Lemaker Cello News

“Appologize to delay the Cello board again. We produced 10PCS samples on sencond-stage in July and sent to Linaro and AMD to debug. Still the problem is on the PCIE connector. The PCIE power rails, clock, reset signal and tx lane are all work, but only the rx lane can not get the signals. All other functions on Cello are now working well.
 
We already have all the components stocked in our warehouse and waite the PCIE problem to be solved, then we can begin mass production.
 
We also have prepared 50PCS free heat sink with fans for the first 50 orders.
 
Thanks for your support again.”
 
See There’s Still No Sign Of AMD’s Low-Cost ARM Development Boards
They were promised by June, but there’s one last bug being hunted down. It’s a biggy, PCI-e not fully functional, but it’s well-defined and soluble as long as they don’t have to make new chips… I need PCI-e for my RAID array which is now being tested on Beast III.

So, I’ll have to decide whether to buy some more Odroid-C2s this month or an imminent Cello. Decisions. Decisions. In the meantime, grouse season approaches. 😉

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Lemaker Cello News

  1. oiaohm says:

    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/201705/how-many-random-elements-before-md5-produces-collisions
    Fifi, please go and read that again. MD5 collisions by natural means extremely rare but not impossible and can be caused intentionally. Like malware infects you system. To avoid that

    Still, though, Robert: “a form of backup” is not actually a backup, is it?
    This is where things get horible.

    Redundancy what raid 1 is refereed to more often is classes as a hot online backup against hardware failure.

    Basically Fifi you have asked the wrong question. Does RAID 1 have any integrity. To be truthful a clone drive off-line as a backup has the same lack of integrity problems.

    RAID 1 with Btrfs/zfs sitting on top it has integrity information. xfs sitting on raid6 has integrity information.

    Every mistake you can make using a RAID Redundancy you can make doing other from of backups as well.

    If you are going to have parity data you want it used on write and read. Lets take unraid lets write parity data and only check it when user says to check it.

    What happens when you modify a file. Your read it off disc and write it back right. Here is something fun
    http://www.techspot.com/community/topics/sata-cable-problem.181403/
    Something people without experience don’t consider.

    Dud sata cable means reading and writing to disc may not be going to plan even if the drive and the controller perfect.

    Something people don’t consider “parity check on read” is a optional feature in raid 5 and raid 6 these days. Older raid controllers with Raid 3 and 4 this was also still optional feature as well. Something you do make sure if you have a raid controller you have “parity check on read” if you have parity. This reduces that silent damage from defective cable or drive.

    Do notice in that link they mention about a loss cable that is vibration sensitive.

    With lets run partiy check at fixed time as unraid suggests as workable with the know hardware defects.
    1) check run
    2) file gets modified with viribrating cable so data is written wrong.(parity data wrong)
    3) file gets modified again except now no vibration but damage data read from disc and modified(partiy check value corrected)
    4) running check run no error but the data is damaged. This could go on for months if not years before someone works out what is going wrong.

    So you really need to be running checksum/parity on read to detect hardware fail.
    The reality is anyone who has worked with raids and jbod for long enough understand that partiy has to be done a particular way or it gives you a completely false sense that your data is safe and fairly much is wasting time. Like the time wasted in unraid writing to parity would be better spent in like btrfs/zfs creating and checking checksum that will be checked on read.

    Now Fifi coming to Ham-Dong with wrong ideas did not help is case. Ham-Dong does not understand the basics of why raid controllers are the way they are neither do you Fifi and I bet Fifi you would not had a clue about why good raid controllers are checking on read and that it because cable between drive and controller can be defective.

    Just to inform you person who makes up a insulting name to call someone its their invention so its now their name Hammy.

  2. DrLoser says:

    Thank you kind sir, I was slowly getting around to this lie of his.

    No worries, Dougie. The truth will out.
    There’s a huge backlog of lies and disinformation behind that particular one … but you’re a neophyte when it comes to the Hamster. He’s got around ten years of total bollocks behind him.

  3. DrLoser says:

    dougman wrote, “Repeat after me, “RAID IS NOT A BACKUP” say it a few times.”

    RAID 1 is a form of backup against loss of one or more drives.

    Still, though, Robert: “a form of backup” is not actually a backup, is it?

