Real world NAS vs XP performance

[David Madison]

I'm interested in a NAS like the Qnap TS 509 to store a lot of photo image files. We currently use a Windows XP SP3 box with a RAID 5 array in it, and an external esata RAID plugged into it as our file storage. We are running out of space (again). We back these up to DROBO's.

From what I see of the speed tests on www.smallnetbuilder.com, the TS 509 seems pretty fast. But I'm having trouble comparing those tests to what my storage setup delivers to other computers on our gigabit network.

Past experiences a few years ago with NAS setups (Snap Servers) and current DROBO setups have been that these were/are MUCH slower than what we get from the Windows box.

Can anyone help me make a real world comparison on the TS 509?

David Madison

 

[thiggins]

Go on over to the QNAP forum and look at the many posts from Dennis Wood.

 

[MrFixit]

David,

While I don't bother too much with performance testing my QNAP TS-509 NAS, I am happily running Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.1 with my catalogs stored on my local RAID 1 array in my PC (2.9 GHz Core 2 Duo) and all of my Canon RAW (CR2) files (~63,000, 596 GB) on a share on the NAS (GBit Ethernet connected). This setup is easily as fast as my previous storage setup of Firewire 400 attached drives holding my RAWs, and is very convenient.

BTW These external Firewire drives are now used to backup my "archive" of RAWs using EMC Retrospect. I do this via my PC rather than use the NetBak Replicator program that comes with the NAS. The benefits being security and I now no longer have to archive to DVD!!

 

[00Roush]

I'm interested in a NAS like the Qnap TS 509 to store a lot of photo image files. We currently use a Windows XP SP3 box with a RAID 5 array in it, and an external esata RAID plugged into it as our file storage. We are running out of space (again). We back these up to DROBO's.

From what I see of the speed tests on www.smallnetbuilder.com, the TS 509 seems pretty fast. But I'm having trouble comparing those tests to what my storage setup delivers to other computers on our gigabit network.

Past experiences a few years ago with NAS setups (Snap Servers) and current DROBO setups have been that these were/are MUCH slower than what we get from the Windows box.

Can anyone help me make a real world comparison on the TS 509?

David Madison

I currently am using Win XP Pro SP2 on a test server in my home with a Vista SP1 machine as the client. For my testing I utilize a few different methods. I use the windows task manager to look at actual network utilization and bytes sent/received per interval during a file copy. Also with Vista, file copy statistics are available in the copy window. SiSoftware Sandra has a file system benchmark that I have found useful. One other method is to use a stopwatch to time a file copy and then calculate the average read/write speed.

One thing to remember is when coping a large file to/from the server the slowest disk setup will determine performance. An example is writing a file to a server that has a RAID 0 array capable of writing at 100 MB/sec from a client that only has a single drive capable of reading at 50 MB/sec. In this situation the client will only be able to send the file across the network at 50 MB/sec when the file is read from the disk.

I believe Dennis Wood has been testing his QNAP TS-509 NAS using a combination of timed tests and Vista file copy statistics. From what I recall his test machine uses Vista SP1 and a 3 drive RAID 0 array. I could be wrong though.

You never mentioned what OS you are using on your clients.

00Roush

 

[David Madison]

OORoush: All our systems are currently XP SP3.

Mr. Fixit: Your results sound encouraging, our Lightroom performance is sluggish on the files stored on the image server, much faster for local drives. It sounds like the Qnas may perform more like a local driv.

David

 

[Dennis Wood]

David, all of my testing on the QNAP TS509 use real files, and encoding/decoding processes which are timed and recorded in a series of excel spreadsheets. You'll find tests on the units with various switches, load balancing configs, RAM updates to 4GB, and two different disk arrays. I've also tested single drives, eSATA, 5 drives in RAID0, and 5 drives in RAID 5.

The Intel tool for measuring NAS performance which Dave posted today is about as good as it gets with regards to what I've seen so far. The tool is free, and allows you to create your own customized load tests if you want. That said, even it can be a bit misleading. Check the thread I linked to for the test results posted tonight.

 

[MrFixit]

Mr. Fixit: Your results sound encouraging, our Lightroom performance is sluggish on the files stored on the image server, much faster for local drives. It sounds like the Qnas may perform more like a local driv.

David,

Earlier versions of Lightroom e.g. 1.4 were slow(er) - even with my Firewire 400 setup. However, I definitely see improved network performance going from Lightroom 2.0 to 2.1. Have you upgraded?

One thing I did which helps somewhat is to create previews for all of my RAWs - not 1:1 previews mind, as this would take up a lot of space (on my local RAID 1 array). Doing this does seem to improve the library's responsiveness, but that said, Lightroom is not the fastest RAW convertor I have ever used! However, I do find its ability to manage my RAWs and support my entire workflow worth putting up with this level performance. Hopefully Adobe will improve this further going forward.