I have heard a lot about these surverlliance stations for quite some time now...appears to be the next big thing. Thank YOU for delivering these results!
I'm hoping Sinology releases in 2016 a 4bay braswell NAS, a DS416+ if you will, hopefully with a N3700. They have already announced some 2016 models with braswell, just not the ones I want. I would buy the current DS415+, but because I'm in no need of one right now, I just hope they get to it before I need to make the purchase.
I think the DS716+ is the device to get this year. No need to wait for a DS416+. If you need more than two drives you can get the 5 bay expansion model for the DS716+. That is why it is called a DS7xx+ model...because you can have 7 drives. So it is better than a DS4xx model which can't support the expansion module.
For me the DS716+ is the device I've been waiting for. Powerful Intel CPU, Expandable RAM, Expansion module support, Transcoding of video, virtualization support, Hardware Encryption support. It has everything I need. Previously you had to compromize. I have a DS214play and a DS713+ and the DS716+ can replace both of them.
You know, I hadn't considered that option. It would be a more expensive one, but it could work, in fact I could use a dx213 instead, wich gives me plenty storage for my needs. If when I need to buy one this next year they haven't released yet the new 4bay braswell ones, I might go with this option instead of the older ds415+. Another thing I wanted to wait for so I could see how it develops It's Btrfs support.
Is the rebuild time graph showing numbers in seconds? Hours would be a lot more immediately meaningful. /3600 isn't a particularly easy mental computation.
Your article says: "Their Braswell lineup consists of four models, with each model name following the pattern AS6X0YT, where X (1 or 2) refers to the number of cores in the Braswell SoC in the model and Y (2 or 4) refers to the number of bays."
Yet the Asustor AS6204T has 4 cores. So by your definition, it should have been named the "AS6404T".
So it sounds like your definition should be updated.
Forget the above - the wording isn't as clear. I thought you were saying it was a direct relationship where the number = amount of cores. It could have been written that the second numeral denotes whether the CPU is dual-core (X=1) or quad-core (X=2).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's hard to compare the graphs on page 4 when the values on the axis vary (sometimes wildly) between the two. Flicking back and forth it is very hard to easily compare on face value. Would it not be possible to have the scale locked to whichever graph approaches the highest value?
The issue here is that these graphs are generated on a per-review basis - i.e, the graph that you see for the QNAP TS-451+ was generated at the time of writing the QNAP TS-451+ review. At that time, the Asustor AS6204T hadn't been evaluated, so it is not possible to know ahead of time what the highest value is going to be.
I think we have the best possible solution here in the timeframe that can be devoted to the review - the other solution is to simply not have any graphs for the competing units (similar to what we did for the QNAP TS-451+ review which was the first 4-bay one done with the new methodology).
Are the graphs coming from the bench software itself? If there is a CSV export option generating combined comparison graphs (or rescaled stand alone ones) shouldn't be hard to do after the fact.
The bench software is written by me :) (except for the core trace replay component which is compiled from NASPT source). And, yes, the graphs are generated at the end of each benchmark run by my code.
I don't have a CSV export option in the software yet, as I only export the HTML tables that are linked above each graph. So, yes, the data is there, but not in a format suitable for reprocessing with each new NAS run.
It is possible to implement CSV export and graph regeneration, but it is a matter of how much time I can spend to get the new code up and running. At this moment, I think the time cost far outweighs the benefits provided. I am currently working on optimizing our SPEC SFS testbed and benchmarking - I think that will provide more benefits to readers in the long run.
Ganesh, I mentioned this in some of your other NAS reviews. You need to review the software side of these vendors now. Would be awesome to see the biggies go head to head... Synology, QNAP, ASUS, and Lenovo. Please try to cover app offerings to other items like backdooring via SSH, etc.
Yes, it is in the works. The problem is that these are 'subjective' aspects and require more effort to use and record observations compared to objective benchmarking.
Looks like disks get formatted internally to Ext4... The full specifications link seems to point back to the articles initial page was this by design? The full spec pdf for this NAS can be found here: http://www.asustor.com/service/resource?type=3&... (for a laugh check out what the display on the NAS is saying on its Asustor page, what do you know Asus? :) )
Anyone considering a DIY NAS should checkout the new Asrock Rack C236 WSI that combined with a Silverstone DS380 would make for a powerful little storage box/virtualization server... They dont seem to be available anywhere yet unfortunately and Supermicro only have MATX C236 motherboards.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
29 Comments
Back to Article
Der2 - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
Nas life.zeeBomb - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
I have heard a lot about these surverlliance stations for quite some time now...appears to be the next big thing. Thank YOU for delivering these results!asendra - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
I'm hoping Sinology releases in 2016 a 4bay braswell NAS, a DS416+ if you will, hopefully with a N3700. They have already announced some 2016 models with braswell, just not the ones I want.I would buy the current DS415+, but because I'm in no need of one right now, I just hope they get to it before I need to make the purchase.
