Summary of products

Summary of products tested

In practice, NAS actually functions like a small server. With a processor, memory, and network card all they are missing are input/output display controllers! Moreover, some such as the Thecus N5200BR Pro and its Celeron M use standard PC components. In terms of software, all function with a Linux version specifically modified by each manufacturer which is more or less frequently updated with firmware evolutions.

For this reason, NAS can also work with almost any software on the condition, of course, that it has the required execution power (which, as we will see, is far from always being the case!). Here are some of the functions which are almost always systematically integrated by manufacturers:
– sharing a printer on the network thanks to an integrated USB port ;
– extension of storage capacity by adding USB and/or eSATA drives ;
– autonomous downloading of files (HTTP, FTP, Bittorrent) ;
– multimedia file streaming to audio/video players (DVD, Hi-fi players)
– automatic saving functions;
– FTP server…

This table shows the detailed characteristics of each product.

A luxury storage space

A luxury storage space

Obviously, a high end product is generally carried over into the price and here you will not be disappointed. In order to obtain a comparable base price for the empty casings as well as the Buffalo model, we took the average price for 250 GB, 500 GB, 750 GB and 1 TB drives and then multiplied it by four (or 5 in the case of the Thecus N5200B) and then added the barebones NAS value to give you a better idea of what such a system costs.


Here we would like to point out that of all capacities, the best size/price is that of 500 GB followed by 750 GB drives. The cost per gigabit turned out to be equivalent – and frankly quite high – for 250 GB and 1 TB.


This is another characteristic that enables us to differentiate the various products. The Synology CS407 and Thecus N4100+ are found in the exact same price category while the Qnap TS-409 Pro with similar characteristics but being more recent (just released) and with higher performances costs 200 € more. However, its price should go down as availability increases – or at least we hope so.

Note that we have also included different versions of the same model tested. For example, the Qnap TS-409 non Pro (non-compatible with ADS and NFS – see below) enables saving 50 € without losing performance or essential functions in home use.

Buffalo only arrived in France very recently. We have included its MSRP in the table but its products are still rare with large price variations from one retailer to another. Giving you an average price therefore wouldn’t be representative. However, note that in actuality, it’s possible to find much these models for less expensive, notably for the 1 TB version.

The Thecus N5200B/BR Pro clearly assumes a position in the ultra high end with a price almost 100 € above the TS-409 Pro. But either way, with a capacity of 5 drives and exceptional performances, this system is clearly on the top shelf. The 50 € difference between the B and BR models is the result of the integration of a 4 port Gigabit switch in the latter. Note that there is also a non-Pro version but it’s not as fast.

Are we required to buy all the drives at once in the beginning? It depends on the model:

– The Thecus N5200BR Pro allows starting with two drives in Raid 0 or Raid 1. You can then move to a Raid 5 of three, four, or five drives. If you have three drives in the beginning, you might as well directly create a Raid 5 storage that you can then increase to four or five drives. More symbolic than anything, you can also extend the capacity of a Raid 0 by adding as many drives as possible or even convert a Raid 1 into Raid 0.
– Qnap offers similar possibilities but enables starting with a single drive which is even better. It can then integrate a Raid 1, Raid 5 or Raid 6 storage. You can also start with two (Raid 1) or three (Raid 5) drives and then make the transition to Raid 5 or a Raid 6 of four drives.
- For Synology, migration possibilities are only an option with its firmware 571 which is currently in its beta version. It’s very limited and simply consists of expansion of a Raid 5 of 3 drives into 4 drives.
– No capability of this type is possible with Buffalo (normal, as it isn’t sold empty) and the Thecus N4100+. For the latter, if you wish to start with one or two drives, the only solution consists of saving your data on the PC when adding drives, install the drives, create a Raid 5 storage and then re-transfer your data.

Synology, Qnap and Thecus (exclusively on the N5200 Pro) offer a Raid 5 storage expansion function. If you replace all the drives with high capacity models one by one, the NAS then creates storage space taking into account the new capacity.

Finally, while the risk of incompatibility is minimal, manufacturers provide a list of hard drives (reference number and capacity) with which the NAS is certified. Here is where to find them:

– Qnap
– Thecus : English et French
– Synology : Site et Wiki

Some manufacturers also provide compatibility lists for power inverters, printers, Wi-Fi USB keys, etc. If you do not find them in the above links, do not hesitate to download the product guides for the device in question. This is where, for example, you will find the list of power inverters that are compatible with Thecus’ NAS.

Refresher on RAID

Refresher on RAID

Before going any further, let’s take a brief look at RAID storage and its main modes (we speak of levels) used by the NAS tested here.

An acronym for Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks, this technology consists of creating a single and unique storage space from multiple hard drives. More specifically, this means that when configured in RAID, all drives are seen as one by Windows. The fact of using several drives offers several advantages – notably in terms of performances – but the main one lies in the possibility of putting into place data security methods.

The most obvious, called level 1 Raid (or Raid 1 for short), functions with two drives. Data is simultaneously written on each unit. In the case of a drive breakdown, the second continues to function and no information is lost. On the other hand, the maximum capacity of Raid storage is only equal to half of the total capacity of the two drives (and this on the condition that the sizes are the same, otherwise the capacity is equal to that of the smaller one). In theory, performances in reading and writing are equivalent to those of a one drive system.

This is a simple solution, and assuredly efficient, but limited to two drives. Of course, we could create Raid 1 storage with four drives (or six, eight, etc.), but this solution isn’t optimal. At best you will always lose half of the total capacity because additional drives are only used to replicate the first. In short, you can do better.

A step above is Raid 5 which enables using a larger number of units while retaining the security of data. The only downside consists of ‘’sacrificing’’ the capacity of a hard drive which will be used to store parity information which would serve in reconstructing files in the case of one of the drives breaking down. Obviously, putting Raid 5 storage into place is only possible starting with three or more hard drives. So the storage capacity is equal to the total of the drives minus one (1 TB or three 500 GB drives, for example).


Another advantage is the fact that sharing data between several drives enables performance gains in both reading and writing. This is only logical because instead of writing 1 on a single drive in a given amount of time, for example, we can write 1, 2 and 3 on three drives in the same time (or almost) – at least in theory. In practice, calculation of (and to a lesser extent in reading) the parity information requires considerable resources. For this reason, while we can observe systematic performance gains compared to Raid 1, the opposite often occurs. And moreover, this is the main weakness of the NAS tested here: the integrated processors significantly hold back performances. The only exception is the Thecus with its Celeron M on its N5200BR Pro, which consequently produces higher performances in Raid 5 than in Raid 1.

In short, Raid 1 or 5 therefore enable the protection against hard drive breakdown. Except when this occurs, you have to be there to replace the faulty unit as soon as possible (or quickly buy a new drive). In the meantime, the system is no longer protected against another failure. If this is a risk you do not want to run, there are at least two other solutions:

– Some NAS offer the possibility of adding a « spare » drive to Raid 1 and Raid 5 storage. Of course this is an empty drive that isn’t used except when there is a problem. When this does happen it is immediately used to reconstruct Raid 1 or Raid 5 storage and the security of data is assured. In replacing the defective unit, the new drive automatically becomes the new spare. Obviously, this involves using three drives for Raid 1 and a minimum of four for Raid 5 which otherwise doesn’t increase the total storage capacity.
–Raid 6 can handle a breakdown of two drives. Its principle is almost the same as that of Raid 5 except it sacrifices two drives for the storage of parity information (and whose calculation is much more complex). With small sized Raid clusters as is the case for the NAS tested here, Raid 6 does not offer any particular interest compared to a Raid 5 + spare solution. This is all the more true that performances are lower.

In practice and except in specific needs, the NAS tested here were conceived to be used in Raid 5. However, all support at least a third Raid level which is a bit different because it favors performances over security. Called Raid 0, this mode shares data on all the drives. In theory, the increase in transfer rates is almost perfectly proportional: almost twice as fast with two drives, three times as fast with three drives, etc.

In short, it’s great but this mode does present a size problem to such an extent that we strongly recommend avoiding it. The breakdown of any drive actually means the loss of all data in storage. In other words, with four drives the chance of breakdown is four times higher than with one drive or non-negligible risk.

Finally, with some NAS you can create a Raid 10 storage. More concretely, this is a two unit Raid 0 storage space, with each unit being composed of RAID 1 storage of two drives. Therefore, you will need four drives to create this system. It is safe from a two drive breakdown on the absolute condition that these two drives are not in the same Raid 1. If not, obviously everything is lost.