    In much the same way that the Rhythm Method, excellent though it is in concept, is not actually reliable contraception.

  4. dougman says:

    Thank you kind sir, I was slowly getting around to this lie of his.

  5. DrLoser says:

    MD5 checksums have collisions.

    Nice try, Fifi, but unfortunately well up to your usual standard of cretinous ignorance. Here, I’ll help you out.

    To all intents and purposes, no, they do not. One hundred and twenty eight bits of entropy is an enormous amount of the stuff.

  6. oiaohm says:

    I forgot Ham-Dong cannot read so that is how come Ham-Dong does not have a clue how bad unraid is.

  7. oiaohm says:

    I’ve already made the point, about your made-up fantasy about failing data-integrity on Unraid that you could just run a parity-check
    Ham-Dong except due to Unraid parity-check design every time it finds a error it updates the parity data and never informed users. So Unraid parity-check basically finds nothing.

    MD5 checksums have collisions. This is why you want multi levels of integrity checking. If one happens to suffer from a collision so saying invalid is valid hopefully the another ones you use shows issue.

    You have done posted that like numerous times, I/we want to see YOUR evidence. Not some sales cut-sheet of a competitor.
    Remember what I said to Dr Loser a long time ago Ham-Dong. Don’t use my proper handle lose all odds that I will give you the evidence I have.

    Something to be aware of snapraid is not a sold product. So that is not a sales cut-sheet its a peer review compare against competitors.

    What Ham-Dong having to repsond with 3 posts instead of 1 because you are completely wrong.

    Ham-Dong no point asking for the evidence now you lost the right to if robert or someone else asks I might give it to them. Remember there is a price to deciding to using insulting handles. One of those is the people you use them against may decide only to give you limited peer review information.

    Currently Ham-Dong your requestion is only you want. No one else is defending your case.

  8. dougman says:

    “Ham-Dong is a super big idiot”…that makes stuff up and is a liar/fraud.

    I couldn’t have stated it better myself.

    Oi! Oi! Oi!

  9. dougman says:

    “There excuse is since unraid is not a raid they don’t have to insure data integrity.
    https://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=45854.0

    Actually, my Aussie weiner, it’s your excuse, made up that it is, as to why Unraid shouldn’t be called a raid to begin with.

    You see silly boy, all the hard drives in the world, do not have data integrity checking built in to them. So I am failing to see the point you are trying to make here. This is the point driven home about backups.

    I’ve already made the point, about your made-up fantasy about failing data-integrity on Unraid that you could just run a parity-check and MD5 sum if you want.

  10. dougman says:

    “No need really it was submitted to them 5 years ago and 2 years ago”

    EVIDENCE…

    “There have been over 54 compares I know done by people who know data recovery who have found the same fault as snapraid did http://www.snapraid.it/compare

    You have done posted that like numerous times, I/we want to see YOUR evidence. Not some sales cut-sheet of a competitor.

    “Please don’t give me this garbage the reality it has been submitted and basically ignored.”

    Garbage?..garbage you say? I/we want to see proof. Submitted when?..where? by whom?? Who was the recipient??? EVIDENCE, evidence will get you many miles in life you big stuff of a fraud. Obviously, you cannot find anything with Google’s search engine to back up your story.

    “From now on Ham-Dong is all I will use when I to dougman until he starts using my handle.”

    Ummm ok. I actually liked the sound of it, but conveying such terminology on me is rather pointless. You made bro?

    Hammy, I can see in your future, that collective impact is not your cup of tea. May I suggest a cuppa of chamomile tea? Chamomile reduces cramping and pain in the bowels and also helps to relieve excessive gas and bloating in the intestines. Chamomile is commonly used for promoting sleep, relaxation and anxiety and stress relief. The German variety, in my opinion is the better brand.

    Salut!

  11. oiaohm says:

    dougman
    I can guarantee they would be interested in your data.
    Of course if you don’t do this then you are a liar and a fraud, making big stuffs up.

    No need really it was submitted to them 5 years ago and 2 years ago

    There have been over 54 compares I know done by people who know data recovery who have found the same fault as snapraid did http://www.snapraid.it/compare

    I can guarantee they would be interested in your data.
    Please don’t give me this garbage the reality it has been submitted and basically ignored.

