ReadyNAS Pro Review at MPCClub.com

[beisser]

http://www.mpcclub.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=19206

somehow the speedresults dont satisfy me and the following comment makes me laugh.

Theoretical achievements always look amazing. Normal users will hardly be
using RAMdisks or have the latest QuadCore computers. In fact, most
people will hale less perfrorming laptops based on Vista running on a
Centrino DUO or be stuck with PC's in the range of PIII and PIV... like
me Smile

while he might be right about most users not having highend-computers, he is not right that it is ok to use crap-computers to benchmark highend stuff. what sense does it make to use some ageold-computer to determine the speed of a nas, which has more processor/ram/harddrive power than the benchmarking pc.. you want to know the limits of the nas, not the limits of the benchmarking computer

[yoh-dah]

I think Hi-Jack failed to grasp that the purpose of using a ramdisk is for speedcheck to overcome the slowness of the PC's disk -- we would never recommend anyone to use that in their daily environment. Unfortunately, his system is to the point where he's getting less throughput locally than to the Pro, and he had rerun the same benchmark against another NAS in the same environment w/o getting any higher number. Plus I measured his X-RAID2 performance locally and that showed 240 MB/sec reads and 140 MB/sec writes. This proves that the Pro is not the bottleneck. Nevertheless, he did admit that in his review to his credit, but I think we'll see more of this type of reviews as some reviewers cannot afford or are unwilling to update their test PC just for the Pro. This however defeats the purpose of a performance benchmark in a review -- as you said, it's just benchmarking the PC, not the ReadyNAS.

[beisser]

what i noticed recently is, that the read speed from my pro is slowing down.. im only able to get ~77mb/sec read-speed according to iometer (still getting 94mb/sec writespeed using a 4.5gb testfile). could this be related to the fact that my nas is currently about 70% full? i remember getting better speed when my nas was still empty.

also regarding tims review at snb.com, i get pretty much the same results using iozone he gets. something is odd here.

could you try iozone on your testsystems with the following parameters?

iozone -Rab readynaspro_pti_r0_3drv_1g_4_2_1.wks -i 0 -i 1 -+u -f i:\temp.tmp -y 64k -q 64k -n 64k -g 4G -z

i: would be the drive-letter for the mounted share.

something is pretty odd here i think i will need to get me some harddrives and install a fresh windows on a raid0 using 3 disks..

[Grievous]

Wow....

These reviewers are umm... yeah...