Miscellaneous Aspects and Concluding Remarks

Low power consumption and the ability to keep the drives cool under stress are some of the desirable characteristics of file servers. In order to evaluate this aspect, we subject the system with Windows Storage Server 2012 R2 to a stability test using AIDA64. For stressing the disks (storage spaces volume using the drive bays), we used Microsoft's DiskIO with the pre-defined worst-case SATA patterns issued randomly with verification.

We find that the CPU doesn't throttle and the cores stabilize around 87 C, with the motherboard at 75 C. During this process, we also recorded power consumption at the wall. We found that the maximum power consumption was around 70 W, while the idling power consumption was around 38 W.

The ASRock Rack C2750D4I with the U-NAS NSC-800 is the first of three file servers that we have evaluated with Ubuntu 14.04 and Windows Storage Server 2012 R2. While the Phoronix Test Suite benchmarks have been chosen for their relevant to file server workloads, it appears that the SPEC SFS 2014 benchmarks do not bring out what people use the Storage Spaces feature for. We are still optimizing the testbed for SPEC SFS 2014, and we do have plans to evaluate other NAS OSes used in DIY builds using the same approach.

Coming to the business end of the review, we have two things to discuss. The ASRock Rack C2750D4I is almost the ideal motherboard for power users wanting to build a dedicated low-power file server or NAS. Native USB 3.0 support would have been nice, but a add-on card solution is not a bad one for those desiring high-speed external I/O. Other than that, there is not much to complain - The layout of the motherboard's SATA ports ensure that most of the disks can talk at full speed to the Avoton SoC. This becomes an issue only if one decides to take maximum advantage by utilizing all the SATA ports on the board. However, in our evaluation scenario, as the platform for a 8-bay file server, it fit in perfectly.

This brings us to the second aspect - the 8-bay U-NAS NSC-800. There are plenty of storage-focused chassis designs to choose from. In fact, the Silverstone DS380 is an excellent choice for those looking to install the motherboard in a flexible system. On the other hand, the NSC-800 brings in the compactness factor into the equation. Simply put, it is not possible to get a 8-bay NAS chassis smaller than the NSC-800. Any smaller, and a mini-ITX board with a single-slot PCIe card is not going to fit in. Even though U-NAS tries its best to make cabling easier by providing the SATA cables in a bundle from the backplane, installing the motherboard in such a cramped space is definitely a challenge.

The build presented in this review has a diskless cost of around USD 845 - a completely reasonable number given that the unit contains 8GB of ECC RAM. A look at the prices of commercial off-the-shelf diskless file servers based on Avoton make the DIY approach very attractive.

NAS Performance - SPEC SFS 2014
Comments Locked

48 Comments

View All Comments

  • ethebubbeth - Monday, August 10, 2015 - link

    Your proposed setup does not support ECC memory, which is essential for any sort of software RAID style configuration. The system in the article does. I would not want to run a NAS without ECC memory unless I were using a hardware RAID card with cache battery backup.
  • brbubba - Monday, August 10, 2015 - link

    This system is quite capable of running Plex transcoding, check the cpu benchmark scores. If you want even more power grab a E3C226D2I and throw in an i7.
  • HideOut - Monday, August 10, 2015 - link

    All this power an d still USB 2.0 ?
  • DanNeely - Monday, August 10, 2015 - link

    It's a 2013 SoC, so no native support on Intel's support. I'm not sure if ASRock deliberately decided not to support it; or just ran out of PCIe lanes. It looks like they should have a few still available but I might be missing something. The SoC has 16 total; 8 go to the PCIe slot, 2 go to sata controllers, 3 to lan controllers, the GPU is a single lane PCIe model. That leaves 2 lanes unaccounted for...
  • DanNeely - Monday, August 10, 2015 - link

    Also, it was never intended for use in consumer systems. USB3 primarily matters for backing a NAS to an external HD (or pulling files off of one); Avonton was intended for higher end business class NASes, that whether rackmount or standalone would be primarily accessed over the network.
  • brbubba - Monday, August 10, 2015 - link

    Glad to see more mainstream sites posting these types of reviews. I was seriously considering the U-NAS boxes, but they aren't exactly what I call mainstream and I have yet to see any US retailers stocking their products.
  • DanNeely - Monday, August 10, 2015 - link

    It appears you can order their cases direct from the manufacturer and pay in USD, so the lack of 3rd party resellers is not a major problem. For my location in the US northeast, they wanted $16.66 to ship the 4bay case. No indication of shipping time was given; so if they don't have a US distribution point they're either shipping slowboat or eating the cost of airmail.
  • Paul357 - Monday, August 10, 2015 - link

    A great system for a NAS/Plex Media server. Still though, I'd wait to see what Denverton brings to the table. If it even is announced this year....
  • bobbozzo - Monday, August 10, 2015 - link

    Hi,

    1. would like to have seen more discussion about the power supply quality and other possible choices; will most 1U PSUs work, or is cabling going to be a problem? Would an SFX PSU fit?

    2. I didn't notice any mention of noise levels.

    3. any idea why the VDI performance was poor?

    thanks!
  • mdw9604 - Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - link

    Would like to see an option for redundant power supplies, even it means a bigger chassis.

    I have a couple of Synology DS1813+ and like them, but my next NAS will need to be beefier and will want some enterprise features, so looking at ZFS, redundant power supplies & possibly an iLO/Drac /Remote Console Card, as it will be located in a data center.

    This one doesn't quite make the cut.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now