    From now on Ham-Dong is all I will use when I to dougman until he starts using my handle.

    There excuse is since unraid is not a raid they don’t have to insure data integrity.

    https://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=45854.0
    Ham-Dong and they clearly state it on their forum over and over again.

    So really the parity part of unraid is a super big joke. You have to active plugins or its eating your data without telling you.

    Ham-Dong is a super big idiot who did not research product properly before recommending it.

  12. dougman says:

    “destroying data so you cannot recover it at all as unraid is known todo.”

    Ham-Dong, show us one instance where UNRAID has destroyed data.

    Hell, I will make it easy for you. Contact the C-types for Lime Technology https://lime-technology.com/team/ and tell them you can unequivocally prove that UNRAID destroys data.

    I can guarantee they would be interested in your data.

    Of course if you don’t do this then you are a liar and a fraud, making big stuffs up.

  13. oiaohm says:

    If something has to be repaired as it was broken before, then it follows that it is NOT inherently stable is it?
    Stability is relative. Its better for a system to stop than proceed forwards silently destroying data so you cannot recover it at all as unraid is known todo.

    BTW: Dual parity drives are going to be released soon with UNRAID
    That does not address the design issue. Make people feel incorrectly safer.
    Fix silent errors If silent errors are detected and fixed before they can propagate into the parity.
    This feature is still missing from the newest UNRAID. So you now have two copies of parity data that both end up invalid.

    Well lets see, the parity drive can be used to detect and repair problems in sectors, as one can perform a monthly or weekly parity check to insure the array and drives have good integrity.
    This does not in fact work when unraid is tested instead unraid updates the parity drive to match what the drive sectors say. So effectively making the parity drive almost a complete waste of time. Partiy data in SnapRAID can be used that way because it snapshot style. Unraid updates it Partiy data in background without telling you and does not give you snapshot of parity data that is kinda critical.

    the parity is automatically recomputed This is noted on the SnapRAID feature compare to be a property of unraid. This make unraid not very much better than using and JBOD mode for data protection.

    So you are looking for real-time and snapshot processed Parity in a really solid solution.

    Hell, you could also do periodic md5sums to detect issues at the file level.
    If I am going to have to-do that use btrfs or zfs that include this as part of file system operations.

    Basically unraid will silently eat your data. Xfs on raid things go too far wrong it will stop so letting repair be started before data is lost for good. Btrfs and zfs spin drives too much and have overhead because they are doing per file checksums as well is checksum everything else about the file system. Data security has a price.

    Really dougman you are showing lack of experience with data integrity management. Something stopping is not a failure. Something destroying your data so it cannot be recovered is a failure.

    I do want better solutions but I don’t see unraid as that solution. I see unraid as a sad joke that going to trick people into losing their data to its design flaws.

    dougman there is a checklist of features you are looking for file storage to tick off. So far I know of no open source solution that ticks them all off. Most commercial solutions are found lacking as well.

  14. dougman says:

    “Fix silent errors If silent errors are detected and fixed before they can propagate into the parity.”

    Well lets see, the parity drive can be used to detect and repair problems in sectors, as one can perform a monthly or weekly parity check to insure the array and drives have good integrity. Hell, you could also do periodic md5sums to detect issues at the file level.

    $find /mnt/disk1 -type f -exec md5sum {} \;>> /disk1_files.md5

    BTW: Dual parity drives are going to be released soon with UNRAID.
    https://lime-technology.com/unraid-server-os-6-2-public-beta/

  15. dougman says:

    “I do own my own NAS. In fact I use XFS and Raid this is a stable and mature combination. Yes I have had to repair it from broken before. ”

    You just tattled on yourself and apparently “critical” thinking is not for forte’. If something has to be repaired as it was broken before, then it follows that it is NOT inherently stable is it?

  16. oiaohm says:

    Do you even have a NAS of your own? I serious doubt it.
    I do own my own NAS. In fact I use XFS and Raid this is a stable and mature combination. Yes I have had to repair it from broken before. This is how come I knew lot of your cliam about raid issues fragmenting files to hell was in fact the file system use on top of raid. Basically if you use a 512 bit designed file system on a 4k sector drive things don’t work right. Using a raid unaware file system on top of a linux software raid or hardware raid things really don’t work right so making recovery way harder. Lot of people from person experience and not realy knowing how things should be thinking using a raid should behave like using unaware filesystem that is completely wrong so they never ask for raid aware filesystems.

