NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
ReadyNAS 204 or 314?
Hi,
I am looking at buying a new ReadyNAS.
I had a 104 a few years ago and it was so slow I ended up returning it as it was not suitable.
I have since seen the 204 is avaiable and I wondered what the performance difference was between the 204 and 314 and any other major differences?
I am a power user and plan on using iSCSI for ESXi and also antivirus, snapshots etc...
Speed is a main concern. I also noticed the 204 can take larger disks which I found a bit odd but then again its newer.
I have managed to find a fairly good price for a 314 with 4x 1TB disks which is a bit more than the 204 but i plan to sell the disks so it works out about the same cost between the two in the end.
Thanks
7 Replies
Replies have been turned off for this discussion
RN200 is ARM, while RN300 is X86/Atom. The ARM process in the RN200 is much faster than the one in the RN100 series.
My RN202 is using WD60EFRX disks in jbod mode, gigabit ethernet w/o jumbo frames. Antivirus is disabled and the volume is not encrypted. Bitrot protection, compression and snapshots were disabled for the share I used for testing.
Throughput with large files (400 MB, using Nastester 1.7) is ~92 MB/s write and ~96 MB/s read speeds. I don't own an RN314, so I have no comparable data for it. SmallNetbuilder.com got around 100 MB/s for the RN312 back in 2013.PLEX transcoding works on the RN200 as well, though 1080p stalls frequently (and 720p transcoding stalls occasionally). It's still quite useful, since w/o it the RN100 simply refuses to play a lot of media.
So performance is close to the RN300 series. Often times the RN300 is also about the same price.
If the price is close, then I'd go with the RN300. But the RN200 performs quite well, especially if you are mostly interested in SMB speed.
edit: deleted post.
I would suggest that you disable bitrot protection and snapshots on the iSCSI LUN to be used with ESXi. VMs involve a lot of small writes and with lots of writes and CoW or snapshots (well snapshots use CoW at the point in time the snapshot is taken) you will quickly get a lot of fragmentation.
Not sure where you saw that the 204 would take larger disks than the 314. The 314 would be a better choice than the 204 for using high capacity disks. We have a compatibility list: http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/20641
We have a limitation on current firmware on the 204 where snapshots do not work on volumes > 16TB. This will be addressed in a future release. With 4x6TB disks you will get a RAID-5 volume > 16TB.
mdgm wrote:
Not sure where you saw that the 204 would take larger disks than the 314. The 314 would be a better choice than the 204 for using high capacity disks. We have a compatibility list: http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/20641
I believe the OP meant that the 204 takes bigger disks than the 104. That's true because of the 16 TiB volume limit on the RN100 series.
mdgm wrote:
We have a limitation on current firmware on the 204 where snapshots do not work on volumes > 16TB. This will be addressed in a future release. With 4x6TB disks you will get a RAID-5 volume > 16TB.
Good to know, I hadn't seen that posted here.
Thansk All,
I read it here, the 204 Tech Specs state it takes a maximum of 24TB of disks.
The 314 Tech Specs says it takes a maximum of 16TB.
http://www.netgear.com/home/products/connected-storage/RN204.aspx#tab-techspecs
http://www.netgear.com/business/products/storage/readynas/RN31400.aspx#tab-techspecs
Are the specs wrong?
Thanks
The RN314 spec is outdated. The PDF is correct: http://www.downloads.netgear.com/files/GDC/datasheet/en/RN300-RN500-RN700.pdf
When released, the largest available disks were 4 TB. Now larger disks are available and supported.
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!