galfert - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
I think the DS716+ is the device to get this year. No need to wait for a DS416+. If you need more than two drives you can get the 5 bay expansion model for the DS716+. That is why it is called a DS7xx+ model...because you can have 7 drives. So it is better than a DS4xx model which can't support the expansion module.For me the DS716+ is the device I've been waiting for. Powerful Intel CPU, Expandable RAM, Expansion module support, Transcoding of video, virtualization support, Hardware Encryption support. It has everything I need. Previously you had to compromize. I have a DS214play and a DS713+ and the DS716+ can replace both of them.
asendra - Friday, November 6, 2015 - link
You know, I hadn't considered that option. It would be a more expensive one, but it could work, in fact I could use a dx213 instead, wich gives me plenty storage for my needs.If when I need to buy one this next year they haven't released yet the new 4bay braswell ones, I might go with this option instead of the older ds415+.
Another thing I wanted to wait for so I could see how it develops It's Btrfs support.
DanNeely - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
Is the rebuild time graph showing numbers in seconds? Hours would be a lot more immediately meaningful. /3600 isn't a particularly easy mental computation.romrunning - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
Your article says: "Their Braswell lineup consists of four models, with each model name following the pattern AS6X0YT, where X (1 or 2) refers to the number of cores in the Braswell SoC in the model and Y (2 or 4) refers to the number of bays."Yet the Asustor AS6204T has 4 cores. So by your definition, it should have been named the "AS6404T".
So it sounds like your definition should be updated.
romrunning - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
Forget the above - the wording isn't as clear. I thought you were saying it was a direct relationship where the number = amount of cores. It could have been written that the second numeral denotes whether the CPU is dual-core (X=1) or quad-core (X=2).romrunning - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
This also reminds me - with today's advanced CMS/commenting systems, why can't we edit or delete our own comments on Anandtech??DanNeely - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
Which editor/reviewer do you want to furlough to hire a web developer to replace the comment system?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.RdVi - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
It's hard to compare the graphs on page 4 when the values on the axis vary (sometimes wildly) between the two. Flicking back and forth it is very hard to easily compare on face value. Would it not be possible to have the scale locked to whichever graph approaches the highest value?ganeshts - Thursday, November 5, 2015 - link
The issue here is that these graphs are generated on a per-review basis - i.e, the graph that you see for the QNAP TS-451+ was generated at the time of writing the QNAP TS-451+ review. At that time, the Asustor AS6204T hadn't been evaluated, so it is not possible to know ahead of time what the highest value is going to be.I think we have the best possible solution here in the timeframe that can be devoted to the review - the other solution is to simply not have any graphs for the competing units (similar to what we did for the QNAP TS-451+ review which was the first 4-bay one done with the new methodology).
DanNeely - Friday, November 6, 2015 - link
Are the graphs coming from the bench software itself? If there is a CSV export option generating combined comparison graphs (or rescaled stand alone ones) shouldn't be hard to do after the fact.ganeshts - Friday, November 6, 2015 - link
The bench software is written by me :) (except for the core trace replay component which is compiled from NASPT source). And, yes, the graphs are generated at the end of each benchmark run by my code.I don't have a CSV export option in the software yet, as I only export the HTML tables that are linked above each graph. So, yes, the data is there, but not in a format suitable for reprocessing with each new NAS run.
It is possible to implement CSV export and graph regeneration, but it is a matter of how much time I can spend to get the new code up and running. At this moment, I think the time cost far outweighs the benefits provided. I am currently working on optimizing our SPEC SFS testbed and benchmarking - I think that will provide more benefits to readers in the long run.
Oyster - Friday, November 6, 2015 - link
Ganesh, I mentioned this in some of your other NAS reviews. You need to review the software side of these vendors now. Would be awesome to see the biggies go head to head... Synology, QNAP, ASUS, and Lenovo. Please try to cover app offerings to other items like backdooring via SSH, etc.As usual, keep up the good work.
ganeshts - Friday, November 6, 2015 - link
Yes, it is in the works. The problem is that these are 'subjective' aspects and require more effort to use and record observations compared to objective benchmarking.MrElectrifyer - Saturday, November 7, 2015 - link
Curious how this compares to a QNAP TS-470 Pro...MrElectrifyer - Saturday, November 7, 2015 - link
So far, I know the TS-470 Pro can support more than 8GB of RAM...I upgraded mine to 10GB.WatcherCK - Monday, November 9, 2015 - link
Looks like disks get formatted internally to Ext4... The full specifications link seems to point back to the articles initial page was this by design? The full spec pdf for this NAS can be found here: http://www.asustor.com/service/resource?type=3&... (for a laugh check out what the display on the NAS is saying on its Asustor page, what do you know Asus? :) )Anyone considering a DIY NAS should checkout the new Asrock Rack C236 WSI that combined with a Silverstone DS380 would make for a powerful little storage box/virtualization server... They dont seem to be available anywhere yet unfortunately and Supermicro only have MATX C236 motherboards.