System Information is another page that allows us to keep a finger on the pulse of the QNAP TS-209 Pro II to make sure everything is running as it should be. Here, we can view:

Online RAID Capacity Expansion and Online RAID Level Migration , is one of the main selling points of QNAP’s TS-409 series NAS units. Online RAID Capacity Expansion and RAID level migration allows you to upgrade an existing single volume to a multi-drive RAID configuration; upgrade an existing RAID array volume with larger disk drives, or migrate it to a higher RAID configuration level—all while leaving your existing data intact. Because it only supports a maximum of two hard drives and RAID 1, your options on the QNAP TS-209 Pro II are naturally more limited. You can only migrate from a single disk to a RAID 1 configuration. Migrating from two separate disk volumes, Linear Disk Volumes and RAID 0 Striping Disk Volumes to RAID 1 (or the other way around), is not supported. Doing so is a destructive process and requires backing up all of your data from the TS-209’s drives first.

With higher level RAID configurations (RAID 5 and RAID 6) involving three or more disk drives, Online RAID Capacity Expansion and RAID Level Migration on TS-409 NAS boxes can, depending on the size of the drive volumes involved, take quite awhile. The upside to the two-disk configuration of the TS-209 Pro II, is that disk configuration will be a lot faster by comparison.

Benchmarks

I had recently been asked in several E-Mails how much of a difference in performance there would be between a true RAID 1 NAS and a hard drive enclosure that lacked the “intelligence” (processor, RAM, embedded OS and web-based management) that could be set-up in a RAID 1 configuration, but was connected directly to a PC via USB 2.0 or eSATA. And whether or not any performance differences justified the additional cost of a RAID 1 NAS like the TS-209 Pro II.

Well, that’s a fair enough question. So I paired the QNAP TS-209 Pro II up against the previously reviewed Sans Digital MobileSTOR MS2UTN+ in a RAID 1 showdown. I also added the Netgear ReadyNAS NV+ with its 4-disk X-RAID configuration and 1GB of RAM to see how close the other two units could come to it in performance.

The benchmarks were conducted from a single PC workstation configured as follows:

The PC and NAS units were connected to an SMC 8508T 8-Port Gigabit Ethernet Switch which has jumbo frame support up to 9KB MTU, while the Sans Digital MobileSTOR was connected directly to the test system’s USB 2.0 and eSATA ports.

Jumbo frame settings on the workstation, TS-209 Pro II and ReadyNAS NV+ were as follows:

- Workstation MTU: 9014 bytes

- TS-209 Pro II MTU: 9000 bytes

- ReadyNAS NV+ MTU: 7936 bytes

For the benchmark, I used the 12.4GB Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion installation from the local hard drive in the workstation, which has a good mix and large quantity of small, medium and large-sized files. They were copied to a network share on the TS-209 Pro II, a network share on the ReadyNAS NV+ and directly to the RAID 1 array on the MobileSTOR MS2UTN+ first through the USB 2.0 connection. The Oblivion files copied over after the benchmark completed were copied over and benchmarked again over the MobileSTOR’s eSATA port. Thread Factory Elapsed Time v4 (Evaluation Edition) was used to measure how long it took the files to copy from the workstation to the target NAS and external drive units.

As expected, the MobileSTOR MS2UTN+ aided by its Silicon Image 5744 "SteelVine" Storage Processor turns in the fastest file copying times over both NAS units since it’s connected directly to the PC. Over the network, the ReadyNAS NV+ with its four-disk X-RAID array and Gigabyte of memory, outpaced the TS-209 Pro II with only 256MB of RAM and its RAID 1 mirrored array, by a good three minutes. The gap between the TS-209 Pro II and ReadyNAS NV+ would probably close quite a bit if the ReadyNAS NV+ was configured with a RAID 1 array and just 256MB of RAM, while performance between the TS-209 Pro II and a TS-409 Pro with a RAID 1 array would be practically identical since they have the same processors and amount of RAM.

Keep in mind, that if you set up folders as network shares on an external hard drive enclosure like the MobileSTOR MS2UTN+ on one PC, and perform a similar file copy operation from another PC to those shares, you can expect a decrease in file transfer performance when a large amount of files are involved (as in the benchmark). How much depends on whether the enclosure on the host PC which is now acting as a server, is connected to the slower USB 2.0 port or faster eSATA port. Which RAID configuration you’re using (RAID 0 will always out-perform RAID 1 at the cost of redundancy and data security). And most importantly, the hardware configuration of the host PC—processor speed, amount of RAM installed—particularly the network interface (integrated or expansion card, PCI or PCI Express).

Noise

I used my Galaxy Audio CM-130 SPL Meter 12 inches away from the front of the TS-209 Pro II, ReadyNAS NV+ and MobileSTOR MS2UTN+. For the NAS units noise levels were recorded and averaged at four stages:

To create the load condition, I copied 60GB worth of photo, music and video files of various sizes from my laptop to the drive mapped to the shared of each NAS. I removed as much extraneous noise from the office as possible, and launched the file copy batch file I created from the laptop in the room outside my office so that the noise coming from the laptop would not influence the reading. Since both NAS units were in the same room, I tested and recorded the results of the ReadyNAS NV+ first and powered it off—then the TS-209 Pro II.

