Encrypted Folder SMB Performance Testing
Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
Only half of the six systems in the test pool support encrypted folders. Encryption keeps lost or stolen drives from being accessed without the user-selected key. You can encrypt as many folders as you want and use a different key for each. Intel baked encryption-acceleration technology into its Braswell processors, and that shines through in the performance results. The Synology DS216j is the sole Marvell-based system that supports encrypted folders, but the difference between the accelerated and non-accelerated architectures is clear.
Sequential Read Performance
The two Intel Braswell Celeron-powered systems (AS3102T and DS216+) dominate the read bandwidth tests at a low queue depth with encrypted folders, but the low-cost Synology DS216j catches up to the other systems at queue depth 8.
Sequential Write Performance
The Synology DS216+ enjoys a performance advantage against the two other systems during sequential data writes to encrypted folders. The Asustor AS3102T trails slightly, but it doesn't deliver the same performance consistency.
Sequential Mixed Workload Performance
The Asustor AS3102T comes out on top during mixed-sequential transfers (data moving to and from the NAS simultaneously). The DS216+ isn't far behind in any of the 80% charts that we use to isolate desktop performance. The Marvell processor in the Synology DC216j is a bit underpowered for this workload, and it struggles to keep pace with the Intel-based appliances.
Random Read Performance
The Synology DS216+ displays an odd performance profile at various times throughout our test suite, and it trails the lower-cost DS216j in this test. Most users use SMB to transfer data for long-term storage, which is, by nature, a sequential workload. These tests are representative of relatively rare use-cases, such as storing a Steam directory on the NAS and mapping the folder to your PC. iSCSI works better for that use-case, though.
Random Write Performance
The AS3102T increases its lead during this test, but the two-bay Asustor systems don't exhibit the huge performance gulf that we see when we compare its larger NAS to others. Asustor uses more aggressive buffer settings on its large systems, but with only 2GB in the AS3102T, there isn't a lot of spare memory left for the performance-boosting additive.
Random Mixed Workload Performance
Again, we observe the two Intel-based systems with hardware-accelerated encryption deliver a 2x performance increase over the Marvell-based system. This test uses random data, so most users will not encounter this type of environment in a simple usage scenario.