As for the Jbod mode, this isn’t pedantically speaking a type of Raid. All drives are simply put end to end to create a single unit. There is no safety system (even if, contrary to Raid 0, the breakdown of a drive does mean the loss of all data) and performances aren’t improved.

Announced and real capacities

So it should be understood that available capacity is directly related to the level of desired security. And moreover – and this is no longer a secret for anyone – the Gigabytes announced by hard drive manufacturers never translate into the same capacity once the drive is formatted. Given the same number of physically available bytes, for example 500 billion, a manufacturer announces 500 GB and Windows roughly 465 GB.

The reason for this has been known for some time. Manufacturers count in « 1000’s » (1 KB = 1000 bytes, 1 MB = 1000 KB, etc.) while they should count in « 1024’s » to obtain the correct computer result. The rule should actually be that 1 KB equals 1024 bytes and not 1000 (and thus: 1 MB = 1024 KB, etc.). With large capacities, this small subtlety can actually result in a significant difference!

This difference is all the more great when added to the «loss» of space due to the use of Raid technology. Thus, an NAS configured in Raid 5 which proudly displays 2 TB actually only offers around 1.36 TB or more like 68.2% of the announced capacity!


Here is a table which summarizes the real available capacities by Raid level compared to announced hard drive capacities. Note that this is only a theoretical calculation. The exact capacity depends not just on the specific drive but also the amount of space used by the NAS itself for operating system files (several dozen or even hundreds of megabytes depending on the model).

Warnings, some things to consider…

Warnings, some things to consider…

Before getting to the nitty gritty, let’s consider some of the small inconveniences of NAS, in order to avoid a few common complaints from users.


First of all, NAS are generally slow. When a good USB 2.0 hard drive reaches a transfer rate of 25 MB/s in writing without breaking a sweat (from the PC to the drive), most NAS do not even attain a sustained speed of 15 MB/s. And when transfer involves small files (less than 1 MB), it’s catastrophic. While the USB drive can maintain almost 15 MB/s, NAS rarely go above 1.5 MB/s!

More concretely, just know that 15 MB/s corresponds to about 1’08 min to transfer 1 GB of data and almost 5 min for an entire DVD of 4.7 GB.

This slowness however is not a definitive and manufacturers have made real progress on the latest models. For example, armed with a Celeron the Thecus N5200BR Pro produces high performances as we will see. With a sustained speed of more than 34 MB/s in writing, it is faster than USB 2.0 drives! Of course, you pay a high price for these results and it’s still inferior with small files at only 5.5 MB/s.

In the same way, in reading all current models are more or less equivalent. We measured a sustained speed of a little less than 30 MB/s with a USB 2.0 drive and a little more on recent NAS in Raid 5. Even if here again the USB 2.0 drive keeps a net advantage in the transfer of small files – at best, almost double – compared to network drives.

Actually, if you are aware of the slow transfer speeds, this is something with which you might learn to live. And according to your use of NAS, this doesn’t have to be an inconvenience. For example, if you only use it to save data, speed will not make a big difference (especially if backups are made at night). The same thing goes if you use it to centralize multimedia files (Mp3, movies, photos…). 10 MB/s is largely enough for the fluid playing of these types of media including with simultaneous users. You will just have to be patient when transferring files.


Another thing to take into account is that NAS is only accessible via the network. Except in rare cases, it is not possible to connect them directly to the computer via USB ports. This limit essentially comes (but not only and actually nothing is planned for it) from the file system used by NAS to format the drives (generally Ext3 or Xfs) which is not supported by Windows.

With the four drive models tested here, this limit is not too bothersome because we don’t really expect to move them. On the other hand, there are some one or two drive NAS which we might be tempted to use as simple external hard drives and so we could expect to have some mobility. But here again, unless otherwise specified, it’s only possible to access them via a network cable. Of course, the direct RJ-45 connection is possible without going through a switch but this necessitates a minimum of preparation (either configure the NAS in fixed IP or ensure the Windows DHCP server is activated).

The exception is for example the Thecus N5200BR Pro : equipped with a USB type B connection, it offers to allocate Raid storage which is accessible in USB. This however simply remains a backup system because, first of all, performances are mediocre and second it is not possible to access a specific zone of the drive.

Finally, while Raid 5 does indeed guarantee a high level of security, for these NAS it’s not 100% sure. There is still the possibility (of course very low, but it cannot be entirely eliminated) that two drives simultaneously breakdown. The probability is increased if the failure is related to the use of NAS in poor conditions (notably overheating). Otherwise, the NAS itself can fail and the recuperation of data becomes very complicated if not impossible.

Initialization, multi-users, file access

Initialization

The creation and then synchronization of a Raid storage space generally requires about ten hours except a Raid 0 which only needs five to ten minutes. This operation as well as all the other stages of NAS configuration is done with the help of a Web interface accessible through your usual Internet navigator in which you simply enter your local server IP. We are assuming that all configuration interfaces are valid to function correctly with Internet Explorer. For our part, we didn’t find any compatibility problems with Firefox.

Note that Raid storage has to occupy the entire drive space available (and if the drives are of different capacity the system will use the smallest). However, most machines offer the possibility to create several storage spaces, for example, a Raid 1 and Raid 5 for security and then a Raid 0 for performance.

Multi-users

Once the above is done, you have to create one or several directories which you will finally have the possibility to mount as network storage in Windows. And because NAS functions with Linux, they directly inherit the native functions of this systems access management. All of this therefore allows creating user accounts or groups to which you can define different access levels per directory (access blocked / authorization in reading / authorization in reading and writing).

For PME, there is an interesting function consisting of the possibility of synchronizing NAS user accounts and groups with those defined in ADS (Active Directory Service), the directory integrated to Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 Server. All of the products tested here offer this possibility except Buffalo’s Terastation Live. With this manufacturer, you will have to have the Terastation Pro II to benefit from this function.




On the other hand, this is the only model to support DFS (Distributed File System) technology which consists of incorporating physically distinct network sharing spaces as if it was part of the same file system. To put it more clearly, this means that shared directories of different NAS appear as sub-folders of a single and unique storage space. The Terastation Live is compatible with the DFS service of the Windows 2003 Server R2.


Other particularities are that certain models enable attributing hard drive space quotas not to be surpassed either per user (Qnap TS-409 Pro and Synology CS-407) or per directory (Thecus N5200BR Pro) ,which is very practical! In addition, Buffalo sets itself apart once again by offering the possibility to activate, like Qnap, a trash where you can recuperate files that have been deleted by mistake.

Finally, on its N5200BR Pro Thecus offers an interesting user account import function. You just have to describe the accounts to create (login, password, and group) in a text file and according to a specific syntax and then upload the file. It’s practical when putting into place a network which has many users.

File access

All general public NAS systems support at least CIFS (Common Internet File System) protocol, formerly and still popularly known under the name SMB (Server Message Block). This is the system used by default with Windows – amongst others – to access network drives and transfer files or even share printers between several computers. The protocol enables creating shared directories as network storage spaces in Windows.

Another universal characteristic is that Mac OS users benefit from AFP (generally the 3.0 or 3.1 version) or AppleTalk support while all NAS integrate an FTP server. Synology and Qnap additionally offer more options such as the possibility of activating SSL/TLS encoding, the personalization of ports, limiting the bandwidth in upload/download or even the number of simultaneous connections (only Qnap). With Thecus, we have to settle for the option of activating anonymous access while Buffalo doesn’t offer any particular control of parameters.

Either way, the FTP server is never entirely devoid of interest because, as we will see, the transfers of large files via FTP proves to be much faster than by CIFS/SMB.


Rarer is the support of NFS protocol which is essentially used in a Unix environment. This characteristic will be more of interest to professionals even if Unix/Linux systems also support SMB very well. Note that some multimedia network players such as the famous Tvix hard drives boast about being able to connect to NAS via NFS. We didn’t test this but either way it would appear that the system isn’t quite perfected yet. NFS compatibility is offered by the Thecus 5200BR Pro, Qnap TS-409 Pro, and Synology CS407 (only starting with firmware 571).

Even rarer, iScsi protocol is only available on the 5200BR Pro. It consists of sending SCSI commands on the TCP/IP. This allows managing Raid storage as if it was a drive simply present in the PC and performances are excellent.

Alternatively, you can use Web access functions: after activation of the appropriate service NAS content becomes accessible with the help of a simple Internet navigator with the PC connected to the Web. This solution isn’t the most practical (especially for the copying of numerous files!) but it can be a backup if you have to obtain a document and are on the move. There is also basic file management functions (add, copy, and delete).

