Performance
Firmware version 4.2.3 was loaded onto the TS-431P and performance tests were run using the Revision 5 NAS test process. All tests were run using Western Digital Red 1 TB WD10EFRX (x4 SNB supplied).
The benchmark summary below compares the QNAP TS-431P and the Synology DS416. File copy Write and File Copy Read results were consistent across all RAID levels (RAID 0, 5, & 10) for both NASes. All results were close to 110 MB/s and approached the theoretical limit of single client testing on a single Gigabit connection. Similarly, the NASPT File Copy to NAS and NASPT File Copy from NAS scores were all within about 5% of each other for both NASes for all RAID levels.
Several sets of tests results stood out. For RAID 0, the TS-431P was almost 17% faster on the NASPT Directory Copy to NAS than the DS416. However, the TS-431P was 40% slower on the NASPT Directory Copy from NAS and 58% slower on the NASPT Content creation. Similarly, the TS-431P was almost 26% faster than the DS416 for NASPT RAID 5 Directory Copy from NAS and about 23% faster for the RAID 10 results on the NASPT Directory Copy to NAS.
For the USB 3.0 backup tests, the DS416 edged out the TP-431P on two of the three file systems tested (EXT3 and NTFS). The DS416 was quite a bit faster on the network backup tests turning in 58MB/s as compared to the 36.6 MB/s on the TS-431P. iSCSI read and write results on the two NASes were within 5% of each other.
QNAP TS-431P and Synology DS416 Benchmark summary comparison
To quickly highlight the major differences, I pulled the benchmark results for the two products into an Excel spreadsheet so that I could calculate the percent differences in performance compared to the TS-431P. A negative percentage means that the QNAP TS-431P is slower than the Synology DS416.
Benchmark | QNAP TS-431P | Synology DS416 | Percent Difference |
---|---|---|---|
File Copy Write Performance | 110.2 | 109.7 | 0.5% |
File Copy Read Performance | 106.3 | 105.7 | 0.6% |
RAID 5 File Copy Write Performance | 109.4 | 108.4 | 0.9% |
RAID 5 File Copy Read Performance | 107.2 | 105.7 | 1.4% |
RAID 10 File Copy Write Performance | 109.8 | 108.1 | 1.5% |
RAID 10 File Copy Read Performance | 104.5 | 105.0 | -0.5% |
[NASPT] File Copy To NAS | 113.9 | 111.8 | 1.8% |
[NASPT] File Copy From NAS | 110.6 | 110.8 | -0.2% |
[NASPT] Directory Copy To NAS | 16.2 | 13.5 | 16.7% |
[NASPT] Directory Copy From NAS | 12.9 | 18.1 | -40.3% |
[NASPT] Content Creation | 8.4 | 13.3 | -58.3% |
[NASPT] Office Productivity | 60.8 | 57.9 | 4.8% |
[NASPT] HD Playback & Record | 111.6 | 107.7 | 3.5% |
[NASPT] 4x HD Playback | 112.2 | 112.6 | -0.4% |
[NASPT] RAID 5 File Copy To NAS | 108.3 | 105.8 | 2.3% |
[NASPT] RAID 5 File Copy From NAS | 111.8 | 111.5 | 0.3% |
[NASPT] RAID 5 Directory Copy To NAS | 15.9 | 14.4 | 9.4% |
[NASPT] RAID 5 Directory Copy From NAS | 17.5 | 13.0 | 25.7% |
[NASPT] RAID 5 Content Creation | 10.1 | 10.5 | -4.0% |
[NASPT] RAID 5 Office Productivity | 54.7 | 39.8 | 27.2% |
[NASPT] RAID 5 HD Playback & Record | 110.0 | 106.5 | 3.2% |
[NASPT] RAID 5 4x HD Playback | 112.7 | 111.4 | 1.2% |
[NASPT] RAID 10 File Copy To NAS | 113.4 | 113.0 | 0.4% |
[NASPT] RAID 10 File Copy From NAS | 109.7 | 105.3 | 4.0% |
[NASPT] RAID 10 Directory Copy To NAS | 16.3 | 12.6 | 22.7% |
[NASPT] RAID 10 Directory Copy From NAS | 17.1 | 16.5 | 3.5% |
[NASPT] RAID 10 Content Creation | 11.4 | 12.0 | -5.3% |
[NASPT] RAID 10 Office Productivity | 55.5 | 56.5 | -1.8% |
[NASPT] RAID 10 HD Playback & Record | 110.6 | 104.4 | 5.6% |
[NASPT] RAID 10 4x HD Playback | 111.7 | 110.2 | 1.3% |
Backup to USB3 Drive - FAT Format | 106.3 | 99.2 | 6.7% |
Backup to USB3 Drive - EXT3 Format | 87.5 | 89.3 | -2.1% |
Backup to USB3 Drive - NTFS Format | 99.2 | 103.8 | -4.6% |
Network Backup | 36.6 | 58.0 | -58.5% |
iSCSI Write to Target | 90.4 | 89.0 | 1.5% |
iSCSI Read From Target | 90.4 | 94.2 | -4.2% |
Table 2: Percent differences as compared to the QNAP TS-431P (MB/s)
The chart below shows the Total NAS Ranker scores for the eight least expensive four-bay NASes. The QNAP TS-431P has a Total NAS ranking of #9 as compared to the #5 ranking for the Synology DS416.
TOTAL NAS Rank for RAID5 test method Revision 5 NASes
Looking at the subcategories, the QNAP TS-431P had category wins for both the Write Benchmarks as well as Read Benchmarks. The relatively poor results for RAID 0 NASPT Content creation dragged the overall category ranking for Mixed Read Write to #9. It's worth noting, however, that the RAID 5 and RAID 10 NASPT Content Creation results were only 4% -5% lower than those of the DS416. Not surprisingly, the Backup category ranking for the TS-431P was dragged down by the relatively slow network backup results. Other categories, as you can see, were very close for many of the tests with the TS-431P often holding a slight edge.
Ranker Performance Summary comparison of the QNAP TS-431P and Synology DS416
Closing Thoughts
It's rare to see two competing NASes that turn in so many results within our 5% tolerance for rankings. For all the major file copy read and file copy write tests, the results were nearly identical. So in practical terms, you probably wouldn't notice a difference in performance between the QNAP TS-431P and the Synology DS416.
Looking at the NAS Ranker, it would seem that the cheaper, #8 ranked Synology DS416j might be a better value. But both of the compared NASes in this review have dual Gigabit Ethernet ports, tool-less disk trays, and hot swappable drives - all of which are missing in the DS416j. And both have significantly faster processors that could yield even more performance in a link-aggregated configuration.
In the end,either one of these NASes would be a good choice for the Home/SOHO environment. You can save a few dollars by buying the TS-431P, but ultimately, your decision may come down to whether you prefer the features offered by QNAP's QTS or Synology's DSM operating systems.