Like every other website on the planet, SmallNetBuilder uses cookies. Our cookies track login status, but we only allow admins to log in anyway, so those don't apply to you. Any other cookies you pick up during your visit come from advertisers, which we don't control.
If you continue to use the site, you agree to tolerate our use of cookies. Thank you!

Router Charts

Click for Router Charts

Router Ranker

Click for Router Ranker

NAS Charts

Click for NAS Charts

NAS Ranker

Click for NAS Ranker

More Tools

Click for More Tools

NAS Reviews

Performance

The TN-200 was tested with its factory-installed version 1.02 firmware using our standard NAS test process to run tests with RAID 0 and 1 volumes.

Windows File Copy tests in the Benchmarks summary below show read throughput 22% higher than write for RAID 0 (55 v.s 45.1MB/s) and also about 22% faster for RAID 1 (48.8 vs. 40.1 MB/s). Similarly for both read and write tests, RAID 0 held an edge over RAID 1 results. For read operations, RAID 0 was about 12% faster than RAID 1 (55.0 vs. 48.0 MB/s) and for write operations, the margin was about 15% (45.1 vs. 40.1 MB/s).

Intel NASPT File Copy Writes were slightly slower (1.4%) that the Windows File Copy for RAID 0 (44.5 vs 45.1MB/s) but were 37% faster than the Windows File Copy writes for RAID 1 (55.1 vs. 40.1MB/s).

TRENDnet TN-200 Benchmark Summary

TRENDnet TN-200 Benchmark Summary

To see how the TN-200 NAS fared against other dual drive NASes, I filtered the results for two-drive devices using a Marvell SoC and then generated charts for File Copy Read and File Copy Write performance. If you use the default sorting, ie, by throughput, the TRENDnet TN-200 doesn't do very well. It ranks 11/16 for File Copy Write Performance and 15/16 for File Copy Read Performance.

For Read, the TN-200's 55.0 MB/s is only about 54% of the top performing $150 Buffalo LS420, which turned in 101.3 MB/s. For Write, the TN-200 measured 45.1 M/s (53%) vs. the top performing $176 Thecus N2310's 85.7 MB/s.

However, since the TN-200 is the cheapest two-bay BYOD NAS on the market, I also sorted the results on price. The results were somewhat interesting. Looking at just file copy performance, you have to spend $140—40% more—before you pass the TN-200's read performance and $149 before you pass the TN-200's write performance.

File Copy Read and Write results for 2 drive Marvell-based NASes sorted by price
File Copy Read and Write results for 2 drive Marvell-based NASes sorted by price

Backup

The table below compares the backup performance of the four sub $150 two bay drive enclosures. Note that only the Buffalo LS421e has a USB 3.0 port. In addition, the TN200 shares relatively poky NTFS performance with the D-Link DNS320; not too surprising since both use the same processor.

Company TRENDnet TN200 Buffalo LS421E D-Link DNS320L Iomega ix2-dl
USB 2.0 FAT 19.0 19.2 15.3 12.4
USB 2.0 NTFS 6.8 20.0 6.1 14.9
USB 3.0 FAT NA 17.5 NA NA
USB 3.0 NTFS NA 20.8 NA NA
Network Backup 18.5 NA 15.5 18.6
Table 2: Backup Performance (MB/s)

Ranking

For Total NAS rank, which includes all products tested, the TN-200 ranked #47 out of a total of 71 products tested. The one area where the TN-200 excelled was in the Mixed Read/Write tests where it ranked #26 - well above its overall ranking of #47. Relatively low Windows File copy read and write results undoubtedly dragged down the overall ranking.

TRENDnet TN-200 NAS Ranking

TRENDnet TN-200 NAS Ranking

If you filter the NAS Ranker for two drive devices and SoC-1 class and sort by price, you'll see that the TN-200 has a lower (better) rank than the two next most expensive devices: the #56 ranked $118 D-Link DNS-320L and the #50 ranked $140 Iomega ix2-dl.

NAS ranker filtered for 2 drive systems sorted by price

NAS ranker filtered for 2 drive systems sorted by price

Closing Thoughts

For some consumers, a robust set of remote access and personal cloud features that support tight integration with Android / iOS mobile devices is very important. If that describes you, the TN-200 is not for you. As noted earlier, the TN-200's remote access is limited to FTP and WebDAV and it doesn't have dedicated apps for mobile platforms.

But for NAS buyers on a limited budget, the TN-200 could be the perfect product. For only $100 (and sometimes less), you get file sharing that works with all desktop and mobile OSes, media serving via DLNA and iTunes servers, RAID 1 fault tolerance and both attached and rsync network backup. Although it doesn't have chart-topping performance, the TN-200's throughput is more than adequate for simple backup, file sharing and media streaming.

The TN-200's strongest negative, however, is its fan and drive noise, which are definitely audible in a quiet environment. The fan still seems to run even in hibernate mode. But if you can live with or work around this, you'll get a surprisingly good NAS for the money.

More NAS

Wi-Fi System Tools
Check out our Wi-Fi System Charts, Ranker and Finder!

Support Us!

If you like what we do and want to thank us, just buy something on Amazon. We'll get a small commission on anything you buy. Thanks!

Over In The Forums

HI, I use a RT-AC68U with 342.12 firmware: lately I found some devices connected to wifi with the number 2 that seems to indicate that plus devices ar...
Do any TP-Link home wifi routers have support for an IPv6 firewall (meaning the ability to block unsolicited inbound IPv6 traffic, except for stuff th...
I'm trying to figure out the best way to bridge the following routers:TP-Link Archer C2600 - OpenWRT firmware - I want this to be the master/host for ...
Hello All,I am facing a weird issue with mobile devices (mainly android) connecting to internet.below is my network diagramView attachment 18663Issue ...
I am moving from a 1000 sq ft apartment to a 2000 sq ft single floor house and I suspect I will need to use an additional router for Wi-Fi coverage.Cu...

Don't Miss These

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3