Obviously, access is secure because you have to identify yourself with a user account; of course your associated user privileges will be identical. HTTPS privileges is also proposed on all models.

Saving, downloading with a PC, extensions

Limited saving

One of the normal functions of NAS is the saving of data and those here obviously offer various dedicated functions. However, a word of caution: all do not have the same capabilities in this area.

First of all, none of the models tested here is able of carrying out backups of network work stations on its own (however, this is possible with, for example, Netgear’s Readynas NV+). To save data, you have to install a client program on each work station. Of course, manufacturers provide a standard software which we aren’t overly eager to describe in detail however there are very complete and free tools available if the software in question is not to your liking ( Astase’s Ultrabackup, for example).


The common denominator to all these machines is the possibility to identically reproduce the NAS on another network storage system. In the case of Buffalo this has to be another Terastation (which limits saving possibilities…), while the others can accommodate any storage compatible with Rsync protocol or for Thecus even a classic FTP server.

Another possibility for saving NAS content is that some offer using storage spaces that may be connected on the open USB or eSATA extension ports. This is the case of Buffalo, Qnap and Synology. It isn’t possible with Thecus, but the N5200BR Pro does offer the opposite! An automatic loading function actually allows directly copying the content of a USB storage space (USB key, memory card player, etc.) on Raid. This is practical for quickly downloading, for example, your digital camera and without a PC. Qnap also gives us this option.

Download without your PC

More and more NAS integrate downloading capabilities. The protocol which is supported are HTTP, FTP as well as the more interesting (at least it appears so) Bittorrent. Downloading parameters are set via the NAS’ web interface (add a link or upload a .torrent file) or for work stations not having access rights to this interface with the help of a client program. Except Buffalo, all the models tested here have this function.

While in and of itself downloading functions without any problems, we were forced to realize that the Bittorrent clients provided will probably not be up to the expectations of many users. At best, the available options actually include setting downloading time periods (which also apply to HTTP/FTP downloads), bandwidth limits (send/receive) as well as the ports used by the service. Moreover, all of these NAS do not offer all of these controls. For example, Thecus does not allow personalizing ports while Qnap is the only one which proposes the control of sharing options (seed, number of hours after download) while not giving us the possibility of setting downloading time periods.

This isn’t enough! Some sharing communities require that users have an equal amount of download/upload time or their account will be suspended (for example, the famous Dimeadozen). Without having the ability to set seeding (sharing) options, maintaining a positive ratio becomes totally impossible. In the list of indispensable functions, it would also be desirable to be able to limit the number of simultaneous downloads. This is all the more so true because according to significant user feedback it seems that adding a large number of .torrents is a source of instability. So in short, if our tests did not reveal any particular problems, do not hesitate to sift through forums dedicated to each machine in order to obtain more ample information on this promising yet unperfected capability.

Official and unofficial extensions

However, you should know that to some extent it is possible to make up for some lacking functions. Because these are classic (or almost) Linux servers, NAS are entirely capable of executing all types of programs. You are limited only by their processor power and the quantity of RAM memory installed (generally both very limited), as well as the requirement to find compiled programs for the installed distribution (or to compile them yourself).

The only problem lies in the necessity to take over control of the NAS, generally with Telnet/SSH. Manufacturers offer this possibility more and more by default (Qnap), via a dedicated patch (Synology) while some continue to omit it for security reasons. You will then have to use a patch or alternative firmware developed by the user community that you can generally find on forums or the Wiki devoted to each machine. Once this is done, the installation of new tools intended to NAS is mainly just a formality : client for the eMule network (aMule, MLdonkey), more evolved Bittorrent clients (MLdonkey), alternative media servers (Twonky media, Slimserver, etc.), sleep functions, etc. Obviously, technical assistance is no longer given by the manufacturer and the proper functioning of these programs isn’t guaranteed either.

Note that with Thecus, the procedure is a bit difference because they provide an execution environment enabling the installation of complementary modules via a Web interface. Moreover, with the N4100+ there is a procedure to follow in order to benefit from media server functions, printer sharing, and downloading management as these are not included from the start.

Test protocol

Test protocol

To measure the performances of these NAS, we used the following components:
– five Seagate 500 GB (ST3500320AS) hard drives installed in every NAS including the Buffalo in order to obtain comparable results (especially concerning power consumption as nothing guarantees that a Terastation is equipped with the same drives as another Terastation.) ;
– a Netgear GS-108 gigabit switch which manages Ethernet packets up to 9 KB (jumbo frames) ;
– an Enermax Jazz hard drive casing whose particularity is to offer a double USB 2.0/eSATA interface;
– a sound probe, thermometer and ammeter to measure physical parameters.


Rather than synthetic benches like Iometer or Iozone, we decided to look at the time it took for simple file copying. At least two reasons explain this choice. On the one hand, this gives us transfer speeds that are much more representative of the real use of these machines than theoretical measurements. On the other, it also allows testing, in a strictly identical manner, the different access protocols: essentially SMB/CIFS and FTP, but also iSCSI and external storage connected on the USB/eSATA ports.

Three groups of files were used in tests :
– large sized files (two files totaling 1.83 GB), two Divx movies;
– medium sized files (63 files totaling 1 GB), a mix of MP3 and Flac files ;
– small sized files (14,746 files totaling 659 MB, all inferior to 1 MB), a website!

Tests were carried out in reading/writing with each measurement taken three times. For CIFS/SMB, a simple batch Robocopy aided us in measuring file copy times. For FTP, Flash FXP logs gave us the transfer times.

File transfers were launched using the following configuration:
– Core 2 Duo E4500 ;
– 2 GB of DDR2 667 MHz memory ;
– Asus P5K-SE motherboard ;
– two Western Digital WD5000AAKS-0 hard drives in Raid 0 for reading and the copying of files (speed in writing measured at 75 MB/s) in addition to the system drive ;
- a Gigabit D-Link DGE-530T card (PCI, Marvell Yukon circuit).

All NAS were tested with the latest available firmware although there were two exceptions. For Synology, we used the 518 version (stable) for performance tests and the 571 (beta) to test functions. The latter adds significant innovations and we had to include it.

As for Qnap, we used the 20080122 version for most tests. This is the latest official version ; however, it functions very poorly for the FTP transfer of small files. After having brought this to Qnap’s attention, they provided us with the beta version of its firmware 20080219 which corrects the problem, but it is still very unstable in tests.

Performances in Raid 5

Performances in Raid 5

We start with performances in Raid 5, the mode in which these NAS are first and foremost intended to function. These results should therefore be the most representative of day to day use. For the Thecus N5200BR Pro, we give you the results obtained with a RAID 5 storage of five drives and then with four.

Right away we can distinguish three levels of performance:
- With a sustained 30.9 MB/s, the N5200BR Pro is more than twice as fast as the next closest NAS;
– This pack is composed of Buffalo, Qnap and Synology, which vary between 10.6 MB/s and 14.1 MB/s ;
- The Thecus N4100+ which shows its age and finishes last with only 5.2 MB/s!

While results are somewhat equivalent with groups of large and medium sized files, it’s a catastrophe with small files. Only the N5200BR Pro does well with 5.5 MB/s. The others are found between 0.6 MB/s (Synology) and 1.6 MB/s (Qnap) !

Now if we look at performances in FTP, in terms of sustained speeds we can see they are systematically superior to those obtained in file transfers in Windows (SMB/CIFS). The gain varies between 8% (Synology) and 23.5% (N5200BR Pro with 5 drives).

With the collection of small files, the result is more spread out. Performances are best with the N4100+ (+19%) and especially the Synology (almost 4 times faster!) but significantly less for the N5200BR Pro (three times as slow but it started strong), Buffalo (-25%) and Qnap (-22%).

Conclusion : to transfer large volumes of data (movies, MP3s, etc.) to your NAS, systematically use FTP. This is also true for small sized files (photos, word documents, etc.) except with the N5200 Pro and Buffalo systems.

In addition, we noted that in SMB, N5200BR Pro performances are identical with 4 or 5 drives but slightly better with 5 drives in FTP.


In reading, SMB performances are systematically higher in writing except for with Buffalo where they are strictly identical in sustained speeds (twice as high with small files). It seems to suggest that it’s not a limit in power but rather a problem with SMB management. This same impression is confirmed by the speeds found in FTP which literally takes off.

With Thecus’ N5200BR Pro, performances are also higher in reading although only slightly so (5% on average). For this reason, the competition, which was clearly limited by processor power in writing, is able to easily bridge the gap. Qnap thus triples its speeds (!), while Synology doubles them and therefore they exchange positions. The second was ahead in writing (+20%) while the first takes the advantage in reading (+9%).

