back to article Ten four-bay NAS boxes

The storage needs of home users are ever growing, such that the capacity of dual-layer DVDs appears miniscule, and backing up CD looks desperate. Many are now turning to network accessible storage systems that not only allow data storage in the home, but also provide HTTP, FTP and cloud services for when you’re on the go. The …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

What I'd be looking for in such a thing

Quiet operation

Properly managed cooling of the disks

Disk vibration dampening

Caddy-free disk mounting

Hardware crypto acceleration for full-disk encryption

Gigabit ethernet -- getting more or less standard, not quite there yet

Own OS support -- I'll be running a *BSD, sporting NFS, maybe AFS

And optionally feeding it a mere 12V

Somehow all I'm getting is "web interface"

Back to building things by hand then. *sigh*

11
1

Re: What I'd be looking for in such a thing

Would be interested to know how noisy the Netgear is. i have the the Duo, it does the job but the stock fan was really loud. its not a rackmount so lets not assume its going in a DC!

Also, the UI was insanely slow, even after upgrading the ram from 256 to a gig.

any chance of screenshot of the UI's?

think my next move might involve Freenas

0
0

Re: What I'd be looking for in such a thing

I agree. A good postscript to this article would be similarly brief round-up of build-your-own options using freeNAS (and the rest). I'm happy with my HP ProLiant Microserver which I know many people have on here and cost a less than £150( (with cashback). No doubt the good burghers of this parish will be along soon enough with suggestions for the latest and greatest.

11
0

Re: What I'd be looking for in such a thing

I have a couple of Netgear NV+ (v1) and find the interface to be quick and easy to use. Netgear are pretty good with firmware updates and both boxes have been updated to the latest but one version - maybe this assists with the interface? I do have a two stacks of Netgear L2+ smart switches though and the interfaces of are pretty slow.

No real complaints with the NAS boxes though. They used to be used for regular backups and periodically they'd eat disks but a while back they were replaced with much more business class kit and nowadays they mostly just sit there with occasional use for archiving. But even so they still eat discs. But it's usually only the two center bays - and it's only Seagate. Due to the long warranty periods on the discs we were returning them to Seagate, receiving back recon drives which went back into storage and then back into the NAS when the next one failed. But the cycle was continuous with 2-3 failures per year so we started using the Seagates for other things and bought others (initially Samsung and then later WD when Samsung vanished) and the problem stopped.

The outer two bays, which run about 10C cooler, are much less of a problem - I just had to replace a failing Seagate in Bay 4 this week but, being the older of the two NV+ units that drive has been in there for 5 years which is a failure time I can live with.

3
0

Re: What I'd be looking for in such a thing

I have an NV+, it's pretty quiet except when it wakes up and the fan goes full bore.

Had a Thecus, it was AWEFUL. The UI sometimes wouldn't refresh properly, it was slow, very loud, prone to burnt out power supplies and the fan was not adequate enough to cool the drives... It did run Linux on x86, which was nice, but there is very little in the way of community, which is important if you have a problem.

If I had to do it all over again, I'd get a Synology hands down. The NetGear ReadyNAS is nice, but Synology has a much better community & ecosystem.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: What I'd be looking for in such a thing

I too was looking for a NAS server thingie, with the main requirements being rackmount (those do exist) and less than 2.5 linguini (35cm, 14") deep (those don't, as far as I've been able to find).

A brief flirt with Travla in the hope of obtaining, at a reasonable price and in a reasonable timeframe, a case that kindof met my requirements failed as the price and timeframe turned out to be anything but reasonable.

So I decided to roll my own. The result: built into a 19" 2HE audio case (those are easily available in the depth I required is a 4x 2.5" drive bay, a mini-ITX board, a Flex-ATX PSU and two temperature-controlled fans. The air "inlet" is past the drives, so they get more than sufficient cooling. The board is mounted with its I/O panel towards the front. Freestanding it's not particularly quiet due to the 6cm fans, but mounted and with the rack door closed you barely notice it. For OS I briefly considered FreeNAS, but went with my favorite distro instead.

1
0

Re: What I'd be looking for in such a thing

Yes the Synology is pretty good. I've had the 2-bay version for about a year and the interface and basic functions have got steadily better. Every time is log in (monthly or so) updates are available.

Unfortunately they still haven't fixed automatic backup of larger SD cards, but the 4-bay version doesn't seem to have an SD slot, judging from the photo. Also the wireless option has never worked for me, even when a supposedly supported wireless USB adapter is plugged in.

The support community is both active and helpful.

1
0

Re: What I'd be looking for in such a thing

Another vote for the micro server. A fraction of the price of the top end NAS boxes and solid performance. I have supplied a few as NAS / media playback device. Add a couple of GB of RAM, a £30 video card, your choice of O/S and they will happily playback HD video.

