Asus TS Mini Windows Home Server Review

Results Analysis and Conclusion

Unfortunately, the TS Mini performed very poorly in our tests. It wrote our large file test at a cripplingly slow 8.3MB/sec, but read it at a much quicker 39.8MB/sec. The small file test was written at an almost respectable 11.5MB/sec, but dropped to a slow 6.2M/sec when reading it. This is considerably slower than most WHS PCs and NAS devices we've seen. The wildly inconsistent large file transfer performance was especially disappointing.

To get a feel for how this poor file transfer performance feels in real world usage, we tried streaming a stored standard definition MPEG2 video. We also tried streaming a 720p H264 encoded video in a MKV wrapper from one computer, and then another MKV file from another PC simultaneously. We repeated these tests while copying files to a shared folder in the background.

Streaming the MPEG 2 file or a single MKV file worked smoothly without any hiccups. Copying files in the background while watching each video was also unproblematic. Attempting to stream two MKV files simultaneously though, whether files were copying in the background or not, resulted in dropped frames and jerky video.

Conclusion

Overall, Asus's Home Server TS Mini is a disappointment. The hardware's clumsy design makes adding or replacing a hard disk more difficult than it has to be. Asus' WHS plug-ins don't add much value either, although these can always be updated in future or just replaced with alternatives of your choosing. The sluggish performance is particularly disappointing though, limiting the TS Mini's usefulness.

All of this is a shame, since the WHS OS clearly has much potential, but it's not without its flaws either. It's disappointing that almost three years after its launch, there aren't easily accessible printer sharing options or RAID support.

At £349 for 1TB of storage, it's disappointing that WHS PCs remain more expensive than most Linux-based NAS devices. Two-bay NAS devices are now available for around £200 or less, and these can be just as easy to configure and maintain as WHS. However, to get the flexibility of the plug-ins of WHS, you need a more advanced unit, such as those from QNap or Synology, which cost approximately the same as a WHS system, even if they can be a bit trickier to configure.

Still, if you’re willing to pay over £300 for a NAS box that has SQL and PHP capabilities, you can probably handle a slightly more complex interface. For most people, a decent NAS box is sufficient for streaming video and audio around the house while managing backups.

• Build Quality
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• -
• -
• -
• -
• 6/10

• Ease of Use
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• -
• -
• -
• 7/10

• Features
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• -
• -
• -
• -
• 6/10

• Performance
• x
• x
• x
• x
• -
• -
• -
• -
• -
• -
• 4/10

• Value
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• -
• -
• -
• -
• -
• 5/10

• Overall
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
• -
• -
• -
• -
• -
• 5/10

Score Guide