In the end, Thecus stays on top but only holds a slight lead (+12% over the Qnap model) while clearly dominating in writing. However, this manufacturer also comes in last with the 4100+, which obviously is not in the same league as the competition.

In FTP, performances really do not improve for the transfer of small files. Buffalo stays on the same level, Thecus gleans a few seconds on the N5200 Pro and loses a few with the N4100+, while Qnap is behind and Synology crumbles. Actually, it seems that in file transfers protocol loses a lot of time at each new file request. For this reason, even between collections of large and medium files differences are considerably higher than in SMB (where they are almost non-existent). There are however only 63 files in the « medium sized » file group.

In short, for the reading of small files the advantage is clearly to SMB which is sometimes five or six times faster.

On the other hand, for brute speeds with large files, we often gain 30% compared to SMB or even more with Buffalo (double!) or Qnap (+49%). With medium size files, the advantage is between 1.2% (Synology) and 23% (N5200 Pro) depending on the model except Buffalo that once again doubles its figure.

In the end and once again, we can see that FTP is preferable (and by far) for copying files from NAS although on the precise condition that they each have a size of several megabytes (in fact, the bigger they are and the less there are, the better). In the opposite case, simply opt for SMB.

Finally, we simulated the breakdown of a drive by jerking out the connection during the copying of files to the NAS. We then copied the same file on the PC to verify its integrity. The good news is that this test went well for all models and there were no problems. Each system activated its warning system (a bop, email alert, then turning off.) once the Raid storage broke down. You will then have to replace the faulty unit and reconstruct the storage, something which is not always automatic with all models.

Gigabit, Jumbo frames

The interest of Gigabit

All of our tests were carried out in Gigabit ; however, does this interface really add a performance gain compared to Ethernet 10/100 Mbps ? To find out, we replaced our Gigabit switch by another 10/100 Mbps model and then re-launched our series of tests. We then obtained a clear answer to our question : yes, and without a doubt!


In 100 Mbps, the maximum theoretical speed is as high as 12.5 MB/s. This wasn’t entirely the case because the N5200BR Pro obtained 9.7 MB/s in writing just like the Qnap in reading.

The gain related to Gigabit then varies depending on the model and its performances : in writing from +21% (N4100+) to +220% (N5200BR Pro) which includes +49% (Synology) and +118% (Buffalo). In reading, of course the differences were even greater. If we put aside the N4100+ (+19%), the smallest gain was +112% (Buffalo)! This is followed by Synology (+187%), Qnap (+203%) and Thecus (+353%).

In short, given that the Gigabit is currently very widespread on motherboards, it’s entirely worth the money to invest in a switch of this type, for example, to replace the 10/100 Mbps plugs of your router.

Gigabit : the interest of jumbo frames

While looking at the advantages of the Gigabit network, we also wanted to see the advantage of jumbo frames because all of the NAS tested offer their support. What are jumbo frames? In an Ethernet network, files are not transmitted in blocks but rather cut up into standard size packets of 1500 bytes. The principle of jumbo frames is to user bigger packets in order to reduce the number of packets sent. For example, a packet of 9000 bytes equals six packets of 1500 bytes. This enables saving both processor power (less sending) and also in bandwidth because in the above example, because we only transmit a single Ethernet frame (therefore a single
header instead of six). This is only possible on a Gigabit network.

To benefit from this, of course the entire Ethernet chain must be configured with the same maximum size packets and obviously including the network cards as well as the switch. This is more and more the case, but not systematic. It’s all the more true that above 1500 bytes, packet sizes are not standardized at all. While the NAS tested here offer at least a size of 4 KB, with higher figures it is more variable:
– Thecus is limited to 7 KB on theN4100+ ;
– The N5200BR Pro offers sizes of 8, 12, and 16 KB ;
– Qnap and Buffalo propose 7 and 9 KB ;
– Synology features the whole range of sizes from 2 to 9 KB with increments of 1 KB.

We tested all the models in 4 KB then in 9 KB when possible, except for the N5200BR Pro which was in 8 KB. There was no result for the N4100+, because it systematically crashed a few minutes after the activation of jumbo frames.


It was with Qnap that jumbo frames gave the biggest advantage with gains from 20.8% and 23.1% in reading while Synology wasn’t unaffected with 7.7% and 18.6%. For Buffalo, on the other hand, results were strange. We sometimes noticed a drop in performances (9 KB in writing and 4 KB in reading), and sometimes a gain (+14.5% in reading/9 KB). Finally, for the Thecus N5200BR Pro, the use of jumbo frames resulted in an inexplicable drop in performances !

Simultaneous access, USB and eSATA

Interface : three simultaneous accesses

We wanted to know the behavior of NAS when several PCs simultaneous access data. This was done by launching the reading of the collection of large files from three different machines and with three of the most common levels of Raid (0/1/5). Copying was carried out four consecutive times without interruption. We discarded the two extreme measurements for each machine and kept two in order to assure that results were coherent and then added the transfer rates. Obviously, we were mainly testing network interface capacities as NAS loads data into RAM. Here are the results obtained:


On all NAS, we can see that transfers are often almost perfectly balanced between the three PCs. The exception is the Qnap which systematically favors one machine over the two others.

The best results were obtained by the Thecus N4100+ and Buffalo, because each machine has a transfer speed rather close to the one in measured in a single access. In Raid 5, the cumulative speed is actually 2.8X that of a single access for the former and 2.4X for the latter. However, overall remember that they are both the poorest in simple access.

Synology seems to already make the best use of its interface capacities because it gains only 15% in Raid 5 but it is still better than Qnap’s 7%. The N5200BR Pro has a speed multiplied by 1.7 in Raid 5 and which is almost doubled in Raid 0.

Additional USB and eSATA Interface storage

All the NAS tested here have USB or even eSATA ports whose main use is to accommodate external hard drives in order to increase storage capacity.

Recognized file systems are at least Fat32 and NTFS, in reading only for the latter. The only exception is the Buffalo which doesn’t support the reading of Fat32 drives and it has to first format them in XFS. Obviously, it will then no longer be recognized in Windows.

To test the transfer speed on USB/eSATA ports we used Enermax’s Jazz casing which, equipped with a Micron JM20336 controller, offers a double USB/eSATA interface. We inserted a Seagate 500 GB drive, identical to those present in the NAS.

The Qnap posed a few problems and it was impossible to finish any bench as the connection to the USB drive was systematically lost after a few seconds of copying. However, after having formatted the drive in Ext3 (a Linux file system) rather than in Fat32, the problem disappeared. Obviously, there is the same compatibility problem as before.

Finally, copying the collection of large files proved to be impossible on the Thecus N4100+. The unit apparently didn’t recognize other file systems on its USB ports, and we couldn't find another way to run this test.


It is interesting to note that it is sometimes faster to write on an USB drive than on Raid 5 volume! This is especially true for Qnap, as well as for the collection of small files with Buffalo and Synology. The regularity of transfers, however, is sometimes affected as Qnap and Thecus are slower in the writing of large files than in that of medium size files.

Besides these particular cases, performances are between 9% and 30% inferior to Raid 5. In addition, we noticed that using the eSATA interface enables increasing performances by almost 50% on the N5200BR Pro !


In reading, the impact of processors integrated to NAS is less felt. In general, the difference is greater than with performances measured in Raid 5 (overall from 20% to 45%). The exception is the N5200BR Pro which is particularly efficient. The advantage of eSATA is still there but is considerably reduced.

USB keys and memory cards

We also tested NAS’ proper identification of various peripherals which we had in the office: two USB keys (an Intuix and generic model) and a Connectland multi-format memory card reader.

The keys were generally well recognized, although there were two exceptions. The names of files were cut off with the Buffalo NAS for the generic model while the Intuix key was seen as non-formatted with the Qnap. Also, note that because they were formatted in Fat32, the keys were only accessible in reading with the Terastation…

The memory card reader was not recognized by the Thecus NAS while the Buffalo and Qnap gave access to the first card inserted. As for Synology, it created a storage space for each memory card!

The USB peripheral download function offered by the N5200BR Pro and Qnap function well. After pressing the dedicated button on the face of the NAS, the system creates a new repertory and copies the totality of the USB peripheral’s stocked data. It is especially with the Qnap that this option is the most interesting because, in addition to offering a few supplementary copying options, it recognized our multi-card reader (unlike the Thecus models). This is practical for downloading the contents of a digital camera without turning on your PC.

