Asustor AS6204T Braswell NAS Review
by Ganesh T S on November 5, 2015 8:00 AM ESTMulti-Client CIFS Performance for Professional Workloads
NAS units used in SMBs / SMEs need to provide good performance under heavy load from multiple clients. The SPEC SFS 2014 benchmark uses real-life workloads (just like Intel NASPT), but makes it easier for users to understand the benchmark results. This is achieved by using the concept of business metrics. Given a particular NAS unit, how many concurrently accessed databases can reside in it? How many IP cameras or video streams can be simultaneously recorded? To determine this metric, each load point is associated with a target required op rate. If the NAS under test doesn't meet that op rate, it is deemed as an 'invalid run'. SPEC requires all published benchmarks to follow certain strict rules - such as presented results having no invalid runs for at least 10 load points. Unfortunately, small-scale NAS systems with 7200 RPM drives can't meet these requirements, Hence, we can't officially publish SPEC SFS 2014 benchmark results for the evaluation of the Asustor AS6204T.
Using a popular filer benchmarking program, we did play back multi-client real-world professional workload access traces on the NAS using up to 10 Windows 7 VMs. The Asustor AS6204T with four 7200 RPM hard drives in RAID-5 can support,at any given point of time, recording of 10 or more video streams, or, up to five databases, or, up to four software builds, or, up to three virtual desktops.
Database Operations
The Database Operations workload seems to get / doesn't seem to get acceptable performance for up to 5 clients.The detailed metrics from our trace playback are available here
Software Builds
The Software Builds workload seems to get / doesn't seem to get acceptable performance for up to 4 clients.The detailed metrics from our trace playback are available here
Video Recording
The Video Recording workload seems to get / doesn't seem to get acceptable performance for more than 10 clients.The detailed metrics from our trace playback are available here
Virtual Desktops
The Virtual Desktops workload seems to get / doesn't seem to get acceptable performance for up to 3 clients.The detailed metrics from our trace playback are available here
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
29 Comments
View All Comments
extide - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
I think Purch could handle that expense. Anandtech isn't a little teensy website anymore, remember.DanNeely - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
Unless your preferred solution is either the Toms Hardware (picked on only because I'm not sure what else Purch already owns) comment system reskinned to Anandtech colors or something completely off the shelf like Discuss; that might not be the best idea. I'm very leery of handing the job off to a corporate overlord who bought the site on the assumption of being able to pull extra money out of it and which has already triggered multiple complaints from readers about overly intrusive advertising.milkod2001 - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
You could possibly contact Purch: http://purch.com/#contact-general(It own this website) and request it there. For such reputable company it is shame there is not edit option. It should not take more then 1 day to implemented it or just install DISQUS
Namisecond - Monday, December 7, 2015 - link
Don't underestimate the time it may take to transfer all the user accounts over. If the tools work fine and everything goes well in a single pass, it could take a day. If there are serious problems, might take several days to over a week.extide - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
Perhaps it refers to the number of dual-core modules -- as that is how Intel builds those chips (in dual-core pairs)dtgoodwin - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
Please, please, could you review a moderately configured FreeNAS setup testing it the same way you do these? I know there are a tremendous amount of variables, and tuning available, but if you used the standard configuration of software, and chose a medium performance platform such as an i3, or core series Pentium or Celeron and tested it with 4 drives, it could be comparable.I run a 7 drive RAIDZ2 with 3TB WD REDs. I am almost always able to saturate a single GB link using CIFS and robocopy or Windows file copy whether reading or writing. I'm running a less than optimal setup as I have 15 TB of usable space, but only 8GB of RAM. My system with a SuperMicro board with ICMP, 2 GB NICs, a Pentium G2030, and a used SuperMicro case cost me about $650 not including the drives.
Black Obsidian - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
I'm sure they could write such a feature, but the first 17 pages would be component selection, installation, lexicon (vdev, pool, stripe size, etc.), Shell Commands 101, and so forth.And none of it would say anything new. Anyone running--or considering running--FreeNAS knows its performance capabilities, and anybody seriously considering a Synology/QNAP/Asustor product is going to be in a coma by the third page of such a feature.
DanNeely - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
They wouldn't have to write those pages if they didn't want to. Just set general requirements and ask the hardware partners to donate a build as usual; or punt farther and get an entry level prebuilt freenas box from that company that's been selling them for years (albeit at a price that makes Synology/QNAP boxes look cheap). Default to RAIDZ5 to maintain parity with the rest of their 4 bay NAS reviews. Stick to setting it up via the installer/web config panel. The whole point of a product like freenas vs roll your own is that for typical nas use cases the user should never need to drop down to the shell or need to understand all of the magic behind the scenes. A single page on what ZFS does better than ETX4 on most linux based nases is really all that's needed.Navvie - Friday, November 6, 2015 - link
HP Microserver G1620T. Upgrade RAM to 8GB. Hardware selection done.FreeNAS/nas4free on USB stick. Default ZFS options that the web interface presents.
AnandTech seems to be making a big thing of NAS devices these days, ignoring the build your own device option is silly. Even if somebody is set on buying an off the shelf unit, it would be nice to see how much better it performs (or not) compared to a BYOD.
DCide - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
For some reason Asustor always reminds me of the words stupid or stupor. Probably not ASUS' finest branding moment.