Can't see any board space left for more SATA's - and not quite what they're aiming at to be fair with a full GPIO setup
Printable View
Can't see any board space left for more SATA's - and not quite what they're aiming at to be fair with a full GPIO setup
This would not be a very good NAS as it has no ability to use SATA/SAS RAID without doing a software RAID which is performance hampener and it only has a single SATA slot.
Sadly, they would have to make a brand new custom board but I agree that this embedded chip could add a massive mini-itx possibility. Use an embedded v1000 with an onboard RAID controller, that would be fab.
A home NAS would be more likely to use ZFS which doesn't need or even like raid controllers. That does want ECC ram though, another hurdle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
If you are serving over the network, a SATA port multiplier could be fast enough to not be the bottleneck.
ZFS is only really suitable on 3 or more drives in multiples of a cluster. ZFS is basically RAID5 pooling. Because this board does not have a PCI-E adapter slot you wont be able to hook up an HBA to fully appreciate a pool.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
I always find it amusing when people suggest ZFS for home use because it is a very heavy system and unless they are using a substantial (6 or more) drives there is no point in ZFS, might as well use RAID 10 or 5 until you have enough to make 2 3 drive glusters.
only hyper nerds use zfs for a home nas . everyone else uses either a pre bought system, or a windows-like system. ZFS is far too techy and beard-friendly.
This board tho is too expensive for most home projects, its the same price as a m-ix with processor of choice.. it will have its niche , somewhere. I suppose its just trying to grab a bigger slice of the pi .
ZFS does not "want" ECC ram as much as any other file system. Thats a myth invented and perpetuated by the FreeNAS community (which also created a few other shenanigans about ZFS like some retarded memory requirements). This myth has been debunked by one of the original ZFS developers Matthew Ahrens on Ars Technica forums. I can't post links so you will have to google it.
It also works just as fine with 1 or 2 drives on mirror. You can set copies=2 on a single device pool and still enjoy the benefits of self healing from data corruption at the cost of half your drive space.
Trust me. I'm a hyper nerd.