Viewing page 5 of 5 pages.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5
PERFORMANCE
The most obvious test of performance is simply to test the amount of time it
takes to copy a set amount of data. This tests the data throughput of the device,
and should give some idea of how it compares to a conventional hard drive. Two
tests of this sort were done, one with a single large file (997 MB) and one
with multiple smaller files (42 files totaling 30.3 MB). A performance baseline
was established by copying the same files locally without involving the NAS
box. The local drives were Samsung Spinpoint P80 models. All tests were repeated
three times for accuracy, and none of the results varied by more than a second
or two.
| Newisys NA-1400: Large File Performance
Test |
|
Test
|
Time
|
|
Local disk to the same local disk
|
51s
|
|
Local disk to different local disk
|
29s
|
|
Local disk to NA-1400
|
2m 46s
|
|
NA-1400 to NA-1400
|
4m 41s
|
|
NA-1400 to Local disk
|
2m 24s
|
| Newisys NA-1400: Small File Performance
Test |
|
Test
|
Time
|
|
Local disk to the same local disk
|
4s
|
|
Local disk to different local disk
|
3s
|
|
Local disk to NA-1400
|
6s
|
|
NA-1400 to NA-1400
|
10s
|
|
NA-1400 to Local disk
|
5s
|
The raw performance numbers do a good job of showing the difference between
the network storage and the local disk, but they do not do justice to our subjective
impressions of the NA-1400. In terms of raw throughput,
the network box was less than half the speed of a local disk. This pattern was
the same for both of the tests, although the performance gap was bigger for
the large file test. The bottleneck was most likely the 100 Mbit network; file
transfers would most likely have been faster on a gigabit network, although
Barry Hutt, VP of Newisys, stated that
the performance bottleneck on a gigabit network is actually the XScale processor,
not the network. Performance was worst when files were being copied internally,
perhaps because data needed to be both sent and received over the network.
Our subjective impressions were actually
much better, perhaps because our usage pattern rarely tested the full throughput.
In general, our usage consisted of reading and writing small amounts of data
at a time: Reading and writing individual files that were rarely more than a
couple of megabytes in size. A small amount of lag was still noticeable, and
a couple of files took a second or two to process. The large discrepancy in
raw performance did not translate into a large discrepancy in our user experience.
The experience was more like using a computer that was slightly out of date
than having an experience that was "half as good" as using a local
disk.
To make this more concrete, we tried playing numerous video files from the
NAS box, including a number of ripped DVDs and several XviD-encoded and WMV-encoded
files. None of these experiments showed the NA-1400 to be any worse than a local
drive. At worst, the files took a second or two longer to open, but there was
absolutely no difference in playback quality.
To illustrate this, we did one last performance test, this time using GordianKnot
to encode a DVD copy of Secret
Things into an MKV
video file, using XviD as
the codec. As before, several different source / destination combinations were
tested, and each test was repeated three times. Results were rounded appropriately
to account for variances in test result, but they rarely varied by more than
10 seconds. Each test consisted of two encoding passes and one multiplexing
pass. GordianKnot's log function was used to measure the amount of time that
each stage took, and also to calculate the total encoding time.
| Newisys NA-1400: Video Encoding Test
|
|
Test
|
Encoding Stage
|
Time
|
|
Local disk to the same local disk
|
First Pass
|
50m 10s
|
|
Second Pass
|
1h 14m 30s
|
|
Multiplex
|
1m 50s
|
|
Total
|
2h 6m 30s
|
|
Local disk to different local disk
|
First Pass
|
51m 20s
|
|
Second Pass
|
1h 14m 30s
|
|
Multiplex
|
1m 40s
|
|
Total
|
2h 7m 40s
|
|
Local disk to NA-1400
|
First Pass
|
50m 30s
|
|
Second Pass
|
1h 17m 10s
|
|
Multiplex
|
8m 0s
|
|
Total
|
2h 15m 30s
|
|
NA-1400 to NA-1400
|
First Pass
|
50m 30s
|
|
Second Pass
|
1h 17m 10s
|
|
Multiplex
|
8m 0s
|
|
Total
|
2h 15m 40s
|
|
NA-1400 to local disk
|
First Pass
|
51m 20s
|
|
Second Pass
|
1h 16m 30s
|
|
Multiplex
|
2m 0s
|
|
Total
|
2h 10m 0s
|
The results of the encoding test explain why we noticed so little subjective
difference: With the exception of the Multiplexing stage, all of the steps were
CPU-limited, so the storage system had very little effect on encoding time.
The multiplexing stage itself took about four times as long when the NA-1400
was the destination, but in the grand scheme of things, the speed of the storage
system mattered very little. In fact, the difference in encoding time between
the fastest and slowest times was just 7.5% — hardly noticeable. Few people
are likely to wait around to notice the extra 9 minutes, so there is little
practical difference.
CONCLUSIONS
Although we were disappointed to find that we could not run Windows from the
NA-1400, moving mass storage away from the main system
is a viable way to reduce noise. For many purposes, the loss in performance
that comes with using network storage is insignificant, and our subjective impressions
of the performance did not match the worst-case results from our early tests.
Unfortunately, the noise level of the NA-1400 itself was far too loud to be
placed in a living space, so it should be kept in a basement,
garage, well-insulated closet, or server room where its noise will not bother anyone. Apartment
dwellers may want to think twice.
As a stand-alone unit, the NA-1400 has several advantages over a custom-built
storage server. Most prominently, it is more or less plug-and-play and requires
very little configuration. Home users can easily plug it into a home network
and immediately use it without needing to know anything about networks or user
permissions. At the same time, complex RAID systems and user accounts can be
set up if the circumstances require. It also consumes significantly less power
than a full system.
In the right circumstances, the NA-1400 could be a very worthy investment.
It provides a way to access a huge amount of storage without needing to deal
with the noise that four large drives would add to an otherwise quiet system.
It is an ideal fit for a media server, where it can be plugged in, turned on,
and left in the basement indefinitely.
* * *
Much thanks to Newisys
for the opportunity to examine this product.
*
SPCR Articles of Related Interest:
NoVibes III HDD Decoupling Rack
Rubber Boxes & Carved Foam: More HDD Silencing
IS the Silent PC Future 2.5-inches wide?
Forum Thread:
HDD vibration & noise reducing methods - ranked
* * *
Discuss
this article in the SPCR Forums.
| Help support this site, buy from one of our affiliate retailers! |
|
