Testbed Setup and Testing Methodology

Our rackmount NAS testbed uses the same infrastructure and methodology as the other units with a tower form factor. Performance evaluation is done under both single and multiple client scenarios. In the multiple client scenario, we run tests with all available network ports teamed with 802.3ad dynamic link aggregation. For these tests, we use the SMB / SOHO NAS testbed described earlier. This is the first 10 GbE-equipped NAS we have evaluated. Special mention must be made of the Netgear ProSafe GSM7352S-200 in our setup. It provided us with the necessary infrastructure to properly evaluate the capabilities of the Synology RS10613xs+.

AnandTech NAS Testbed Configuration
Motherboard Asus Z9PE-D8 WS Dual LGA2011 SSI-EEB
CPU 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2630L
Coolers 2 x Dynatron R17
Memory G.Skill RipjawsZ F3-12800CL10Q2-64GBZL (8x8GB) CAS 10-10-10-30
OS Drive OCZ Technology Vertex 4 128GB
Secondary Drive OCZ Technology Vertex 4 128GB
Tertiary Drive OCZ RevoDrive Hybrid (1TB HDD + 100GB NAND)
Other Drives 12 x OCZ Technology Vertex 4 64GB (Offline in the Host OS)
Network Cards 6 x Intel ESA I-340 Quad-GbE Port Network Adapter
Chassis SilverStoneTek Raven RV03
PSU SilverStoneTek Strider Plus Gold Evoluion 850W
OS Windows Server 2008 R2
Network Switch Netgear ProSafe GSM7352S-200

Thank You!

We thank the following companies for helping us out with our NAS testbed:

Supermicro was gracious to loan us their mini rack (CSE-RACK14U). An interesting aspect of the mini rack is the fact that its height is that of the standard workplace desk (30.64"). This allowed us to use our existing NAS testbed (tower form factor) and power measurement unit easily along with the rackmount components (the NAS under test, the Netgear ProSafe switch etc.)

We have been using the Western Digital 4TB RE (WD4000FYYZ) disks as test hard drives for NAS reviews. As we saw in our previous reviews, RAID rebuilds take days to get done. With a large number of bays, usage of hard disks was going to be very cumbersome. In addition, hard disks just don't bring out the performance potential of the rackmount units. Therefore, evaluation of the Synology RS10613xs+ was done by setting up a RAID-5 volume with twelve OCZ Vector 4 120 GB SSDs. Tests were also done using Intel SSD 520 240 GB disks that were supplied by Synology along with the review unit. However, to keep benchmark results consistent across different NAS units, the results we present are those obtained using the OCZ Vector SSDs.

Thank You!

We thank the following companies for helping us out with our rackmount NAS evaluation:

In order to evaluate single client performance, we booted up one VM in our testbed and ran Intel NASPT on the CIFS share in the NAS. iSCSI support evaluation was also done in a similar manner with a 250 GB iSCSI LUN mapped on the VM. For NFS, we ran IOMeter benchmarks in Linux. For evaluation of multiple client performance, we accessed a CIFS share from multiple VMs simultaneously using IOMeter and gathered data on how the performance changed with the number of clients / access pattern. Without further digression, let us move on to the performance numbers.

Introduction and Setup Impressions Single Client Performance - CIFS and iSCSI on Windows
POST A COMMENT

51 Comments

View All Comments

  • Qiasfah - Thursday, December 26, 2013 - link

    The text rendering with the tables and text is messed up in the mobile version :( Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, December 27, 2013 - link

    Qiasfah, thank you for letting us know. The article has been tweaked to keep that from happening. Reply
  • YoshoMasaki - Saturday, December 28, 2013 - link

    The drop down box I'm seeing on WP8 goes off my screen, and changing the selection doesn't change the graph. The usual button type picker you use for SSD reviews and such works fine. Reply
  • ErrantOpinion - Monday, December 30, 2013 - link

    The drop downs work in Internet Explorer, but not Chrome/Opera 15+ for me. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Tuesday, December 31, 2013 - link

    Fixed. Sorry about that. I hadn't tested that code on Chrome. Reply
  • P_Dub_S - Thursday, December 26, 2013 - link

    Who uses RAID 5 now a days? All the research I have done points to OBR10. Can we see some OBR10 numbers?
    Here are some articles that explain why RAID 5 needs to die.
    http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/07/hot-spare-or-a...
    http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/11/one-big-raid-1...
    http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/05/when-no-redund...
    Reply
  • hydromike - Thursday, December 26, 2013 - link

    Tons of people still use RAID 5 in the enterprise. Further more lets call it by its real name RAID 10 instead of OBR10. You can get even further redundancy from RAID 50, RAID 60 and RAID 100. Reply
  • P_Dub_S - Thursday, December 26, 2013 - link

    And when you go to rebuild that huge RAID 5 array and another disk fails your screwed. Reply
  • xxsk8er101xx - Friday, December 27, 2013 - link

    Not if you setup a global spare. Reply
  • Gigaplex - Saturday, December 28, 2013 - link

    It still needs to rebuild when it switches over to the spare. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now