Seagate's acquisition of LaCie in 2012 made quite a bit of sense as most of their product lines were complementary in nature. However, they had a bit of an overlap in the NAS market, particularly in the SOHO ARM-based segment. Early last year, we reviewed the LaCie 5big NAS Pro, a desktop form factor x86 NAS with an embedded Linux OS developed in-house by LaCie. With Seagate not having a presence in this space, it was an ideal segment to target with the help of LaCie's expertise. The result of the attempt is the Business Storage 1U rackmount lineup.

The Seagate Business Storage 1U Rackmounts come in 4-bay and 8-bay varieties. The Business Storage lineup also includes 1-4 bay versions based on a Cavium chipset, but the OS running on those is not based on LaCie's NAS OS. There is also a 4-bay Windows Server. The Cavium-chipset based units as well as the Windows Server come in the desktop tower form factor, while the units based on LaCie's OS are all rackmounts.

The specifications of the Seagate Business Storage 8-Bay Rackmount unit being reviewed today are provided below.

Seagate Business Storage 8-Bay 32TB Rackmount (STDP32000100) Specifications
Processor Intel Celeron G1610T (2C/2T @ 2.3 GHz)
Drive Bays 8x 3.5" SATA 6 Gbps HDD [ Populated with 8x ST4000NM033 Constellation® ES.3 SATA 6Gb/s 4-TB Hard Drives ]
Network Links 2x 1 GbE
USB Slots 3x USB 2.0
eSATA Ports None
Maximum Capacity 8-bays
VGA / Console / HDMI VGA
PSU Redundant (2x) 250W
Full Specifications Link Seagate STDP32000100 Specifications (PDF)
Suggested Retail Pricing US $5100

After taking a brief look at our testbed setup and testing methodology for the unit below, we will move on to the hardware and setup impressions. Following that, we will cover performance in single client scenarios and our usual multi-client tests. The final section will cover rebuild times and power consumption numbers while also providing some closing thoughts.

Testbed Setup and Testing Methodology

Our NAS reviews use either SSDs or hard drives depending on the unit under test. While rackmounts and units equipped with 10GbE capabilities use SSDs, the others use hard drives. Despite being a rackmount, the STDP32000100 was evaluated with the bundled drives because of the vendor's market positioning. Evaluation of NAS performance under both single and multiple client scenarios was done using the SMB / SOHO NAS testbed we described earlier.

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:

Hardware and Setup Impressions


View All Comments

  • ddriver - Sunday, March 16, 2014 - link

    I think he means sequential speed. You need big storage for backup or highly sequential data like raw audio/video/whatever, you will not put random read/write data on such storage. That much capacity needs high sequential speeds. Even if you store databases on that storage, the frequently accessed sets will be cached, and overall access will be buffered.

    SSD sequential performance today is pretty much limited by the controller speed to about ~530 mb/sec. A 1TB WD raptor drive does over 200 mb/sec in its fastest region, so I imagine that 4 of those would be able to hit SSD speed at tremendously higher capacity and even more so volume to price ratio.
  • shodanshok - Friday, March 14, 2014 - link

    This thing seems too expensive to me. I mean, if the custom linux based OS has the limitations explained in the (very nice!) article, it is better to use a general purpose distro and simply manage all via LVM. Or even use a storage-centric distribution (eg: freenas, unraid) and simply buy a general-purpose PC/server with many disks... Reply
  • M/2 - Friday, March 14, 2014 - link

    $5100 ??? I could buy a Mac mini or a Mac Pro and a Promise2 RAID for less than that! ....and have Gigabit speeds Reply
  • azazel1024 - Friday, March 14, 2014 - link

    I have a hard time wrapping my head around the price.

    Other than the ECC RAM, that is VERY close to my server setup (same CPU for example). Except mine also has a couple of USB3 ports, twice the USB 2 ports, a third GbE NIC (the onboard) and double the RAM. can't take 8 drives without an add on card, as it only has 6 ports...but that isn't too expensive.

    Total cost of building...less than $300.

    I can't fathom basically $300 of equipment being upsold for 10x the price! Even an upsale on the drives in it doesn't seem justified to get it in to that range of price.

    Heck, you could get a RAID card and do 7 drives in RAID5/6 for redundancy and use commercial 4TB drives with an SSD as a cache drive and a REALLY nice RAID card in to my system, and you'd probably come out at less than half the price and probably with better performance.

    I get building your own is almost always cheaper, but a $3000 discount is just a we bit cheaper on a $5000 hardware price tag, official support or no official support.
  • azazel1024 - Friday, March 14, 2014 - link

    I might also add, looking at the power consumption figures, with my system being near identical, other than lack of ECC memory, but more RAM, more networking connectivity and WITH disks in it, mine consumes 14w less at idle (21w idle). The RAID rebuild figures on 1-2 disks and 2-3 is also a fair amount lower on my server, but more than 10w difference (mine has 2x2TB RAID0 right now and a 60GB SSD as boot drive).

