Looked around at a bunch of perf benchmark tools and settled on CrystalDiskMark 6.0.1 (although I downloaded and installed from the Microsoft Store - quick/easy install (free)).
Ran on the old Synology DS215J and on the new Synology DS1819+
Results from a CIFS mount of a folder.
DS215J:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAg4zigLPGO1BvC80EM9XNSSjPcv1dx48WPfuYh-6ZPNHHvgM5nEh-wYDvM-_RSR_igm73BLwXFxjEKqrmxcVbk87AqXPyZb7bDrt9Kse3S20ZfTH7v_Hs26qku-cILP_rM5rz_4g7HZU/s320/ds215j.png)
DS1819+:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijbhyphenhyphen0uDU0EQmMhA9-Q0vkxzDFc9DugoDGFKEla6-VQL1YxJUpInFlUR3Cl87yT0pZOe-iaSOdyQ0m0SqeZQzLubUfDT_8ZTs7W91G2as-9e7iZJp41psFBZh1h-feuqvc7O1kEVTwk0g/s320/ds1819.png)
OK, so way better caching on the random reads and writes. The sequential is about 30% better.
Disks behind the test are:
DS215J - 2 WD30EFRX-68EUZN0 - 3TB 5400RPM WD Red disks
DS1819+ - 2 WD40EFRX-68N32N0 - 4TB 5400RPM WD Red disks
Interesting to note the WD30EFRX has 147MB/s interface speeds, the WD40EFRX has 150MB. The 2GB model WD20EFAX has 180MB/s interface speed and 256MB cache whereas the other models have 64GB cache. Strange difference, 2GB model seems to be much better.
There are no real specs of I/O perf of these models but the assumption is newer ones have higher areal density so better (faster) I/O.
No comments:
Post a Comment