NASLite Network Attached Storage

Hi Grasshopper,

I think you may have misinterpreted that, I think the point being made was how silly a statement "you have to use two computers" was, not your suggestion. I did in fact think about it, the obvious problem is one's NASLite box would need full internet access, we've had countless emails from people thinking just that, that NASLite needed to be available on the internet for the licensing process and expressed their discontent.

If you'd like, start another topic on this and we can comment further, I'd rather not get off the topic of this thread.

-Ralph

I want what I need. I need Naslite so that's what I want.

Off topic I know, I apologize.

I just read this whole mess, anyone catch this last comment there :




GH?? Grasshopper??

I don't think that they are not a credible source of information, just that their personal preference might have leaked in there a bit.

I will say that they did a good job of showing the great performance to be had from modest hardware in comparison to a couple of other offerings.

Mike

Agreed mike, maybe the title should have been naslite vs freenas, instead of NASLite-2 HDD Review. Regardless, I think we should be flattered that NASLite is being compared to products with functionally that NASLite was never designed to have.



Typical.

I think this yet another example of people trying to twist things to suit their opinion and discount the facts. I think at the time Tony made that statement, it was appropriate given the obvious facts, since then SMB has fixed and apologized for the errors, for which we thank them.

@gplwatcher - GH != Grasshopper.

Got to thinking about all the bitching by those on the small net builder site over the lack of user controls so I posted this, should put a damper on them.

"In reading some white papers and researching hardware it dawned on me that there is a basic flaw in the expectations of the users regarding a NAS. Point in fact, NAS stands for Network Attached Storage. In the real world these are generally connected to file and/or application servers via FC-AL (Fibre Channel Arbitrated Loop) at 1, 2, 4, or 10 Gigabit, SAS at 3 or 6 Gb/sec (Serial Attached SCSI), Good old parallel SCSI, or increasingly via iSCSI over Ethernet. In addition the NAS hardware generally provides some sort of RAID function to make a large number of disks appear as one or a small number of large volumes as well as provide data protection. These are then mounted without the attached servers having to worry about keeping track of all the drives.

Do you see the flaw? It is the server that controls access to the data and not the NAS. Yes there is some security in the hardware, firmware, and software of the NAS but for our purpose it is not of concern since it is not designed for user level access control. All these "NAS" units that attach to the network and allow you to access the drive volumes and control access are in fact mini servers. I would put forth that of all the offerings that NASLite comes the closest to being a true NAS in the strict definition of the term. Should they decide to add RAID function and multiple iSCSI interface target protocol support...... NAS.

NASLite is simply a file server with no user access control enabled and for good reason. It exports volumes over the network via multiple protocols and it would be hell to try and get the permissions to work right on all of them at the same time."

When you gonna have the software RAID and multiple iSCSI interface version of NL ready? Vista comes with an iSCSI initiator.

Mike

Ralph is researching software RAID approaches that will make sense within the context of NASLite and already has a very rough iSCSI prototype, however none of those items will materialize until we have a stable 2.6 core. 2.6 core development is pending.

I figured as much, good to know that you aren't sitting on your asses!

Mike

Yup, keep up the good work gentlemen!

Mike,

But the best (and most comfortable!) way for working is by EXACTLY sitting on ones ass...

But for me it puts undue pressure on my brain and thinking "Extension"

Mike

I look at it like this. he says that it doesnt look pretty but it gets the job done, making it sound like he wants it to look pretty. Compare it to Vista. Vista doesnt work and it looks pretty, but Naslite works and has just enough pretties to make it usable. Thats the Way good Software starts. The only thing that I think is missing from Naslite is the ability to change rights on folders and files. First youd have to give access to folders in the admin mode though and right now there is none. Sooner or later I would expect the rights but for now just keep up the good work of a very stable and FAST file server.

I have an 800mhz PIII with 384mb ram and a raid 5 with 3 WD500gb Drives. I get about 11MB/s transfers and I havent put in a gigabit card yet but I plan on doing that soon. As in the next 15 minutes.

The main problem with adding admin control to the package is that each export Daemon has a different method of control and some are not really compatible with others, as such it opens up a can of worms that I would guess that Tony and Ralph are not keen to get into now or in the future. Should I require user level access control in the future I will build a FS based on one of the server versions of Linux.

Mike

All we would need is not a per user but to have a way to change RO or RW on certain folders. it wouldnt have to be "this user can do this and this user can do that" just go one more level deeper.

are there any options that can be edited in the Floppy??