    BTRFS is used as my cache drive pool and subsequently moved off within the hour. Why should I read a Wikipedia when I already have usage experience?
    The reality is using BTRFS now does have some serous limitations as you find out reading the development documentation.
    http://www.snapraid.it/compare
    If more disks fail than the supported redundancy model, is it possible to recover the data in the not failed disks?
    This link that section is wrong on BTRFS and ZFS its harder than it should be but its not impossible so its not 100 percent no. So improving tools for BTRFS and ZFS for failed state thing in that section could be made way better same with implementing better raid data placement rules.

    dougman here is the problem you may not of liked BTRFS behavour but from a data protection point of view it way ahead of unraid.

    Snapraid not peer reviewed enough for me and its Redundancy model is wrong. Good solution is going to have both snapshot and real-time as I have using xfs on top of a normal raid.

    The reality here is you really don’t know enough about unraid. It really not as failure tolerant as it should be. Particularly when items like Snapraid and other items exist.

    I see that there is a lot of room for operational optimisations to be done to btrfs and zfs to stop them form wasting time spinning up every single drive.

    usage experience
    Means basically nothing by itself dougman. Why usage only tells you part of the the picture. You most likely swapped from BTRFS to unraid because unraid spins the drives less and traded away the data protection.

    Now if you had been pushing something built like snapraid I would have had less issues other than saying regularly snapshot.

    Really from my point of view unraid project could be completely dumped and resources focused into fixing up btrfs, zfs or snapraid. Or unraid goes though redesign to feature catch up with btrfs, zfs and snapraid.

    Fix silent errors If silent errors are detected and fixed before they can propagate into the parity. Defect in this area is why unraid is not a good solution. It truly worse than using a raid6 with xfs. Ok unraid you gained the feature to be able to add discs at will but you have giving up something very critical.

    dougman I have a very good idea of what I am after in file storage. unraid without question is 100 percent not it. Min acceptable to me is 2 disc failures and I want to see that value higher. If I am going to be paying money for it the thing better tick all the boxes. Flexraid ticks more boxes for less money than unraid don’t particular like it because I cannot audit it and silent errors. So unraid fails bang for buck as well.

  17. dougman says:

    BTRFS is used as my cache drive pool and subsequently moved off within the hour. Why should I read a Wikipedia when I already have usage experience?

    Do you even have a NAS of your own? I serious doubt it.

  18. oiaohm says:

    dougman please go read the wikipedia page and notice Btrfs raid information is completely missing. Sorry I did not use that wikipedia page at all.

    I just mentioned tech I had dealing with. By the way the diagram showing BeyondRAID on that wikipedia page is also wrong.

    So as normal cannot fact check to save ones own ass again dougman the fact that there is no btrfs information on that wikipedia page should have been a big clue that was not where I was getting my information.

  19. oiaohm says:

    Actually you have it backwards. RAID arrays scrambled all your eggs in one big mess of 1’s and 0’s.
    This is not true its file system not being RAID aware equals data on RAID arrays being scrambled mess. RAID controllers obey a fairly strict set of rules that file systems like XFS have shown can be depended on to avoid big mess.

    LOL, you either a unknown IT comedian or VERY ignorant. I dare you to pull a drive from a Raid array, 10, 5, 6, 1, 0 whatever and place it in your desktop computer and attempt to read it. Go on and try it….LOL.
    https://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID_setup#XFS
    Notice how dougman said take any raid and attempt to recover. Key question I would have is what file system is the RAID.
    Now if the answer is XFS you kinda stand very good chance with a single disc. Out of all the Linux filesystms its the only one that is Raid controller aware XFS. XFS successfully pulled off whole files per drive even using a hardware raid controller. Yes it takes knowing a few tricks to mount a single raid drive up and classing every other part of the raid you don’t have as broken.

    My biggest head aches with raid is people not using raid aware file-systems then get upset when it takes ages to extract whole files and files are fragmented between drives. Something like XFS you can basically just rip the raid drives apart put them on different machines and start data recovery. Why because raid aware file systems like XFS is design so this can be done.

