Netgear ReadyNAS RN202 2-bay NAS Review
by Ganesh T S on September 25, 2015 2:30 PM EST- Posted in
- NAS
- Storage
- NetGear
- Annapurna Labs
Multi-Client NFS Performance for Professional Workloads
We looked at the multi-client performance of CIFS shares for professional workloads in the previous section. In a similar manner, we also evaluated the multi-client NFS performance of the Netgear RN202. Instead of the Windows 7 VMs, we used CentOS 7 VMs. The network configuration remained the same. The NFS share exported on the NAS was mounted with the following options.
<NAS_IP>:/PATH_TO_NFS_SHARE /PATH_TO_LOCAL_MOUNT_FOLDER nfs rw,relatime,vers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,namlen=255,hard,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2, sec=sys,mountaddr <NAS_IP>,mountvers=3,mountproto=udp,local_lock=none,addr=<NAS_IP> 0 0
Using a popular filer benchmarking program, we did played back the same multi-client real-world professional workload access traces used in the previous section. Similar to the strategy for the CIFS performance evaluation, failing to meet the required op rate criteria at a particular load point made us stop the testing a couple of load points down the road. The Netgear ReadyNAS RN202 with two 7200 RPM hard drives in RAID-1 can support recording of 10 or more video streams, but, performance for other workload traces was found wanting.
Database Operations
The Database Operations workload doesn't get acceptable performance even for one client. The detailed metrics from our trace playback are available here
Software Builds
The Software Builds workload also doesn't get acceptable performance for even one client. The detailed metrics from our trace playback are available here
Video Recording
The Video Recording workload gets acceptable performance for up to 10 clients (the maximum we tested).The detailed metrics from our trace playback are available here
Virtual Desktops
The Virtual Desktops workload also fails to get acceptable performance for even one client. The detailed metrics from our trace playback are available here
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
View All Comments
ganeshts - Saturday, September 26, 2015 - link
Yes, they do show up.Mickatroid - Saturday, September 26, 2015 - link
"four bays present the best balance between cost and expandability for home consumers ... two bays make the cut for many usage scenarios" Surely it is the rare home consumer who needs more than 4tb on their network? I suppose if they are amassing hidef video somehow more could be required. 4 bays take up quite a bit more space too. I think it is more accurate to say 'to bays make the cut for the vast majority of home use scenarios, ever with RAID 1'.azazel1024 - Saturday, September 26, 2015 - link
Personally I've got 6TB of storage running on my server, 2x3TB in RAID0 for performance, but I have the redundancy because it is a mirror of the data on my desktop and I periodically back it up to a 5TB USB3 drive also. Of that, I have 3.18GiB free of the formatted 5.4GiB of storage. I would not consider my video library small at >1200 movies and TV episodes (point of fact, I actually own all of it on DVDs or BR. Well, okay, pretty much all of it. I probably have donated or whatever a few of the DVDs/BR or lost a few over the years, but 80+% of those I do actually own, I just HAVE physical disks and the limitations that imposes). Now if I had kept all of them as disk images, I might not fit it all, but frankly high bit rate transcodes are good enough in most of the cases and 720p for a lot of the stuff that isn't image crucial (yes, because I don't need to watch most comedies or chick flicks in 1080p. Thank you very much).Even with slow growth of that, plus all of the photos and video I shot with my camera and phone, that takes care of me for probably 4-5 years before I have to worry about running short on storage (less than 25% remaining). I would consider my needs greater than an average home consumer. So I'd say that a 2 bay NAS probably is enough for 98% of home consumers. Maybe higher.
dimadima - Monday, September 28, 2015 - link
I was hoping to see a comparison of checksums On vs. Off to see the performance penalty it introduces.Could you please run some benchmarks?
dimadima - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link
anyone cares or knows about the impact of checksumming on speed? was the review done with checksumming on or off?would the author care to confirm?
thanks
dimadima - Tuesday, October 6, 2015 - link
hello:(Kutark - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
Potentially stupid question, but do these just do striping for covering disk failures? I've always thought you couldnt really acheive what youg et with 4/5/8 bay NAS's where if a disk fails, you swap it out and it rebuilds the volume and you move on with life.How is this acheived with a 2bay?
Margalus - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
This is not achieved with the 2 disk models. You will be limited to things like Raid 0 which is just striping, no parity so no recovery if one fails, a very fast, but very risky method. Raid 1, mirroring which just makes 2 copies of the data, one on each disk so you end up with 2 exact copies. Great for mission critical data, but it is basically just one normal disk. And JBOD, Just a Bunch of Disks.You need a minimum of 3 disks to do something like Raid 5 which is striping with parity so that you can rebuild if one disk fails.
Kutark - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Ok, i had a sneaking suspicion that was the case. So basically im looking at minimum of a 4bay, preferrably a 5bay to have something like a raid 5 or 6adithyay328 - Thursday, October 1, 2015 - link
I always get hyped whenever I see a NAS, but I'm not sure why.