4
0
Thumb Up

Re: What I'd be looking for in such a thing

+1 for the HP Microserver. Cheaper, faster and you can install regular Linux or FreeBSD. I really can't understand why someone would buy one of these overpriced and limited "NAS" devices... Ohh well...

2
0

Re: What I'd be looking for in such a thing

Indeed! An N40L can host 5 drives internally (if you use the 5.25" bay intended for optical drives). I've got OpenMediaVault on mine and it does just fine for me :)

0
0

And another

Another vote for the MicroServer. I've got two of them, a N36L running VMWare ESXi and an N40L with FreeNAS 7 and 4x2Tb drives.

I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of a dedicated box against a MicroServer/FreeNAS combi, or if there is better software than FreeNAS.

1
0

HP Proliant Micrpserver

At a fraction of a cost of these NAS boxes and with more flexibility, I'm glad I've opted for 2 of these instead of a NAS.

21
0
Thumb Up

Re: HP Proliant Micrpserver

Totally agree, the price of these NAS devices is ludicrous considering a Microserver is £120 after cashback, comes with 2GB of RAM, a 256GB drive and supports ECC. The 5.25" bay is also useful if you want to install an optical or tape drive or even another 2 HDs for a total of 6.

Granted they don't work out of the box, so you're going to have to fill it with drives and install and configure your favourite OS, but I don't think that's beyond most Reg readers.

15
0
Thumb Up

Re: HP Proliant Micrpserver

I am constantly surprised that this box from HP gets so little recognition. I guess it's got to be a larger box than any of these, but it's sheer capability and low price get's my vote.

The only thing that does dissuade me is setting one up with a Linux distro. If there was an idiots guide on the web somewhere, I would get one.

8
0

Re: HP Proliant Micrpserver

There's a £100 cashback offer from HP on the ProLiant Microserver N40L during November, so, total cost about £120 all in from a number of retailers, for base configuration (2GB).

7
0
Thumb Up

Re: HP Proliant Micrpserver

Yup. You can't argue at that price. Buy it for £120, stick in four drives, install FreeNas onto a memory stick (sited in the internal USB port) and away you go. I have the older N36L and have just bought the new N40L for another project.

One thing I would advise is to to stick some more memory in though as the ZFS file system is quite memory-hungry if you go for a RAID-Z configuration.

2
0

Re: HP Proliant Micrpserver

Whilst it may be cheaper, the lower power usage and ease of setup lead me to choose a QNAP system. If you're happy to build your own then you can save money but I liked the idea of a box in which all I had to do was add hard drives and I was away. Mine has lasted for several years and done a seamless upgrade from 1TB to 2TB disks with no downtime. At the end of the day, it's done what I wanted at a price I feel was worth it.

1
0
Silver badge
Linux

Re: HP Proliant Micrpserver

With what I save on not using overpriced appliances, I can have a completely redundant array.

That nullfies much of the typical marketing bullet points associated with NAS appliances.

Plus you've got a whole other copy of everything.

0
0
Thumb Up

Re: HP Proliant Micrpserver

It might not be that much lower on power than a NAS box, my N36L pulled about 35w when I tested it.

Upgrading the drives will be an issue - UnRAID claims to be able to (I've not used it personally), FreeNAS can't.

I found FreeNAS pretty simple to set up, but I played with it in a VM first to get it right. It's been running nigh-on 24x7 for over a year now.

0
0

I have a ReadyNAS Duo. I'm really happy with it. It's quieter now that I've replaced the stock fan, although it wasn't that bad in the first place. Upgrading the RAM made quite a difference, but was a PITA. Back when I got it, NAS support for Apple Time Machine was few and far between and this was a major factor in the purchase. I'm rather surprised this article went for a NV+ rather than an Ultra4.

0
0
FAIL

Agreed. They should at least have reviewed both, and it's also odd...

...that they mentioned the on-the-fly expansion capabilities of the Synology, but didn't mention that the Netgear box has that same functionality, and indeed, Netgear were the first to offer it and have done for years and years since the acquisition of Infrant who created the ReadyNAS line in the first place.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Agreed. They should at least have reviewed both, and it's also odd...

Yes they just mention in passing that the Synology can be expanded easily, and then don't say anything for any of the others. I would think that was a major feature that should be covered for all of them. Don't care how much ram they have, I want to know how they work!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Absurdly Expensive

For about a £1k I managed to pick up a HP MSA storage works encloser 12x 2TB SATA drives, a interface card and supermicro server, so whats the real incentive of using these especially when the data transfer rates are nowhere near any home built nas apart from looking nice and pretty.