    Of course its better with RAID-Z from ZFS or Btrfs Multiple Devices modes where these put whole files on single drives and you don’t need to know a stack of tricks to get a raid to map up from a single drive but at this stage they don’t have the intelligence to exploit a raid controller. BeyondRAID also has addon to make whole files go to single drives.

    Mind you Btrfs defualt stripped. All file system meta data is written to all discs whole files are written to every disc so if you put just 1 disc of it own in you can see the full file system contents but only be able to access the files that happen to be on that disc.

    Only time using Btrfs or ZFS file system raids do you need up with part file on a drive is when a file is too large to go on a single drive.

    By the way, dual parity drives will be arriving soon in a future update.
    Read the background on why that update being done they document that single parity drive leads to issues some quite major ones. Issue is rebuild time raid 5 and raid 6 has short rebuild time than unraid. Calculating parity data is not cheep.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#RAID_4
    unraid design copies a lot about a RAID 4 and has most of the same issues.

    Raid 2-4 are not used in production because their designs are dud. unraid has successfully brought back following ideas Raid4 with minor variation.

    The reality here is a unraid can be as weak as a Btrfs or ZFS in Raid 0 mode
    Without the future promise to have mode run as strong as Btrfs or ZFS.

    unraid is a cunning name what it causes people to do is not look at existing raid types and compare how unraid works and put it into a RAID classification. unraid classification is raid 4 with whole files per drive.

    ZFS Z-Raid is functional for raid 0,1,5 and 6 with whole files per drive.
    Btrfs is functional for raid 0,1 with whole files per drive with modes 5 and 6 found broken in peer review but this will be fixed in future versions.
    Both ZFS and Btrfs multi disc systems are able to put individually drives out arrays and access what ever happens to be on those discs by file name.

    Who cares if they do not open-source everything, you pay for a license just like you do with RedHat.
    I care if I have to perform data recovery on it. I also care so I know the code base has been properly peer reviewed. As Btrfs 5 and 6 modes demoed it can appear to function but under particular conditions trigger data loss. So anything storing my data I would love it source code open to proper review.

    Unraid provides only a minor advantage in easy of recovery over XFS RAID combination but no advantage in easy of recovery vs ZFS or btrfs options. But since XFS can use hardware raid controllers to off load work so perform better. Btrfs is mainline Linux and ZFS is third party due to license both heavily peer reviewed.

    dougman basically I don’t see where unraid fits into the future anywhere as it does not have features like ZFS,Btrfs or XFS in raid style operations justifying unraid existance.

    I would really love to see ZFS and Btrfs end up as proper raid controller aware file systems and the process for mounting a single drives out of raid controllers made simpler when the data has been put on the disc by an raid aware file system.

  20. dougman wrote, “Repeat after me, “RAID IS NOT A BACKUP” say it a few times.”

    RAID 1 is a form of backup against loss of one or more drives. I’m not using RAID 1, so I don’t have that. Instead I have a separate 1TB drive on which I copy files, archives, configs etc. I use rsync or tar to update the backups. Why repeat “RAID is not a backup” when that’s not always true and in this case not relevant?

  21. dougman says:

    “unraid is one of those things I don’t see with a long term future not unless they change design massively.”

    Well, ahem. Unraid, which is owned by Lime Technology has been around since 2005, but lets ignore that shall we? I think you should contact TOM, the CEO/COO as he was the creator of Unraid, and “explain” to him that what he is doing is wrong. You are missing out on another one of your callings in life, you could be fixing his erroneous ways in IT and saving everyone!

    Performance and Data security unraid is not competitive against BeyondRAID or RAID-Z and will not be completive against future Btrfs. Mostly its only better than Btrfs at the moment because a major coding errors was found in the Raid5 and 6 code it used.”

    I can see you visited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels Great job there Hammy.

  22. dougman says:

    “In the JBOD non standard style of storage with parity you look at BeyondRAID that is normally too pricey that is like unraid but done with a Raid 5 like design spreading the Parity data so more stable in drive failure and faster on average write speeds and RAID-Z from ZFS of course and Multiple Devices modes in Btrfs that not all are stable yet.”

    Ummm…..that was painful to read.

