Single Client Performance - CIFS & iSCSI on Windows

The single client CIFS and iSCSI performance of the Synology DS1815+ 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 DS1815+ manages to compare favorably against the two other 8-bay solutions we have evaluated before. The benchmark numbers are provided in the graph below.

8-bay NAS CIFS Performance - Windows

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 observations we had in the CIFS subsection above hold true here too.

8-bay NAS iSCSI Performance - Windows

These numbers are only to be expected - the Seagate R8 is based on the Celeron G1610T, a 2C/2T processor running at a lower frequency (compared to the 4C/4T solution in the DS1815+). In addition, DSM is much more mature compared to Seagate's NAS OS back when the R8 was reviewed. The DS1812+, on the other hand, is a Atom D2700 NAS. Evaluation was done with a older version of DSM and, obviously, the newer hardware brings better performance.

Platform Analysis Single Client Performance - CIFS & NFS on Linux
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • vLsL2VnDmWjoTByaVLxb - Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - link

    Sorry, that was meant as a response for JeffFlanagan's post above. :\
  • JustaUsernameorWE - Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - link

    Anyone have any idea when/if they'll put Rangeley in a 2bay unit? Not thrilled with the current 2 bay market.
  • ganeshts - Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - link

    Synology doesn't have one (yet), but the Seagate NAS Pro 2-bay should fit your needs

    It is based on Rangeley too, albeit a 2C/2T model running at 1.7 GHz.
  • romrunning - Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - link

    Is there any specs on how these perform when compare to a simple, business-class server that has 8-bays? Something like a Dell PowerEdge T320 that has the capability for 8 x 3.5" drives and includes a quad-port GB NIC can be had for basically the same price as the Synology here.

    These larger-cost 8-bay NAS machines have a high price tag, so a natural competitor (in terms of price) seems to be servers from the standard server vendors. So I would love to see how it actually compares.
  • peterfares - Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - link

    Poorly. Their only advantages over a computer are smaller and more power efficient. People will talk about how it saves so much time but you have to save quite a lot of time to make up the difference in cost between a synology and a much cheaper and faster computer.
  • romrunning - Wednesday, November 19, 2014 - link

    I also would like to know if some of the poor network performance numbers shown by these selected NAS units are also present in a full server setup.

    I guess we'll never know because these review units likely come with caveats on what type of "competing" devices they can reviewed against.
  • dgingeri - Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - link

    An Atom processor, 8 bays, 2GB of memory, and 8 bays, for $1050. I could build better for less, and get more flexibility.
  • peterfares - Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - link


    Haha. Those peoples time must be worth a lot. And if it's worth that much, why are they going for a Synology and not something better?
  • rpg1966 - Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - link

  • DiHydro - Wednesday, November 19, 2014 - link

    My time, plus any employees or services I have on the NAS could cost me the initial price each *hour* if it goes down. So having one physical unit, with hot swap, and on the fly rebuild is worth the price in some cases.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now