11–20 of 31 posts
This tiny thing will not go very far in terms of bandwidth. If you want bandwidth you will need a HW RAID controller.
I'm in the market for a new NAS, but I don't think this would have enough oomph to be very useful. I understand that it's by design, and that I'm probably not the target demographic, as others have pointed out, the 512MB of RAM, lackluster CPU and 2.5" drives are all pretty disappointing. This is estimated to cost $168. For $250, you can get an HPE ProLiant MicroServer Gen8 Entry, which comes with 4GB of ECC RAM, a 2…
At 10 watts, there is a good opportunity for some power savings. I have an Atom-based HP MicroServer and it lives in the area of 30-40 watts idle with 5 3.5" drives. Going down to 10 watts would mean saving around $40/year for me, not bad, but not enough to worry about.
The biggest failure with this in my mind not supporting 3.5" drives. Getting decent capacity in the 2.5" form factor is not really possible, and if using SSDs, in that case you'd want a more performant machine like you describe. Then again if using SSDs, why not just use an even smaller form factor.
Nice. I've been looking for a low-power "bring-your-own Linux" board for a while. Classic DIY NAS builds consume outrageous amounts of power (35W to >100W) compared to commercial NAS (~10W), and existing single board computers lack GigE and/or >=2 SATA ports. I just wish they'd have gone for a standard uATX form factor for compatibility with a professional case (and 3.5" disks). It's ironical that the "open hardware"…
??
Commercial NAS (like non-RM Synology & friends) are not magic. They save a bit of power due to higher system integration, yes, but most power is saved simply by using low-end hardware.
Most x86 DIY NAS use either desktop hardware or low-end server hardware (usually same thing, different labels) -- most of these have far more compute power than the small Atom C2000 or similar found in a x86 NAS.
If you want something similar to a commercial NAS, then use low end Mini-ITX boards (ARM boards on the other hand are all rather weak in all regards: poor I/O, little memory, weak CPU cores (even if there are four of them), quite some of these boards also have stability issues. None have ECC.
Nice. I've been looking for a low-power "bring-your-own Linux" board for a while. Classic DIY NAS builds consume outrageous amounts of power (35W to >100W) compared to commercial NAS (~10W), and existing single board computers lack GigE and/or >=2 SATA ports. I just wish they'd have gone for a standard uATX form factor for compatibility with a professional case (and 3.5" disks). It's ironical that the "open hardware"…
> Classic DIY NAS builds consume outrageous amounts of power (35W to >100W) compared to commercial NAS (~10W) ?? Commercial NAS (like non-RM Synology & friends) are not magic. They save a bit of power due to higher system integration, yes, but most power is saved simply by using low-end hardware. Most x86 DIY NAS use either desktop hardware or low-end server hardware (usually same thing, different labels) -- most of…
Good luck doing a build with an overall 10W consumption target with x86 and what is essentially desktop HW, especially if it should be affordable (relative to a ~250€ commercial solution) and maintainable (no, no custom kernels with weird patchsets that rot away in 6 months, and having to recompile the world).
We have used PCEngine boards. They're fine as network appliances. But even the latest ones only have 1 SATA port (fine, 2 if you count the mSATA port).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Classic DIY NAS builds consume outrageous amounts of power (35W to >100W) compared to commercial NAS (~10W) ?? Commercial NAS (like non-RM Synology & friends) are not magic. They save a bit of power due to higher system integration, yes, but most power is saved simply by using low-end hardware. Most x86 DIY NAS use either desktop hardware or low-end server hardware (usually same thing, different labels) -- most of…
Who said anything about magic - a) they don't use x86, b) they use boards with few unnecessary peripherals, and c) their vendors are perfectly fine with proprietary drivers (-> can't easily reuse their HW). Good luck doing a build with an overall 10W consumption target with x86 and what is essentially desktop HW, especially if it should be affordable (relative to a ~250€ commercial solution) and maintainable (no, no…
The replacement system (Sandy Bridge i3) pulls about 25 W in the same scenario, which is fine by me.
---
Now you're saying that 10 W with desktop hardware is not possible, and yeah, that'll be difficult. But it's a false dichotomy: the "10 W commercial NAS" doesn't have anywhere near that capable hardware. You can absolutely achieve these power consumption levels with similarly spec'd hardware.
In the same vein, any one know of a cheap (around 30-50$) dual NIC SOC?
http://www.banana-pi.org/r1.html
https://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/Newest-arrive-BPI-R...
If you can get by without a powerful CPU, lots of memory, etc, there's lots of cheap multi-NIC routers that will run openwrt/LEDE.
Yet, many people would say that they rather trust their data with Google/Facebook than self-host or use some random provider or host it at home. Is this a common shared sentiment? Just wondering if this opinion is shared among a more technical HN crowd (most of them use gmail even on HN).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Classic DIY NAS builds consume outrageous amounts of power (35W to >100W) compared to commercial NAS (~10W) ?? Commercial NAS (like non-RM Synology & friends) are not magic. They save a bit of power due to higher system integration, yes, but most power is saved simply by using low-end hardware. Most x86 DIY NAS use either desktop hardware or low-end server hardware (usually same thing, different labels) -- most of…
Who said anything about magic - a) they don't use x86, b) they use boards with few unnecessary peripherals, and c) their vendors are perfectly fine with proprietary drivers (-> can't easily reuse their HW). Good luck doing a build with an overall 10W consumption target with x86 and what is essentially desktop HW, especially if it should be affordable (relative to a ~250€ commercial solution) and maintainable (no, no…
I have a Netgear ReadyNAS NV+ rev. 1 (got it for free from work) with a 200mhz SPARC processor. Revision 2 of the "same" product is based on ARM. Modern ReadyNAS desktop lineup though? Atoms and Pentiums!
Or at least something with ZFS.
I'm in the market for a new NAS, but I don't think this would have enough oomph to be very useful. I understand that it's by design, and that I'm probably not the target demographic, as others have pointed out, the 512MB of RAM, lackluster CPU and 2.5" drives are all pretty disappointing. This is estimated to cost $168. For $250, you can get an HPE ProLiant MicroServer Gen8 Entry, which comes with 4GB of ECC RAM, a 2…
The GnuBee matches the Synology in price and exceeds it in functionality (aside from the 2.5" drives - seems like an extremely odd choice).
I think the problem with this product is you have two categories of NAS buyers - the ones who want plug and play storage on their network, and the ones who want the best performance and all kinds of esoteric features.
The former will go for a commercial solution like Synology/QNAP, the latter will go for something like what you suggest or a home-made solution.
This product targets the former in specifications, but the latter are the ones who care (or probably are even aware) about open source. Add to that that open source software usually has dreadful usability...