    The grammar errors, non-parallel sentence structure, and punctuation errors detracted from whatever point the you were trying to make.

  23. dougman says:

    “Raid 10 and raid 5 is more stable than unraid. unraid puts all critical eggs in one basket.”

    Actually you have it backwards. RAID arrays scrambled all your eggs in one big mess of 1’s and 0’s.

    LOL, you either a unknown IT comedian or VERY ignorant. I dare you to pull a drive from a Raid array, 10, 5, 6, 1, 0 whatever and place it in your desktop computer and attempt to read it. Go on and try it….LOL.

  24. dougman says:

    “JBOD with a parity drive that unraid is has recorded failures after 1 drive fail being the parity drive.”

    LOL…if my parity drives fails, so be it. Just drop in a new drive and rebuild “sync” your data.

    “the parity drive is worked harder than every other drive in the array.”

    So?… reread what I just said. In addition, three to five year warranty on drives resolves that as well.

    “that single parity drive means all writes are limited by the speed of one drive”

    Eh, 133/MB second writing speed is fine with me, which is my top speed for now. By the way, dual parity drives will be arriving soon in a future update.

  25. dougman says:

    “dougman between lime-technology not open sourcing everything and documented unraid failures it is no more trust-able than raid.”

    Oh which “documented” failures are that? Please share your Google search engine prowess.

    Who cares if they do not open-source everything, you pay for a license just like you do with RedHat. $100 is nothing when you are storing double-digit terabytes of data. The UPS is at least four to five times that cost of the license.

  26. oiaohm says:

    dougman between lime-technology not open sourcing everything and documented unraid failures it is no more trust-able than raid. Sorry unraid might have a lot of marketing but the technical facts don’t support it.

    JBOD with a parity drive that unraid is has recorded failures after 1 drive fail being the parity drive. And the parity drive is worked harder than every other drive in the array. Also that single parity drive means all writes are limited by the speed of one drive.

    Raid 10 and raid 5 is more stable than unraid. unraid puts all critical eggs in one basket.

    In the JBOD non standard style of storage with parity you look at BeyondRAID that is normally too pricey that is like unraid but done with a Raid 5 like design spreading the Parity data so more stable in drive failure and faster on average write speeds and RAID-Z from ZFS of course and Multiple Devices modes in Btrfs that not all are stable yet.

    unraid is one of those things I don’t see with a long term future not unless they change design massively. Performance and Data security unraid is not competitive against BeyondRAID or RAID-Z and will not be completive against future Btrfs. Mostly its only better than Btrfs at the moment because a major coding errors was found in the Raid5 and 6 code it used.

    Basically this is another case of dougman falling hook line and sinker for marketing material.

  27. dougman says:

    “I don’t expect”

    That’s FAILURE #1 right there.

    Repeat after me, “RAID IS NOT A BACKUP” say it a few times.

    I have my NAS backed up once a week, using rsync to a server in my pole barn. Highly unlikely that both buildings would ever burn down at once, if so, I have other problems to be worried about.

  28. dougman wrote, “tell me how your raid array does when you lose a drive and you cannot pull your data off it.”

    I don’t expect to lose a drive but if I did lose one I have a backup and spare drives. I will also keep an old drive for booting to use as a repair platform. A much more likely event rather than losing a drive is losing a sector/track in which case fsck.xfs and the backup will fix things. RAID 0 exists and I’m not afraid to use it. If Cello is ever delivered I will have the capability to use 6 SATA drives in any combination plus USB drives to keep my data. Don’t worry.

  29. dougman says:

    “400MB/s transfer rates”

    Sounds like RAID 0; tell me how your raid array does when you lose a drive and you cannot pull your data off it.

  30. dougman wrote, “RAID arrays are passe these days. UNRAID is a far superior solution.”

    Or not… RAID has worked for me for more than a decade and it will continue to do what I need done in storage. My new RAID system has been flawless, once I built the driver. I’m getting 400MB/s transfer rates which is what I wanted. I can still add devices which should keep me happy for the rest of my life or a good chunk of it.

  31. dougman says:

    Both are not worthy options for a RAID array. In fact, RAID arrays are passe these days. UNRAID is a far superior solution.

    https://lime-technology.com/unraid-server/

Leave a Reply