3
1
Facepalm

Re: Absurdly Expensive

First of all I call bullshit on your figures, 12x2TB drives would cost at least £800 alone, an MSA shelf would be another £800 and that's before you've bought your HBA and server. Secondly the NAS devices reviewed here are designed for homes and small offices and are designed to be quiet and consume little power. Your disk shelf, drives and server would consume around 300w and would make a hell of a racket. And thirdly, these devices are designed for simple storage where transfer rates, especially writes, are relatively inconsequential.

Apples to oranges doesn't really begin to describe it.

3
1
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Absurdly Expensive

"First of all I call bullshit on your figures...." He never said what generation of MSA or if it was new. There is a lot of older used models on eBay going dirt cheap (http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5197.m570.l1311&_nkw=hp+msa&_sacat=58058&_from=R40). A friend has an hp MSA1000 with clustered RHEL fileservers he built for self-training for his RHCE, all housed in a half-height rack in his loft (so no problem with noise). He bought the lot (including the two old Dell servers, a 100Mb LAN switch and FC adapters) for £400 on eBay. I can't remember what size disks he got with it but the MSA was full when he bought it. His latest project is trying to get it to replicate over VPN to another MSA at his office.

2
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Absurdly Expensive

so whats the real incentive of using these [NAS boxes]

- Size

- Noise

- Power consumption

3
1
Silver badge

Re: Absurdly Expensive

I too call bullshit. Cheap older MSA wont support 2TB drives for a start. Plus then you might need to find a SCSI controller and a PC to serve as NAS.

An MSA 1000 is hardly going to sit in the living room under the telly. Those things weight a ton too and connect via fibre channel. I dont see many laptops sporting fibre channel connections.

The cheapest way would be a smallest case with two 5.25 - put a 4 bay hotswap in there and use an integrated low power board - ion or amd fusion (can you get ECC integrated boards?) use freenas/openfiler (openfiler will also let you install the OS to the RAID array too) etc and you should have a 4tb raid10 for under £400

1
0
Thumb Down

performance is not the only metric

file systems supported?

idle power consumption?

ssh?

5
0
Silver badge

Re: performance is not the only metric

two gigabit connections for you herp derp samba :-)

0
0
Stop

I don't get NAS boxes...

...unless it *really* needs to be that small - but when you need more bays, you have to go out and buy another one.

Very little room for expandability - I've got 12x (mostly 2TB and all Samsung) HD, 1x optical and 1x OCZ SSD in my tower case. Three are in a hot swap bay that takes up two of the three optical drive bays. There are big, slow, quiet fans in front of all the quiet, low heat, low power hard drives.

Why not build a Win 7 / Win 8 PC with shared libraries, running full Windows software for downloading / web sharing / managing your files, that's upgradable by something much more flexible than firmware and that won't leave you unsupported in a year or two, requiring you to buy the new version? That's what I did:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/networking-nas/1085092-mulvaneys-14-5tb-win-7-media-server.html

I've updated it since then though, it's about 20TB now and I'm about to put in a Core i3, more RAM and Win 8. I'm lucky enough to be in a position to upgrade cheaply and often, due to buying / selling / repairing PCs in my spare time (I manage a 1500 user, 500 PC, 200 laptop network for my main job).

I'm still waiting for 3TB drives to come down to £70 and 4TB to £100. Then I might wait until 4TB are £70 - I've got plenty of space for now.

1
4
Headmaster

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

I do...

I bought a Synology DS-413J for £275. It arrived, I stuffed 4 disks in and turned it on (hybrid RAID FTW!). A fair bit of whirring and clicking later, it's all working. Job done.

It sits quietly in the corner and acts as a printer server and media server for all the devices in the house. It runs on 30W.

My gas-guzzling PC with the 6 fans and 1000W PSU doesn't need to be on 24/7.

Easy to like.

11
1

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

"...Why not build a Win 7 / Win 8 PC with shared libraries,..."

Why use Windows? It is not safe and susceptible to data corruption. Ever hard disk gets lots of read/write errors during normal usage, but gets corrected on the fly with error correcting codes on the disk. However, some of these errors are not correctable by the codes. Even worse, some of these errors are not even DETECTABLE by the codes. The codes are not fool proof, you know. They might be able to correct 1 bit errors, and detect two bit errors, but sometimes three bit errors happen. Very rare, but they happen. And those three bit errors are not correctable. Sometimes four and even five bit errors happen, and such errors might not even be detectable. This is called Bit Rot, google on it. Old VHS tapes doesnt work today, the data has begun to rot.

It is exactly the same problem in RAM. Why do you think servers need ECC RAM? ECC RAM can correct 1 bit errors, and detect 2 bit errors. Microsoft concluded (after collecting information about Windows crashes) that 30% of all Windows crashes was caused by random bit flips in RAM, something that ECC RAM would have protected against. Cosmic radiation is a big source of random bit flips, flaky power, sun bursts, etc. There are much research on data corruption.