You may recall that it is also possible to connect a printer on the USB ports for sharing amongst all the PCs on the network. However, this isn’t without its disadvantages. You no longer have access to the scanner on multi-function models and other options in the driver such as the ink level are no longer available.

Sound levels, temp., consumption

Too noisy for the living room

Here are sound levels measured with a probe placed 20 cm from each NAS.


All are more or less the same except the Thecus N5200 Pro, which is noticeably louder with its three fans.

During drive access, sound levels do not increase dramatically because NAS fans cover the noise of those in the drives. Either way, the Synology is the most discreet.

We should point out here that Qnap allows manually setting the fan speed. There are three settings:

– Low : 43.5 dB ;
– Medium : 45.6 dB ;
– High : 48.2 dB.

Whatever the case, the noise produced by the NAS tested here remains too loud for our ears. Despite the attractive design of some units, we would still avoid placing them in the living room next to a Media Center. Also, we would not enclose them in a cabinet because while drive temperatures are still reasonable (as we will see below) this is on the condition that they are used in a well ventilated area.

Reasonable temperatures

With the help of a four sensor Voltcraft K204, we simultaneously measured the temperature of the four drives after one hour of intensive use in Iometer. The sensors were placed on the top and middle part of the drives. This isn’t the hottest area but it was the only point that we could take measurements in the same place on all NAS. For the record, when the NAS displayed the reading from its SMART sensors in the Qnap and Synology drives, they were roughly 2° higher than our thermometer.


The first thing that struck us was that temperatures remained very reasonable whatever the situation. None surpassed the 50° mark (and most often we are very far from this figure).

The N4100+ is the least well ventilated of all. This is only normal because in addition to being one of the smallest, it directly integrates its power block. This is also the case of the N5200BR Pro, but with a bigger casing (and an empty fifth slot in our tests), it has more efficient ventilation. However, despite all of this the temperature of its drives is still superior to that of the third casing with an integrated power block, the Buffalo Terastation Live. While this NAS is the most imposing of all with a height of 30 cm, its ventilation is very efficient.

The two units that have external power supplies naturally and despite their small size offer excellent thermal dissipation. With its honeycomb face, the Qnap has an advantage over Synology whose intakes are only found on the top and bottom of the facade. Therefore, its hard drives are a few degrees warmer, except the one on the bottom as it benefits from the largest air flow.

Consumption

We measured NAS consumption at the power outlet with the help of an ammeter at rest and in drive access.


Unsurprisingly, the Thecus N5200BR Pro proves to be the highest in energy use (measurement with 4 drives) as its Celeron M it is more demanding than the circuitry of rival systems. More surprising is the high figures of the N4100+ while the three others are more or less the same.

All except Buffalo offer a sleep mode with a time delay that can be set (includes USB drives with Synology). The only thing is that it isn’t an exact science and is sometimes difficult to activate this option. Thecus even says in its manual : services that scan the content of drives can prevent spin-down. And in fact, it was impossible for us to put the machines in sleep.

But to be honest, we didn’t insist either. In our opinion, a sleep mode should function easily, independently of services that are (or aren’t) functioning in the background (if not, what’s the interest ?!). For the record, note that Qnap announces a low consumption of 18.8 W in sleep versus 13.4 W for Synology. Thecus does not mention any figures.

On the other hand, the N5200BR Pro and N4100+ are the only ones to offer a start up planner, which, in our opinion, is indispensable. For each week day you can set the times the NAS will be on, for example, from 6pm to 2am on weekdays and 24 hrs on the weekend. If you do not use services which require permanent availability (unlike hosting a website) this energy economical solution is better than a sleep mode and at least it works every time.

Multimedia servers

Multimedia servers

In an ideal world, NAS will not only be a central server for all the computers in homes but also for all the digital devices which read multimedia content: game consoles, DVD/Divx players, Hifi systems, audio/video amplifiers, digital photo frames, LCD televisions, etc.

We aren’t there yet, but we are making large strides in this direction. This is thanks to the DLNA (Digital Living Network Alliance), which has no less than 245 members including computer component and consumer electronics manufacturers, software companies, etc. All the major players are responding to the call. The goal is to establish a communication standard between the different electronic and computer devices in order that they are able to communicate with each other in an autonomous manner. For example, a DVD/Divx player should be capable of connecting to the NAS and directly read content entirely eliminating the need for a PC.

On the technical level, the peripheral storing the multi-media files should run a DLNA server which sends data to clients that are connected. The system relies on UPNP A/V (Universal Plug and Play Audio/Video) protocol.

The DLNA delivers a certification for all compatible products. Except Synology’s CS-407, all the NAS tested here have this, some via an installed multi-media server:
– Twonkyvision for Qnap ;
– Mediabolic’s (acquired by Macrovision) server for Buffalo and Thecus.

The absence of certification does not necessarily signify that Synology’s multi-media server is not compatible with DLNA players. Moreover, you can find a rather large compatibility list at Synology.

So concerning compatible players, what are the exact products? For audio/video, we find almost all DVD/Divx players equipped with a network connection, most medialinks such as Pinnacle’s Showcenter, or game consoles like the Playstation 3 or Xbox 360. As for exclusively audio players, the list is larger: dedicated players (the Noxon series from Teractec, Logitech’s Squeezebox, Pinnacle’s Roku, etc.), Hifi systems (notably Philips’ Streamium), audio/video amplifiers (notably with Denon), etc.

That’s it for the theoretical side, but what about in practice? We have mixed feelings on the subject. The problem is especially in terms of the user interface and simplicity of use, especially for video. Basically, the server sends file lists to the client who has the responsibility of structuring them. Many players do not make an effort in this area and provide file lists that are very incomprehensible and in which it is frustrating to navigate. Let’s just say that we sometimes approach zero user friendliness with entry level DVD/Divx players. While this isn’t too bothersome in navigation when looking through several films burned on a DVD, it does become complicated to find small ones on a NAS composed of several Terabytes!

Here are two examples of the interfaces you may encounter. The first with a blue background represents the bare minimum: if there are too many, files are left off the page and navigation becomes a real task. On the second, the player displays a slightly more elaborated interface while it limits the number of files per page.


The only thing is that user friendliness of the player does not just encumber the client, because instead of simple file lists, for example, the server can also send web pages. This is the case of the Mediabolic server in the Terastation Live, which thus offers much more user friendliness than the others and this regardless of the player.


Twonkyvision, the UPNP/DLNA server integrated to the Qnap (but also available separately), also enables improving user ergonomics especially for audio files. More specifically, you can define for yourself the classification of tracks based on ID3 tags (for example, Genre, then Artist, then Album) and regroup some categories by multiple initials (ABC, DEF, GHI, etc.). This may appear minor; however, with a MP3 library of several thousand files, you can save a lot of time. The system also functions with photos and videos but the latter do not have as large an ID3 tag and so the possibilities for personalization are significantly less.



Here is a non-exhaustive list of the various types of files recognized by each server.


Concerning the management of sub-titles by Thecus servers, it’s something we could not evaluate. In fact, we started some tests with a Pinnacle Showcenter 200 player and while it is entirely capable of this function, it seems this is only when they are sent by Pinnacle’s own program server. We realized this when subsequently testing the Terastation Live which we knew otherwise is capable of managing sub-titles. As sub-titles did not always appear, we then replaced the Pinnacle with a generic DVD/Divx player (on-hand in our offices and equipped with a Sigma Designs EM8620L circuit); however, we couldn’t do this with the Thecus systems as they were already gone.

In addition, you should know that testing the recognition of files is not easy. This is because you have to determine what is handled by the server and not the player, and then what the player recognizes and not the server. For this reason, the above table is not exhaustive.

It did however enable us to find the audio/video formats that are the most commonly supported: movies in Avi (Divx) and Mpegs as well as music in MP3/WMA. Those who are fans of original version movies will be happy with the Synology which recognizes – and this is quite a feat – all current sub-title formats. On the other hand, this same function is and has been the Achilles heel of Twonkyvision (Qnap), which offers no support whatsoever. Buffalo is limited to SRT, which is the most widespread (by far) and it should be sufficient.


Finally, except the N5200BR Pro, all the NAS tested here have integrated an iTunes server. When launching this eponymous program on one of the network’s computers, it can then access the music library stored in the Nas.

Web servers

Web servers

All the NAS tested integrate a web server, generally Apache, which at least manages the machines configuration tool Qnap and Synology go even further and provide the hosting of your own dynamic sites in PHP/MySQL : blogs, forums, Intranet site, personal site web page, etc.

