into the box and run the setup.