Updated 9/21/2010: EXT3 backup
Updated 9/19/2010: More info on Ultra 4 vs. NVX
|At a Glance|
|Product||Netgear ReadyNAS Ultra 4 (RNDU4000)|
|Summary||Single-core Atom (D410) version of NETGEAR's popular four-drive NAS|
|Pros||• Dual gigabit Ethernet
• Many backup options
• Many media serving options
• Root shell access
|Cons||• Dated, frame-based GUI
• Dual Ethernet doesn't support aggregation, failover
• No eSATA ports
• Some featured media services don't come installed
NETGEAR has made a few runs at protecting its premium-priced ReadyNAS line from the dreaded price (and profit) erosion that comes with participation in the consumer networking market. First was the SC101T Storage Central Turbo, an attempt to perpetuate NETGEAR's first entry into the "NAS" market, the SC101.
They did a bit better with their second attempt, the Stora, which runs on Axentra's HipServ OS, which has also been adopted by Seagate in its GoFlex Home. While both were significantly less expensive than their ReadyNASes, they lagged far behind in features and customer appeal.
So NETGEAR finally gave in and fielded the ReadyNAS Duo, which brought the expansive ReadyNAS feature set to under $200 crowd. But being based on the old Infrant processor and supporting only two drives, it didn't scratch the itch of folks who hungered for better performance and more storage at a consumer-friendly price.
Which brings us to the ReadyNAS Ultra 4 and Ultra 6 (and, supposedly next month, the Ultra 2). Announced in July with fanfare as the "death of local media storage", the Ultras are positioned for "power users yearning to set their digital entertainment content free".
But if you were hoping for aggressively lower pricing for an Intel-based ReadyNAS, that "feature" wasn't included. At around $600, the diskless D410 single-core Atom based Ultra 4 (RNDU4000) is currently selling for only about 50 bucks less than either a diskless ReadyNAS NVX (RNDX4000) or NVX Pioneer Edition (RNDX400E).
As noted above, the Ultra comes in two flavors, each of which has diskless and diskful SKUs. The Ultra 4 is based on Intel's single-core D410 Atom and supports up to four 3.5" SATA drives (2 TB max.), while the Ultra 6 uses a dual-core D510 Atom and can hold up to six drives. Both come with 1 GB of DDR2 RAM in an easily upgradeable SoDIMM.
The Ultra 4 comes diskless (RNDU4000) or with two Seagate ST32000542AS Barracuda LP 2 TB drives (RNDU4220). The Ultra 6's versions are diskless (RNDU6000) and with three Barracuda LP 2 TB drives (RNDU6320). I'll note that NETGEAR sent an RNDU4000 for testing, but stuffed it with four Seagate Constellation ES 1 TB (ST31000524NS) drives.
You could easily mistake the Ultra 4 for an NVX, since their metal cabinets are identical. But the keen-eyed would note that NVX's all-black case and "ReadyNAS NVX" logo on the front panel vs. the Ultra 4's dark grey sheet metal and no "Ultra" next to the ReadyNAS front panel mark.
Figure 1 calls out the front panel indicators and controls, which are a copy of those found on the NVX, so I reused the image.
Figure 1: ReadyNAS Ultra 4 / NVX front panel
Figure 2 shows the NVX' / Ultra 4's rear panel, with a single variable-speed case fan. Noise level is on par with the NVX, which is not whisper quiet. It was louder than my desktop PC, but didn't get louder under load during testing.
Figure 2: Ultra 4 / NVX rear panel
The other two of three total USB 2.0 ports support additional storage, USB printers and USB-enabled UPSes (such as APC). Two 10/100/1000 Ethernet LAN ports support jumbo frames (auto-adjustable up to 9K)
and can be configured in a variety of teaming / failover options explained here. But the only thing you can do with the two ports is assign static routes; there are no teaming or failover options available.