Here are the installed applications:


In order to have an idea of the performances of NAS as a web hosting platform, we outfitted ourselves with two scripts:
– the « Free PHP Benchmark Script » from the site Free Web Hosting measures the execution time of a group of mathematical functions in PHP ;
– With a script of our making, we simply measured the execution time of the following SQL request: « BENCHMARK(1000000,encode("bonjour","au revoir")) ».

Of course, these scripts do not in any way enable us to carry out an extensive test of server performances (there are special applications for this), but this was not our goal.

As a reference, we have included the results obtained with a PC equipped with a P4 at 2.4 GHz/2 GB DDR, in Windows XP and with Wamp 2.0. This was in conditions that were far from those usually found in the test lab because this is the PC which we use to write this article (numerous programs open at the same time, no particular optimization, etc.). But once again, the goal was simply to have a reference to compare the results obtained with NAS.


As we thought, NAS performances are very far from those of the PC’s and more surprisingly are very different from one another. The SQL request was three times as slow with Qnap but the execution of PHP code was twice as fast.

How do we interpret these results and what do they mean in practice? To have a better idea, we installed a web site with a PHPBB 2.0 forum of reasonable size (2000 members, 90,000 messages). The conclusion is that the Qnap does the best. Navigation in pages isn’t instantaneous and is preceded by a small delay, but this is noticeably shorter than that of the Synology. Of course, this essentially depends on the distribution of the load of MySQL requests and PHP code, but this behavior should nevertheless be quite representative.

In addition, Qnap offers the possibility of editing the PHP.ini file in the configuration interface. With Synology, you must activate the Telnet/SSH connection and then connect to the command line interface, in order to access the same file.

Perfs in RAID 0, 1

Performances in Raid 0

Now we give you an idea of performances in Raid 0, if you must use NAS in this mode despite the risks.


Compared to Raid 5, the performances gain in terms of sustained speeds varies from 10.9% (Thecus N5200BR Pro in SMB) to 50% (Thecus N4100+ Pro in FTP). In fact, the slower the processor (and therefore the more it struggles to calculate Raid 5 parity), the bigger the gain when there is no special calculation to carry out before writing data.

As for overall rankings, they remain unchanged compared to Raid 5.


In reading, things are even more positive for the N4100+ whose speeds literally explode compared to Raid 5. Buffalo, on the other hand, still suffers from the same strange problem in reading/SMB because here performances are lower than those measured in writing! For this reason, it even finishes behind the N4100+.

Overall, the fact that the processor comes into play much less in the reading of data results in a smoothing out of performances: Qnap, Synology and Thecus’ N5200BR Pro are thus grouped together. We also can see that the performances of this same N5200BR Pro do not really increase compared to those measured in Raid 5 (+3.6% and +1.5%), confirming that the limit is no longer due to the calculation of parity.

For the others, we sometimes gain more than 30% in FTP reading (Buffalo, Synology) and between 14.3% (Qnap) and 18.6% (Synology) in SMB.

Performances in Raid 1

For these tests, we created a Raid 1 storage of two drives.


Once again we find the same overall ranking as in other modes: the N4100+ is last, the N5200BR Pro in first and then a pack of Qnap in last and Buffalo and Synology neck and neck.

While performances are better overall than in Raid 5, they aren’t as high as in Raid 0. There is between an 8.1% (Buffalo) and 38.5% (still the N4100+) gain.

The Thecus N5200BR Pro is the exception because it has lower performances than in Raid 5. In the end, this is only logical because Raid 5 storage shares the data between several drives while Raid 1 duplicates it. Quite simply, with the other machines, the time spent calculating parity reduces the gain coming from the distribution of data on several drives.


Once again, the N4100+ finishes ahead of the Buffalo whose performances in reading/SMB are unexplainably lower than in writing: strange ! And as usual, the situation goes back to normal in FTP.

Just like in Raid 0, the Qnap, Synology and 5200BR Pro finish neck and neck.

Perfs in RAID 6, 10

Performances in Raid 6

We finish with a few tests of Raid levels that are less often an option.


In Raid 6, the first thing that jumps to our attention is a loss of performances in writing compared to Raid 5. This is roughly 5% for Thecus/SMB and even as high as 19% for the Qnap/SMB! In FTP, it really shows on the Thecus because the loss is 16% versus -14% for Qnap.

In reading, performances are equivalent with minimal differences (1%), sometimes more, sometimes a bit less.

In short, if you want security for a two drive breakdown, consider the possibility of creating a spare Raid 5 + storage instead of Raid 6. Performances will be higher and the security almost identical. We say ‘’almost’’ because, in the case of a hard drive breakdown, the system is no longer protected for roughly ten hours or the time that the spare drive is initialized and integrated to storage.

At any rate, the security is there and we repeated the same test procedure as in Raid 5 although this time unplugging two drives. We had no problems to report for any system.

Performances in Raid 10

The above conclusion is also valid for Raid 10. If we gain in reading (up to+6.8%), it’s largely insufficient in compensating for the losses in writing (up to 16%). This does not include the fact that there is not exactly the security for a two drive failure because when it happens in the same sub-volume, all data is lost.

Buffalo Terastation Live

Buffalo Terastation Live

Long time absent from the market in France but very popular in Japan and the US, the Japanese manufacturer Buffalo finally made it. With its Terastation that was announced at the end of 2004, this company was one of the first to fill the NAS Raid 5 slot for home use. The line rapidly evolved with a Pro model and then with the addition of the Terastation Live and Pro II to their catalogue. The difference between these two last models is in the Pro II’s Active Directory support while the Live, more for home use, allows sharing a printer and integrates a PCast multi-media server.


While previously they showed the way for the competition, Buffalo seems a bit behind today. It’s true that the Terastation Live does seem like the most austere of the bunch. Its gray and imposing casing lacks class, the interface hasn’t been translated into French, no special function really differentiates it from the others, and on the contrary, it even lacks a few of the current popular ones (download manager, notably). In short, we get the impression that they have been a bit surpassed competition that has been very dynamic!

Installation and start up

It’s also the only product equipped with drives, which enables Buffalo to offer a very competitive cost per gigabyte for low capacities (notably, the 1 TB model).

On the other hand, nothing is planned for its evolution. While it’s obviously possible to replace all the drives for higher capacity models, the operation is apparently not too anticipated by the manufacturer. Actually, this requires a specific procedure, detailed in the Wiki dedicated to NAS Buffalo, otherwise you may not have a functional machine after the replacement of drives.

This is a replacement which moreover is carried out very easily. Although drives hot plugging/unplugging is not an option, the tray insertion system is quite similar to that of Hotswap machines. In addition, a door allows blocking access to units to avoid a possible accidental removal.

Once turned on, the very practical LCD screen displays the connection speed, how much drives are full, and especially among other things, the IP address assigned to NAS !

In use

What the Terastation Live loses in discretion with its 31 cm high casing, it gains in cooling efficiency. Its fan is 92 mm and thermoregulated enabling the drives to function at very reasonable temperatures. Unfortunately, there is just the startup timer that is missing, which however was present in the first Terastation. This is all the more a downside given that it isn’t compensated for by a hard drive sleep function.

First contact with the configuration interface revealed two slight disappointments: loading pages is slow and menus are only available in English. If the possibility of only one language isn’t a barrier, menus are also clear and well organized. In addition, an on-line help – rather basic but always welcome – defines each option available on the page.

The system is supposed to be able to send email when certain things occur (drive failure, overheating, fan breakdown, etc.) but in a rather surprising way because its mail client does not support SMTP privileges! You therefore will have to have access to a mail server which does not ask for a login/password for its use.

Performance/price ratio

In terms of performances, the capabilities offered by Buffalo are satisfactory because the Terastation Live generally finishes neck and neck with the Synology CS-407. However, this is except in the case of reading files in SMB where performances are at best equal to those in writing and at worst slightly inferior. This behavior systematically observed in all our tests is all the more strange that the same limit is not seen in FTP.

Given that Buffalo is still rather hard to find in France, the competition isn’t helping to lower its price. The only thing is that as we already mentioned the 1 TB model can be a real deal. Sometimes seen for less than 600 € taxes included, it is less expensive than rival products that are empty! For professional use or if the various other options offered by the competition (potential drive evolution, download management, energy saving options, web server, Telnet/SSH access, etc.) do not interest you, it could be a good choice.

Otherwise, if you like to tinker in this domain and have no fear of the Linux command line interface, you can find the activation procedure for Telnet service on this site. Once done, you will then have the power to personalize the Terastation Live by adding the desired missing functions.

