Articles: Networking

Bookmark and Share

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 ]


Judging by the specs, the Synology DS207+ is going to be as brilliant in our tests as the DS107+. It should be more exciting to test it in comparison with another brand’s product and we took a dual-disk NS2300N NAS from Promise as its opponent.

This is the equipment we used for this test session:

  • Category 5e Ethernet cable
  • Intel Centrino notebook
  • Two Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 hard disk drives (250GB, SATA-2)
  • Transcend JF130 USB flash drive (2GB)
  • Panasonic BL-C1 web-camera
  • Trendnet TEW-633GR router (Gigabit Ethernet)
  • IOMeter
  • FlashFXP FTP-client

We’ve got devices without WLAN modules today, so we are only going to measure the speed of the NAS’s Gigabit Ethernet port. We first measure the speed of the integrated HDD using IOMeter. There are two patterns: 512 bytes to determine for maximum amount of disk operations per second and 64KB to see the maximum data-transfer rate. We exclude random and write operations in both cases to get the highest results possible.

As expected, the NAS from Synology leaves its opponent far behind. The tables suggest that the disk subsystem of the DS207+ is far superior. This is true for the internal HDDs as well as for the external flash drive. The DS207+ was communicating with the flash drive almost at the latter’s maximum speed (judging by the results of this flash drive when connected directly to a PC). The DS207+’s result of reading the 64KB pattern may be a glitch of IOMeter, however, because the speed is lower by about 19MBps when the flash drive is connected directly to a PC.

The next test is about the integrated FTP server available in both NAS devices. FTP remains an important data-transfer protocol, unfortunately not implemented perfectly in many devices (e.g. in the NS2300N). We measure the data-transfer speed not only for the integrated HDD but also for an external device, a USB flash card. We upload and download files with FlashXFP and mark the average download speed reported by the program in the server connection log. We use the following content types: a 700MB DivX movie (L), a 200MB folder with MP3 files (M), and a 200MB folder with photographs (S).

Synology’s NAS wins this test, too. It delivers quite a different level of performance even though the speed of its FTP server is far lower than the theoretical speed of directly attached disks.

One more test was performed with the DS207+ only. Synology had given us a web-camera Panasonic BL-C1, officially supported by the Surveillance Station, along with the NAS. Of course, we couldn’t help comparing the Surveillance Station and the web-camera’s own firmware. The results were identical in terms of frames-per-second. Moreover, the Surveillance Station offered a resolution of 960x720 the camera’s firmware didn’t offer. But there were problems with image quality. The image from the Surveillance Station (right) is fuzzy even at 640x480 although this fuzziness is not observed when the image is being viewed directly from the web-camera (left). This is the single drawback we could find in our tests of the DS207+.

Panasonic BL-C1 web-cam

Synology DS207+

So, the NAS from Synology is obviously better than the NAS from Promise although the latter is quite good in its own right. The DS207+ seems to be the best home-oriented NAS we have ever tested in our labs.

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 ]


Comments currently: 26
Discussion started: 02/16/16 01:39:29 PM
Latest comment: 09/02/16 03:56:42 AM

View comments

Add your Comment