Because the MobileSTOR MS2UTN+ required a direct connection to a PC I powered down every piece of equipment in the office not needed for the benchmark Obviously I could not remove the sound from the PC it was connected to, but I did move the MobileSTOR as far away from the PC as the USB and eSATA cables would allow.

Let’s look at how the QNAP TS-209 Pro II with its Smart Fan technology does against the MobileSTOR MS2UTN+ without the benefit of such technology.

QNAP’s Smart Fan technology drops the decibels down to almost a whisper when the QNAP TS-209 Pro II is idling and when the NAS goes into low-power HD (Hard Disk) Standby. Even under load, the TS-209 Pro II’s larger, slower turning fan is noticeably quieter than the smaller, faster turning fan in the Sans Digital MobileSTOR MS2UTN+.

The impressive quiet of the TS-209 Pro II becomes even more apparent when compared against the TS-409 Pro and TS-409U:

Of course having just two drives to keep cool than the four in the TS-409 boxes, probably doesn’t hurt the TS-209 Pro II’s efforts in remaining as unobtrusive as possible on your desktop, or in your living room.

Final Impressions and Conclusion

For around $399 (street price) and the cost of two 1TB SATA drives which will run anywhere from $155 - $175, you can have a secure, quiet multi-platform, network storage solution with a terabyte of disk space and most of the power and flexibility of more expensive, higher-capacity SOHO NAS units with all the features anyone could want. All in a sleek, compact cube with an attractive gray finish, mirror-black faceplate and bright (but not excessively so) LED indicators, that will be right at home as part of your living room’s digital entertainment center or on a desk in your office.

I’ve hardly made it a secret that I think QNAP should install more RAM in their TS-series NAS units to eliminate disk-swapping issues when transferring large files. More RAM would also allow more applications on the NAS to run smoother when accessed by multiple users. The fact that the TS-209 II Pro is a 128MB upgrade from the original model, means QNAP must have some inkling of the problem of running a full featured NAS such as this with such a paltry amount of RAM. I really wish they would just put a Gig of RAM in all of their boxes and get it over with—or better yet, design them so that the user can add RAM as needed.

What can I say about Multimedia Station that I haven’t already said in the last two reviews of QNAP products? If it can’t be fixed, it should be replaced with something that does work with mainstream browsers. Maybe someone in the open source community could write a decent alternative and make it a QPKG application.

Speaking of QPKG, while I was initially impressed with what MLDonkey is capable of, downloading the files you want can take a lot longer than from your favorite website. You definitely want to use the Windows-based Sancho client—MLDonkey’s web-based interface through Server Administration is horrible. I’d still like to see eSATA ports, a warranty longer than 1 year and official 64-bit Windows support for QNAP utilities, added to QNAP’s line of NAS units. While the mirror-black faceplate looks great, it’s also a magnet for fingerprints, dust and scratches if you aren’t careful how or what you clean it with (a microfiber towel dampened with cool water works best).

Shortcomings aside, the QNAP TS-209 Pro II certainly has a lot going for it. The question is, is it really worth the extra bucks over a plain old external storage device?

For a single PC that only needs additional storage and absolutely none of the features that the TS-209 Pro II has to offer, your average hard drive enclosure will probably offer the best bang for buck. I would definitely steer clear of any external enclosure that did not allow me to configure the drives in a RAID 1 mirror for data protection, unless I had another backup source I could rely on. If performance is really an issue but you don’t want to sacrifice data redundancy, a direct-line storage solution is going to provide you with better transfer rate performance than going over a wired or wireless network, even if it is Gigabit Ethernet—up to a point. Once you start sharing direct-line storage over a network with multiple users, it won’t take long for that performance advantage to disappear. Not to mention all those little minuses that will start to add up and become a nuisance once your workstation takes on the additional role as a server for the external drives tethered to it. A NAS takes up less space, uses less power and is quieter than a PC with external drives attached, and better optimized for network file sharing and networkable applications without exacting a performance penalty on the networked computers that connect to it.

An analogy with using a PC with a shared external storage device versus a NAS, would be a single video card versus dual video cards in SLI or Cross Fire. All things being equal (and assuming that a game actually scales well with either technology), if you typically run a game at a resolution of 1680x1050 or lower, then a single mid-range video card would be more efficient in performance and cost-wise. You’d have little to gain with a dual-video card setup—except bragging rights and a bigger hole in your wallet. On the other hand, if you have a nice, big 30” LCD display and feel you just aren’t really “in the game” unless you’re playing at a resolution of 2560x1600 with all the visual settings maxed out along with 4x or higher anti-aliasing, you might find your game’s frame rates a bit on the slow side without help from a second card in SLI or Cross Fire mode.

If you need more than simple direct-line storage and are looking for a compact NAS with an exceptional feature set minus the higher price tag and larger size of QNAP’s 409-series boxes, the QNAP TS-209 Pro II is one NAS you should not overlook.

As always, Barry’s Rigs ‘n Reviews would like to thank Vera Wang at QNAP for making this review of the TS-209 Pro II possible!