We liked :
– satisfactory performances in writing and FTP ;
– efficient cooling ;
– LCD screen ;
– the price of the 1 TB version.

We didn’t like :
– performances in reading/SMB ;
– the missing startup timer;
– the rather austere look ;
– impossible to write on a FAT32 drive in USB ;
– no hotswap ;
– the price of the other versions !

Qnap TS-409 Pro

Qnap TS-409 Pro

Based in Taiwan, Qnap is one of several manufacturers specialized in home network storage. It has just renewed the essentials of its line with the TS-109, TS-209 and TS-409 Pro, the first number obviously being the number of drives it can take. We tested the TS-409 Pro, of which there is another more economical version simply called the TS-409. It doesn’t support NFS protocol or Microsoft’s Active Directory ; however, performances on the other hand are identical because the material configuration does not change. A new arrival on the French market, Qnap has the very clear intention of rivaling Synology.


Based on a Marvell 5281 processor at 500 MHz (moreover, like the Synology CS407), the TS-409 Pro integrates 256 MB of RAM and 8 MB of flash memory. It’s the most recent product in our survey and one of the most complete with a particularly vast functions panel. We especially liked the possibility of starting with the installation of a single drive and, without the loss of data, progressively increasing the number of units by creating Raid 1 or Raid 5 storage on the fly. Its download management is also the only one which currently enables setting the sharing of Bittorrent files (seeds) while we additionally have advanced control of hard drives. The latter notably allows programming periodic verification of drives, displaying complete information on SMART, and even controlling temperature with an email alert being sent!

The multimedia server, the famous Twonkyvision, is moreover the only one to offer the possibility for the personalization in the display of file listings. In addition, Qnap announces compatibility with Playstation 3, PSP, and Xbox 360 consoles or even the Nokia N95.

The TS-409 Pro is very clearly trying to compete with the Synology CS-407, with which it shares the same essential characteristics: Web PHP/MySQL server, photo servers, Blog, secure FTP server (SSL/TLS), Telnet/SSH access, etc.

Installation and start up

The installation of drives is not as easy as with Thecus’ NAS, for example, and pulling out the tray necessitates unscrewing two plugs. On the other hand, the advantage is that the minimalist design of the trays enables excellent ventilation. Combined with its honeycomb face, this gives the Qnap the best thermal dissipation of all systems and despite the small size of its casing. You might find the look less attractive than the Thecus or Synology (with good reason), but either way it’s not intended to show off.


Initialization of the machine requires the installation of software provided by Qnap to transfer the firmware. This is the time to directly proceed with setting a few essentials parameters (notably the IP address, network configuration and administrator password) which will help in startup.

In use

If we disregard the main icons being a bit vague, the configuration interface is a perfect model of its type. Each option is very explicitly presented and if there is any doubt, a click on the help button displays sufficiently detailed contextual aid. While we might prefer Synology’s Ajax interface, the advantage here is its speed!

Overall, for each function, the TS-409 Pro often has the most options : limit for the number of FTP connections (maximum and by user account), re-initialization of the MySQL password, editing the PHP.ini file, definition of system temperature limits to change the fan speed, parameters in the download of USB peripherals, etc. The amount of detail is sometimes impressive.

The TS-409 Pro also integrates a service called multi-media Station which gives you access to multimedia content in storage via a web interface. The system proved to be particularly efficient for photos. After having transferred them to a specific folder and to as many sub-folders as desired, the service automatically creates vignettes and web pages dedicated to each image. These display the photo’s Exif info, a possible description by the photographer and also allow zooming, saving, printing, or slide shows, etc.


You can give users different access rights per album or allow complete access for all visitors (however, synchronization with users defined in the NAS isn’t possible). In short, it’s a particularly interesting system for sharing family photos, for example, without having to upload them on the many special on-line services. Finally, there is the lack of the possibility for visitors to comment on images.

As for video and audio files, contrary to what we might think, the system doesn’t offer anything special. Without going as far as encoding video in Flash as the Synology does (poorly), it would have been easy to integrate an MP3 player in Flash, for example (moreover, Buffalo offers this in its web file access interface).

Unlike, the similar service proposed by Synology, the multimedia station does not integrate a blog manager. On the other hand, the famous system manager of Joomla sites is preinstalled in its 1.5 version. You will have to activate it at the same time as the web PHP/MySQL service.

Performance/price ratio

The performances of the TS-409 Pro are excellent in reading because they are practically at the level of the Thecus N5200BR Pro, the uncontested reference in this domain. On the other hand, a small disappointment in writing where it doesn’t manage to surpass its competitors, Synology and Buffalo. The Raid 6 mode can be interesting, but it means a significant loss of performances compared to Raid 5. If you really want two drive breakdown security, consider the Raid 5 + spare option.

Quite new, the TS-409 Pro is still a bit expensive at 699 € (taxes included) versus 649 € for the non-Pro version. The latter suffices for non-professional use but we are still close to 150 € more than its direct competitor Synology which of course has been available longer and with more retailers.

In the end, while we had never tested a Qnap product, we were very much impressed by this model which we found of particularly high quality. Finishing touches are excellent and on almost all levels this manufacturer’s attempt at producing a serious alternative to Synology was a success. Now the only thing to do is wait and hope for a quick price reduction!

We liked:
– Raid migration functions: we can start with a single drive!
– one of the most complete ;
– reading performances ;
– configuration interface and the number of options offered ;
– drive monitoring functions ;
– cooling;
– the USB download function;
– Twonkyvision personalization possibilities.

We didn’t like :
– writing performances;
– Raid 6 performances;
– MySQL performances;
– problems with the management of Fat32 drives ;
– Twonkyvision does not offer sub-title support.

Synology CS-407

Synology CS-407

Created in 2000, Synology is a reference for NAS on the French market. Not only was the Taiwanese company one of the first to arrive, but in addition, it has excellent products and uncommonly efficient client support. The manufacturer actually has the same software base on almost each product from the beginning. For this reason, functions developed on new models almost always benefit older NAS owners via rather regular firmware evolutions.


The last update (version 0571) which is currently only available in its beta version will thus serve the entire line from the DS-101j (more than two years old) to the CS407 tested here. And this is for the best, because there has been a major evolution. Besides numerous supplementary functions, the update will completely change the interface of NAS management. With its attractive look and JavaScript (in the end we would have to say Ajax to be entirely correct), the configuration utility is the one that has the best ergonomics of all NAS tested.

As for new functions, there is notably activation of Telnet/SSH service, FTP SSL/TLS encrypting, NFS protocol management, Playstation 3 compatibility with the multimedia server, update of various applications (MySQL 5.0.51, Photo station 3, Audio Station…), the possibility for the expansion of a Raid 5 storage of three to four drives, management of encrypted backups and HTTPS privileges, and secured SMTP servers (SSL).

Also, there is the addition of a Surveillance Station that looks very promising. This application offers to manage the IP cameras on your network by notably allowing direct recording on Raid storage. A recording planner is available while the CS407 gives access to the main parameters of IP cameras such as resolution, image rate, movement detection zone, etc. For the moment, the list of recognized cameras is rather limited and Synology announces support of Axis (207, 207W, 210, 211, 212 PTZ), Panasonic (BL-C1, BL-C111, BL-C131, BL-C20, BL-C30, BB-HCM311, BB-HCM331, BB-HCM403, BB-HCM581) and D-Link models (DCS-900).

Note that the application is still in its beta state and the manufacturer is studying the possibility of payment for the management of several cameras in the final version. We didn’t test this function due to the fact we didn’t have a compatible camera during tests.

Another specific characteristic of the Synology CS407 is that it supports USB speakers. What is the point, you may ask? So that it can play music stored in the NAS or coming from an internet radio station or even an IPod connected on the other USB port. In practice, reading is controlled via the Audio Station program accessible via a Web navigator. We then select among the indexed playlists on the system the one we want to play.

As an added bonus, Synology combines its Audio Station with a Synology Remote (an option for around 35 € taxes included). Via radio waves, you can select the file source (raid, radio, IPod), play/stop, navigate through different playlists and control the volume. It may seem like nothing, but without a remote, all of this would normally have to be done by connecting to the Audio Station interface. And this is something we would gladly avoid, for example , when quickly needing to lower to volume to answer the phone.

The remote does not enable entirely doing without the interface, because it only allows reading the playlist selected by default for each source. But it is true that without an LCD monitor on the CS407, it’s difficult to do otherwise. Also, note that the radio antenna uses a USB port and with the speakers connected to the other, it is no longer possible to plug in a hard drive or IPod.

