Performance comparison of TS439, TS-509, TS-639

[drgenius]

Can anybody from QNAP provide reliable and comparable performance figures for the TS-439 Pro, TS-509 Pro and TS-639 Pro models? What is the impact of encryption or jumbo frames on performance?
I guess the TS-439 Pro and the TS-639 Pro have a similar performance due to their identical architecture. However, is it true that the TS-509 Pro is about 40% faster than the new models with the Atom processor?

[drgenius]

Nobody there from QNAP who could provide information? Without performance data it's hard for me to decide which product to buy.

[Don]

However, is it true that the TS-509 Pro is about 40% faster than the new models with the Atom processor?

From my tests using SqueezeCenter this is true. See thread viewtopic.php?f=123&t=11519&hilit=639

[drfruit]

Can anybody from QNAP provide reliable and comparable performance figures for the TS-439 Pro, TS-509 Pro and TS-639 Pro models? What is the impact of encryption or jumbo frames on performance?

I am not from Qnap, but I tested my TS-439 with and without encryption and found a huge impact. Without encryption 43.9 MB/s write speed, with encryption 13.1 MB/s.

[drgenius]

I am not from Qnap, but I tested my TS-439 with and without encryption and found a huge impact. Without encryption 43.9 MB/s write speed, with encryption 13.1 MB/s.

Wow, that's really a big difference. Do you know the reason? Is it just the processor which is not fast enough?

... Still waiting for an official statement from QNAP regarding the performance...

[drfruit]

I am not from Qnap, but I tested my TS-439 with and without encryption and found a huge impact. Without encryption 43.9 MB/s write speed, with encryption 13.1 MB/s.

Wow, that's really a big difference. Do you know the reason? Is it just the processor which is not fast enough?

I'm no expert in this field, but I suspect that processor speed is indeed the determining factor.

[drgenius]

HELLO QNAP... WAKE UP, PLEASE!!!
I'm still waiting for performance data of the QNAP TS-439 Pro, TS-509 Pro and TS-639 Pro. Otherwise, I'm not able to decide which QNAP product to buy. I would look for a NAS system of another vendor, e.g. Synology or Thecus, in this case...

[AndyChuo]

Hi drgenius,

Sorry for the late and because TS-439 and TS-639 are using the same CPU (Intel Atom) and I haven't got the performance chart handy
for TS-439 so here are the basic Samba/FTP read/write test reports I can show you first here.

TS-509 (Samba/FTP r/w under Single/RAID0/RAID5/RAID6)

performance-ts-509_01.jpg

TS-639 (Samba/FTP r/w under Single/RAID0/RAID5/RAID6/Encrypted)

performance-ts-639_01.jpg

Thanks and hope this helps

Andy

[drgenius]

Thanx a lot for the performance comparison, Andy.
According to your measurements the TS-639 Pro seems to be faster than the TS-509. However, this is in clear contradiction to the measurements of Don (see http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=11519&hilit=639) who figured out that the TS-509 Pro is about 40% faster than the TS-639 Pro. What can be the reason for the different results? Have you measured both devices under exactly the same conditions?

[Don]

Very interesting results indeed. The 509 chart does not show what version of the firmware the test was run on. Andy's tests show network performance results. My tests used only CPU & disk, the network was not involved at all. I would have expected the 509 to do better on these tests. Maybe a difference in firmwares versions, ethernet chip sets, something else?

[arp87]

Hi, I am a bit confused by these results. I am torn between the 509 and the 639 and the fact that these two tests show such vastly different results is not helping. Has anyone gotten any clarification on this? QNAP, do you have anything to chime in with? I will be using my NAS over wired and wireless network connections so that is the performance speed I am most concerned with personally, which is why I am hesitant to rely too much on Don's test as there are many other factors that could effect results over a network.

[Don]

which is why I am hesitant to rely too much on Don's test as there are many other factors that could effect results over a network.

As I stated my results did not involve the network, only CPU and disk. I'd like to know what the testing parameters were for the network test (JF frames, same switch, pc specs, file size, etc).

[StefaanD]

Another usefull thing might be to check the NAS Charts over at SmallNetBuilder

BTW i don't own a QNAP NAS yet, just had to fill one in when registering.

[meulie]

So perhaps it's a good idea to do encryption client-side instead of NAS-side? Especially if your client has a nice Core i7...


greetings,
Evert

[P3R]

I will be using my NAS over wired and wireless network connections...

Wireless will be the bottleneck. Even the slowest NAS models performs better than wireless.