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.
Sequential Data Transfer By Size
Thecus' W5000 delivers acceptable sequential read performance at larger block sizes. However, the system trails its competition, including Seagate's NAS Pro and Western Digital's My Cloud DL4100, both of which also employ low-power Atom processors.
Windows Storage Spaces won't give you the same level of performance as hardware RAID, FreeBSD or Linux-based operating systems. As an example, I recently built a large dual-Xeon server with 32 mixed SSDs and hard drives. In Windows, its write speed hovers around 700 MB/s. And once it's outside of buffers and cache, performance drops to less than 100 MB/s. In Linux, the same hardware delivers over 2000 MB/s. WSS suffers a real performance deficit when writing data.
In today's test, we see that same low sequential write performance outside of the buffers. Our benchmark takes place after the system has exhausted its cache, so we see real disk performance in RAID 5 built using Storage Spaces.
Current page: Sequential Data Transfer By SizePrev Page Software Interface Next Page Random Data Transfer By Size
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
"Low-cost Windows Storage Servers (WSS) give small businesses access to enterprise-class features at a desktop price."Reply
Um, is this a hardware review or a press release?
Did you read the review and verdict?Reply
While many people may actually use RAID 5 with this device, this is what we call professional malpractice among IT pros.Reply
You need to understand a couple of things about all of those articles. The articles are not talking about your home or small business NAS with four or five drives to start with. The ZDNET author has a history of writing articles and article titles to bring people in. Many disagree with Robin's findings. I wouldn't say that is the case with the only article that relates to this review though, Why RAID 5 Stops Working in 2009. In that article he references a 7-drive RAID 5 array. With 6 or more drives we use RAID 6 (RAID 10 in some cases) for the very reason he cites. With five drives and in a home or small business environment RAID 5 is sufficient as long as you are proactive. Keep the system on a battery backup, keep air vents fee of dust and if a drive fails replace it right away.Reply
Some users may want to take redundancy to the next level and run RAID 6 on a 5 drive array. That is fine and I know people that do. I don't recommend it on a sub-1000 Dollar system that already has performance issues with RAID 5 though.
"We rarely hear of failures in the field"Reply
Here I am.
"In our own experience, NAS failures come from easy-to-replace fans and power supplies, rather than the main components that make up the heart of the system."
Changed power supply and changed fan but still no fun.
I had to dump my DS411Slim after putting some € on it in an attempt to fix.
The brown thing happens.