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


I tested with 3.4.2 Build 0331T using our standard NAS test process.

The Benchmark summary below shows Windows File copy write measured 46 MB/s, with file copy read significantly higher at 79 MB/s.

QNAP TS112 Benchmark Summary

NASPT File Copy write benchmarks were all higher and more evenly matched at 63 MB/s for write and 70 MB/s for read. As with all other tested NASes, the tougher NASPT Directory Copy tests didn't break out of the mid teens.

I was able to run all my backup tests because the TS-112 supports both USB 2.0 and eSATA drives and has a built-in formatter that includes EXT3. Best attached backup performance of 52 MB/s was with FAT32 and eSATA and was worst at 19 MB/s with NTFS and USB. But EXT and FAT USB backup speeds were essentially the same at 21 and 20 MB/s.

Rsync network backup measured 19 MB/s to the NAS testbed running Delta Copy.

iSCSI write and read to a 10 GB volume produced 30 MB/s and 48 MB/s, respectively, which are not too bad for a l'il ol' single-drive NAS.

The File Copy Write and Read charts below are filtered to show only single-bay NASes. Of the top four, the TS-112 is the only one running a 1.2 GHz Marvell Kirkwood (88F6281). The Buffalo LinkStation Pro LS-VL and QNAP TS-119P+ both are based on 1.6 GHz Kirkwoods (88F6282), while the WD MyBook Live uses a 1 GHz Applied Micro APM82181.

File Copy Write Comparison - one bay products

File Copy Write Comparison - one bay products

For filecopy write, three of the four are pretty evenly matched, with the significantly more expensive QNAP TS-119P+ being the outlier. For file copy read, the 119P+ is again the highest performer. But the Buffalo drops below the pack by almost 10 MB/s.

File Copy Read Comparison - one bay products

File Copy Read Comparison - one bay products


The Price vs. Performance plot for single-bay NASes shows the tight cluster of the TS-110, TS-112, Buffalo LS-VL and WD MyBook Live. But you should remember that both the Buffalo and WD are diskful, coming with 1 and 2 TB, respectively.

Price vs. Performance - one bay products

Price vs. Performance - one bay products

Neither the Buffalo nor WD can match the QNAPs for features. But if you are looking for basic network storage with decent speed and simple media serving, both are a better value than the QNAPs. If you're trying to decide between the TS-110 and 112, I think I'd spend the extra $25 or so to get the extra read performance from the TS-112.

There won't be a full review of the TS-112. Use the new NAS Finder and NAS Charts to compare it with other products.

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