Installation and start up

The CS407 is the only NAS in our survey which you have to open to install drives. This does not mean that the operation is complicated. After taking out the two pegs on the back, you just have to lift the cover off for access to the 3.5 inch slots. Of course, this also means that this model does not support the change of drives in hotswap ; however, unless your installation is affected by any interruption of service when changing drives, it is not a handicap.

On the other hand, it does have an effect on cooling. When all of its rivals have a face that is considerably open with drive tray systems, that of the Synology is closed with exception to a few openings on the top and bottom. For this reason, the middle drives are 4° to 5° hotter than with the Qnap, for example. Either way, overall we are still at a very reasonable level of only 31.5°.

In use

We already mentioned the excellent user interface and there is on-line help. Each service has overall essential configuration options (except Bittorent seed options!). It’s unfortunate that the new Raid storage expansion function isn’t more flexible and we would have liked to have started with one or two drives like with the TS-409 or N5200BR Pro.

Following the example of Qnap and its Station Multimedia, Synology proposes the Photo Station 3 + Video. The idea is the same where we transfer photos to a specific folder and the system takes care of creating Web pages which you can then consult. You can thus add comments, consult various Exif information, and carry out rotation, in addition to defining different access rights per user and album.

Synology’s system also manages video but it’s not as serious. We tried it out with a short Divx and besides the overly long conversion to Flash, there was a lack of fluidity. Moreover, we were disappointed that nothing was included for the playing of audio files. Finally, a rather efficient and engaging blog system is also offered.

Performance/price ratio

Performances are very good. This NAS is behind Buffalo and ahead of Qnap in writing, and it is only slightly surpassed by Qnap and the Thecus N5200BR Pro in reading. You may recall that it is equipped with a very good Marvell 5281 processor at 500 MHz and aided by 128 MB of RAM. This is similar to Qnap but with only 256 MB of RAM. Be careful you do not confuse it with the CS407e, a more economical version, equipped with a Freescale MPC8241 at 266 MHz and only 64 MB of RAM. If you do make this mistake, you will see that performances are not quite the same! We didn’t test it but Synology announces for a Raid 5 storage -34% (SMB) and -45% (FTP) in writing as well as -22% (SMB) and -32% (FTP) in reading.

Given that the CS407 has already been available for months now, it can found rather easily and in addition for the very competitive price of around 500€ (taxes included) if not for less. It therefore has the best performance/price ratio of this survey and by far. Also, there are regular and quality firmware updates with the addition of new functions almost a year after its release!

We liked :
– the quality/price ratio ;
– performances ;
– configuration interface ;
– the support of USB speakers and remote ;
– IP camera management ;
– the management of sub-titles by the media server ;
– the recent addition of new functions.

We didn’t like :
– the very limited Raid migration possibilities ;
– trays for drives ;
– no hotswap ;
– cooling isn’t optimal ;
– server PHP/MySQL performances are barely enough.

Thecus N4100+

Thecus N4100+

Founded in 2004, the Taiwanese company Thecus has become a specialist in SOHO storage solutions. The N4100+ essentially represented a software evolution of the older N4100 (released in 2005). It remains the only 4 bay NAS from this manufacturer in their catalogue; however, it is obvious that the current star is the 5 bay N5200BR Pro. If this N4100+ is still on sale for an increasingly attractive price (less than 500 € taxes included), in terms of performances it doesn’t have much in common with the flagship N5200BR Pro. In fact, the machine is only equipped by an Intel Xscale processor at 600 MHz (reference number IOP 80219) and aided by 128 MB of RAM. This combination has nothing exceptional and performances today aren’t overly impressive.


Despite all of this, there is a complete control panel and the system is up to par (at least on paper) with what other models offer that have since been released. It even has a few exclusive functions such as the presence of a double Gigabit network interface enabling the relay of the machine to two distinct networks. On the other hand, contrary to the N5200B Pro, the N4100+ does not allow using them as an aggregation of links (802.3ad). We also like the possibility of plugging in a USB Wi-Fi key (compatibility list in the manual) to transform the N4100+ into an 802.11g access point. Obviously, even if the transfer rates will be much less, it can always serve as a backup.

Installation and startup

Elegant and discreet, the N4100+ has very nice finishing touches. The installation system of the hard drives functions perfectly to such a point that Thecus reused it in the N5200BR Pro. The trays upon which the drives are fixed with the help of the four screws provided fit no problem and fit nicely after closing the front door latch. There is also the option of locking each drive in to avoid any accidental withdrawal. Obviously, the system supports Hotswap which enables changing a defective drive without interruption of service.


The cramped size of the casing does not facilitate the cooling of drives and despite the presence of a 92 mm fan, it has the highest temperature in use of this survey. The power source situated in the bottom of the casing also has a 40 mm fan. For this reason, if the sound level is below that measured on the N5200 Pro (3 fans), the N4100+ isn’t much more silent.

In use

The system’s configuration interface isn’t really an exemplary model. There is no online help and its organization is a bit odd at times. These are defects we also find on the N5200BR Pro and which we have to get used to. Fortunately, this isn’t too difficult.

Once this is done, we find a multitude of rather rich functions with notably a startup planner (by day of the week) and the possibility to choose the size of the Raid bandwidth (64 KB by default which was used in this test).

Specificity of Thecus, there is a module manager which allows installing applications developed by the user community. These are fewer in number than for the N5200 series but nonetheless worth some attention. There are alternative multimedia servers (Firefly, Geekbox), P2P clients (MLDonkey), SSH access, improvement of FTP, etc. Note that Thecus offers three « official » extensions on its own: those allowing installing the printer server, DLNA multimedia server, as well as downloading services (Bittorent, HTTP and FTP). While the last enables specifying time periods for download, you cannot personalize the ports used. In addition, Thecus has a module which allows you to activate compatibility with NFS protocol but this cannot be installed. Perhaps it’s an error.

And by the way, you may recall that we encountered a few stability problems when we were measuring performances. The machine systematically crashed with the activation of jumbo frames, while it was impossible to transfer large files (1 GB) on USB storage. Luckily, these problems did not affect «standard» use of the machine: Raid 5, Ethernet packets of 1500 bytes, and the transfer of data on internal drives.

Performance/price ratio

In the end, the main problem of the N4100+ is that now there is now a rival sized Synology CS-407. Commercialized in the same price range, the latter offers as many (or more) functions, better ergonomics, and especially significantly higher performances.

We liked :
– the two Gigabit ports ;
– the module manager;
– the price.

We didn’t like :
– performances !
– sometimes unstable ;
– the configuration interface could be improved;
– temperature of drives;
– no setting of quotas.

Thecus N5200BR Pro

Thecus N5200BR Pro

It has the highest performances of all! In writing speeds, the Thecus N5200BR Pro easily dominates all of its rivals. It owes these excellent results to its processor, a Celeron M ULV at 1.5 GHz aided by 512 MB of DDR memory whose performances obviously have nothing in common with those of the circuits used by the competition. We thus obtained a high of more than 30 MB/s in SMB on a Raid 5 storage which is twice as fast as the scores of the closest contender (14,1 MB/s) in sustained speed! With small files, we found a difference of 3.4 times (5.5 MB/s) the next closest one (1.6 MB/s). The advantage is less in reading and Qnap and Synology were often right on its heels although it was still the leader.


It’s also the only model with which you can install 5 hard drives. In addition, there is very practical Raid migration function where you can install only two drives in the beginning (for example). This enables to notably limit the starting costs by spreading out the purchase of hard drives. Finally, the more experienced will have the possibility of setting the size of the Raid storage bandwidth. For this test, we left it at the default value of 64 KB.

Definitely in the high end, the N5200BR Pro integrates a vast panel of exclusive functions :
– the back is equipped with a 4 port Gigabit switch in addition to a Wan port. This can serve in extending storage space of the existing network or to relay the machine to a second network by giving it a second IP address;
– the screen on the front is completed with command buttons for the control of downloading a USB peripheral on the front or to access basic NAS settings (IP addresses, administrator passwords, reset) ;
– equipped with a USB Wi-Fi key (compatibility list offered by Thecus in the owner’s manual), the NAS can be connected to a wireless network or even better serve as an 802.11g access point;
– Wake-on-LAN ;
– an eSATA port enabling the connection of external storage devices with better performances than with USB ;
– it’s possible to reserve a Raid space to create storage accessible in USB or iSCSI. As the below graph shows, performances are mediocre in the first case and excellent in the second.