    Also WAY more networking performance. I don't know if the OS doesn't support SMB3.0, or if Anandtech isn't running any network testing with SMB3.0 utilized, but with Windows 8 on my server, I am pushing 2x1GbE to the max, or at least I was when my desktop RAID array was less full (need new array, 80% utilized on my desktop right now as it is only 2x1TB RAID0).

    Even looking at some of the below GbE saturation benchmarks, I am pushing a fair amount more data over my links than the Seagate NAS here is.

    With better disks in my server and desktop I could easily patch in the 3rd GbE NIC in the machine to push up over 240MB/sec over the links to the limit of what the drives can do. I realize a lot of SOHO/SMB implementations are about concurrent users and less about maximum throughput, but the beauty of SMB3.0 and SMB Multichannel does both. No limits on per link speed, you can saturate all of the links for a single user or push multiple users through too.

    I've done RAM disk testing with 3 links enabled and SMB Multichannel enabled and saw duplex 332MB/sec Rx AND Tx between my server and desktop. I just don't have the current array to support that, so I leave only the Intel NICs enabled and leave the on-board NICs on the machines disabled.
  • lorribot - Friday, March 14, 2014 - link

    Sorry but the comment "Most users looking for a balance between performance and redundancy are going to choose RAID-5" is just plain stupid if you value your data at all. Look at anyone serious in enterprise storage and they will tell you Raid 6 is a must with SATA disks over 1TB. SATA is just pants when it comes to error detection and the likelyhood of one disk failling and then finding a second one fail with previously undetected errors when you try a rebuild is quite high.
    Rebuild times are often longer, I have seen 3TB drives stretch in to a third day.
    So on an 8 disk system you are now looking at only 6 disks and you really want a hot spare so now you are down to just 5 disks and 20TB raw, formated this is going to be down to 19TB. Where has that 32TB storage system gone?
    If you are doing SATA drive you need shelves of them, the more the merrier to make any kind of sense in the business world.
  • Penti - Saturday, March 15, 2014 - link


    I don't quite get who's the target audience for this, surely an rack mount NAS must mean SMB/Enterprise. But can't really see this fit here. Lack of encryption is just one point there, but at this price it surely lacks in many other regards, it has no 10GbE, no raid-controller (rebuild time seems to be ridiculous). Software doesn't really seem up for small enterprises. What is this appliance supposed to be used against? iSCSI is it's main feature but what use is it at this speed? No proper remote management of hardware that costs around 2500 USD? That is using a 42 dollar processor? I don't get this product, what are you suppose to use it for?
  • ravib123 - Saturday, March 15, 2014 - link

    We often use open filer or other linux based NAS/SAN platforms.

    Looking at this configuration I agree that most with an 8 disk array who are looking for maximum storage space would use RAID5, normally we use more disks and RAID10 for improved performance.

    My curiosity is how CPU and Memory bound this thing must be, but I saw no mention of these being limiting factors. The performance is far below most configurations I've used with 8 disks in RAID5 (with a traditional RAID card).
  • Penti - Saturday, March 15, 2014 - link

    The thing is that you get pretty decent hardware at 2000-2500 USD. Say a barebone Intel/Supermicro with IPMI/IPKVM (BMC), some Xeon-processor in the lower ends, AES-NI and all that and a case with hotswap bays and two PSU's. No problem running 10GbE, fiberchannel or 8 disks (you might need an add-on card or two). I would expect them to at least spend more then 500 for CPU, ram and board on appliances in this price range. It's not like the software and case itself is worth 2500 USD, plus whatever markup they have on their drives. Reply
  • SirGCal - Sunday, March 16, 2014 - link

    Well, I used retired hardware and built a RAID6 (RAIDZ2) box with 8 drives, 2TB each, with nothing more then a case to hold them and a $41 internal SATA 4-port controller card. Downloaded Ubuntu, installed the ZFS packages, configured the array, and setup monitoring. Now I have a fully functional Linux rig with SSH, etc. and ~ 11,464,525,440 1K blocks. (roughly 11TB usable).

    I have another 23TB array usable using 4TB drives and an actual, very expensive, 6G, 8 port RAID card. The ZFS rig is right there in performance, even using slower (5400 RPM) drives.

    So you can do it as cheap as you like and get more functionality then this box offers. Need multiple NIC, throw em in, need ECC, server boards are just as available. Need U-factor, easy enough. I agree with the others, I don't see the $2k+ justification in cost... Even if they had the 'self encrypting' versions for $400 each, that's $3200, leaving $1900 for the hardware... Eww...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now