Skip to main content

Maxtor's Shared Storage Does NAS At Home

Test System And Benchmarks

We used the Tom’s Hardware reference platform for testing; details regarding the system configuration can be found in the table below.

Intel-Platform 775Asus P5E3 Deluxe, Rev.1.03G
Intel X38, BIOS: 0810 (02/11/2007)
CPUIntel Core 2 Duo E6750 (65 nm Conroe core) @ 2.26 GHz
RAM2x 1024 MB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600
eSATA controllerJMicron JMB363
System hard driveSeagate Barracuda 7200.9, 160 GB
7,200 RPM, SATA/300, 8 MB Cache
DVD-ROMSamsung SH-D163A , SATA/150
Graphics cardGigabyte Radeon HD 3850 GV-RX385512H
GPU: 670 MHz
Memory: 512 MB DDR3 (830 MHz, 256 Bit)
Sound cardintegrated
Power supplyCoolermaster RS-850-EMBA, ATX 12V V2.2, 850 Watt
Operating systemWindows Vista Enterprise SP1
DirectX 10DirectX 10 (Vista-Standard)
DirectX 9Version: April 2007
Graphics driversATI Radeon Version 7.12
Intel chip set driverVersion 6.9.1.1001 (20/02/2008)
JMicron chip set driverVersion 1.17.15.0 (24/03/2007)

Intel NAS Performance Toolkit

We used the Intel NAS Performance Toolkit to measure the performance of the Maxtor Shared Storage II. The 60 MB software package provides 18 different tests. The focus of the tests is on applications with HD video content and is thus ideally suited for testing NAS systems in home and SOHO situations.

The functional scope includes the multimedia tests, as well as backup and restore functions, copying directories and copying small and large files. The Intel NAS Performance Toolkit is available on the manufacturer’s website free to download

The test results represent the mean value of three test runs. We increased the "Multiple I/O" value to 8 for our tests. We used the Qnap TS 409 Pro which was tested to provide comparison values.

  • badboy4dee
    kwl review for this device. I wonder though if it allowed for mtu/jumbo, vpn security config n such. Prob not but that woulda been a nice touch.

    The Silent Majority
    Reply
  • deck
    These home NAS storage solutions need raid 5 and support for at least 4 drives. Until then my old AMD 500 will continue to chug away...
    Reply
  • serp9000
    "But the fact that a user may wish to replace the drives has not been taken into consideration. Should a drive fail and you need to replace it yourself, you’ll have to take the unit apart and break the warranty seal."

    If a drive fails and it's still under warranty, it would only seem logical to invoke the warranty protection and get a free drive. If a drive fails and it isn't under warranty, then breaking the warranty seal wouldn't be a problem. Doesn't seem like a particularly important detail.
    Reply
  • What's the point of the tiny images where I can't read anything?
    Reply
  • hellwig
    largerimagespleaseWhat's the point of the tiny images where I can't read anything?"...And so, with a clash of lightning that split apart the heavens, and with a mighty voice, God said unto Abraham: 'Click on the image twice you doofus!'".

    I do agree that clicking on the image once to get the main image page, and then a SECOND time to get the full-sized image is stupid, but if they were to insert the full-sized image in the main article, the article would be pretty hard to read through.

    I had one of those little warranty stickers on my old Mactor One-Touch. With a razor and some patience you can get that sucker off without breaking it.
    Reply
  • snarfies1
    serp9000If a drive fails and it's still under warranty, it would only seem logical to invoke the warranty protection and get a free drive.
    Except that this will involve sending your still perfectly functional drive away, where it will be perused by whoever while you have no access to it yourself. Not an acceptable solution to me. This is yet another FAIL solution for home NAS, I'm afraid.
    Reply
  • serp9000
    the problem is you'll have to do without your data while you wait for the warranty work. do you really trust sending out your one good copy?
    Reply
  • oldmangamer
    Let me see...Raid 1 means you can replace a failed drive with a new one and the second drive (the "mirror") still contains the data. But now, you have to replace the failed drive so the mirror can be rebuilt...but you cannot without voiding the warranty. Do I have this straight? If so, this is simply a disaster waiting to happen. Especially with the high drive failure rate reported by customers. Still waiting for a good home NAS.
    Reply
  • xxsk8er101xx
    Buy this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817707125Buy your drives.
    Call it a day.
    Reply
  • kschoche
    Performance is lackluster at best, especially in raid-0! Let me rephrase, performance is TERRIBLE.
    The chances of the working disk getting damaged while shipping the whole box back for a single failed drive are WAY higher than the chances I'll damage it opening it, but considering the literacy of the users of such a slow NAS... I'll stick with my homebrew NAS kthx

    Reply