I was hoping to find that NETGEAR had finally included an eSATA port to increase backup speed. But, like every other ReadyNAS, the Ultra 4 and 6 ship without eSATA ports. I asked NETGEAR for the reason and received this response:
"Were getting decent speed out of USB, and we only get occasional requests for eSATA. For small businesses who want to back up, weve always recommended having a more comprehensive and automated off-site backup with another level of redundancy, either using another ReadyNAS or ReadyNAS Vault. USB 3 is the direction that well be adopting going forward."
I'm all for USB 3.0 in the future, too. But this response is getting way too old, considering that its competition has had eSATA ports in even its single-drive NASes for a few years now. I've clocked > 90 MB/s backups to an NTFS-formatted eSATA RAID 0 volume on QNAP / Cisco D510-based NASes.
Another thing that hasn't changed is the ReadyNAS admin interface. It gets the job done, but has always annoyed me with its very dated use of frames that cause a lot of unnecessary scrolling. This is way overdue for a redesign, given that QNAP, Synology and even Thecus have moved to nicer AJAX-based GUIs.
Related Items:NETGEAR Unwraps Atom ReadyNASes
NETGEAR Lowers ReadyNAS Prices
New To The Charts: NETGEAR ReadyNAS Pro 4
NETGEAR Announces ReadyNAS Revamp, New Switches
CES 2009: SanDisk Intros Push-Button Backup Flash Drives
Average user rating from: 2 user(s)
NOTE! Please post product reviews from actual experience only.
Questions, review comments and opinions about products not based on actual use will not be published.
|User Rating [Back to Top]||Overall:||4.0||Features :||4.0||Performance :||3.5||Reliability :||4.5|
Disappointed by the ReadyNas Ultra performance and features
September 21, 2010
Report this review
I'm a long-term Readynas user, and was hoping that the Ultra line would be worth upgrading to. My main reasons for an upgrade would be to improve read/write and backup performance. Unfortunately I won't be buying the Readynas Ultra since it seems that the performance of the Ultras lags significantly behind the equivalent Qnap device even though they are using the same Atom processors. I wonder whether this is perhaps because Qnap is using the Intel ICHR9 to accelerate their RAID capabilities but perhaps Netgear must instead use the Atom CPU more heavily because of their proprietary X-RAID2 implementation?
Regardless, the devices also seem to fall short on NTFS backup performance too with Qnap providing 99 MB/s ESATA backups on their TS-459 Pro model and the Ultras limited to a paltry 16.5 MB/s backup. Netgear needs to understand that in a consumer device, the majority of users are running Windows and want a fast,simple backup solution that is easy to use and is natively compatible with their PCs (i.e. NTFS-based). In my view Netgear should focus development resources on getting fundamentals like backup working well before introducing media transcoding software like Orb.
In your review you mentioned Netgear's numerous backup options. But in reality the average Readynas user is limited to USB EXT3 disks and that's about it. The cloud based backup is slow and expensive. The FAT option is unusable if you have any files (e.g. VMWare image) larger than 4GB it will fail. NTFS backups have a host of problems make it impossible to use in practice: In particular, the free NTFS-3G driver they include has awful performance with write speeds that are 30% of the Paragon driver used by QNap. It seems that even the "Jedis" in the Netgear forums recommend users to not use the NTFS features of the Readynas line but instead use EXT3.
Another downside of the Ultras in particular is the lack of support for teaming or failover of the two gigabit ports. I wonder what's the point of 2 ports when this isn't supported? I wish they had provided an eSata port instead.
As you say, the Web interface is also slow and needs a major revamp.
I had USB drive problems too
September 17, 2010
Report this review
I tried to move 750GB over to it and got errors every 15-60 minutes claiming the USB device was not connected anymore. The USB drive was not powering down or going in to standby in the middle of the transfer, so I can not explain it and neither could NetGear's tech support.
Other than that and the fact some of the advertised features required download, it really is the impressive pro-sumer NAS I was hoping it would be!