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.
Um, is this a hardware review or a press release?
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.
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.