You need a solution that always calculates checksum data of every read block on the disk, in effect doing a MD5 checksum on every read. Or SHA1, or any other checksum. This is the only way to protect against bit rot on disks. Incidentally, ZFS is designed to protect against bit rot, and does exactly that: for every block you read, it calculates a SHA256 checksum. And if the checksum is not correct, it automatically repairs the block from the raid. And, ZFS is free, as in gratis. If you try ZFS, you must not use hardware raid, because they mess up the checksum calculation. Sell it, and use free ZFS. Here is much research on data corruption on disks. And of course, if you are serious with your data, you should use ECC RAM too.

NTFS, ext, HFS, XFS, JFS, etc is not safe, and might corrupt your data (research paper) here. And ZFS is safe, according to researchers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Data_Integrity

3
9
K
Bronze badge

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

Can't fault you on your logic - but your wrong.

I've built many bespoke NAS boxes over the past few years for home usage - most of them run Windows, I can't recall 1 of them having a problem.

The issue with using a *NIX OS for the NAS, few "home" user comprehend the bare OS, so if they have a problem, its next to impossible for them to reliably fix it, and even if they Google for a solution, its gibberish to them. Windows on the other hand is prevalent, 99% of users are familiar with it and I'd say 75% are capable of finding a solution to most problems (of course they try to hit up their "IT" friend to fix it first!).

3
8
K
Bronze badge
Facepalm

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

75% being on the very optimistic side of course..

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

"Why use Windows? It is not safe and susceptible to data corruption"

What a load of FUD.... dont forget to wrap some foil around your hard drives

4
4

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

Your i3 running full windows with all those drives will draw hundreds of watts, these devices are typically draw 25-50.

So lets say yours runs 300w, 24/7 all year. That's 2682 Kwh.

At 50w 24/7 all year. That's 438Kwh.

Or 6 times the amount of electricity.

@15p/Kwh

The nas costs £65.7/year to run vs £402.30 to run the i3.

4
2
Bronze badge
Meh

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

And how much Juice does that thing swallow in a year?

While your Rig sounds mighty impressive, I for One would prefer something more light-weight in the power consumption category for something that's meant to be up 24/7/365, and the odd Leap Day.

If I could care less for Global Warming (or just plain warming my Home for that matter). I do tend to side on the side of the Greens here. (Green = Money, i.e. Money saved from having to pay for all that up-time that such a Rig would imply using a 500W+ PSU).

So no OTOH its a quick and dirty way to get something up and running. But unless your in the 47% this is not really value for Money.

0
0
Bronze badge
Linux

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

Sadly what this Man says is true.

I'm getting better at Linux though and will likely at some stage fully merge with it.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

That's why Op fails...

0
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

<Yawn> Another session of Kebabbert's "ZFS is the answer, no need to tell me your question!" I can get built-in RAID on most PC mobos, it is reliable and cost-effective, does not impact on CPU performance, why bother with the hassle of ZFS which steals cycles from the CPU?

0
1
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

"....I for One would prefer something more light-weight in the power consumption category..." Try using laptop mobos in a DIY NAS, many have an eSATA port or USB ports you can attach drives to. Laptop drives are also lower on power consumption and heat output, laptop fans are usually not that noisy, and parts readily available. And if you don't feel confident about building a DIY rig or configuring Linux you can even just use the laptop as is and configure WinXP to share out Windows volumes if all you have is Windows clients. WinXP has all the networking (and some simple security) required for such a task. You can use a laptop as a NAS with external drives and then in an emergency you have something you can use as a spare desktop should your main desktop/laptop fail. For 90% of households that's all that is really needed.

1
2
Silver badge

@Matt

" I can get built-in RAID on most PC mobos" - that is almost certaily 'fake RAID' where the BIOS can boot from it but it is the OS that has to actually do the RAID computation. OK for simple RAID-1 or similar its easier than ZFS, but it still lacks the advantages of data checksums.

ZFS is not the only file system that does that, GPFS has them as well, but most others I think only do metadata checksumming (e.g. Linux ext4, and MS' new and unproven RsFS unless you explicitly ask for the extra checks/load).

I can't believe you have not ever had that horrible feeling when you get a/multiple disk errors and no simply way to find out *what* has been corrupted by the failure of "sector 102345569" etc. Also I am not the only one I know to have had data corruption in a file system due to bus/memory errors that were 'silent' so it was only on decompressing a ZIP archive (which has integrity checks in it) that it was discovered. Most other files have no checksums so the true extent of the damage was not known and the tedium of complete backup restoration had to be undertaken.

We all know you have an irrational dislike of all things Sun, but from an integrity point of view ZFS is one of the best choices for file systems, unless you are playing big-league with IBM's distributed system.

2
1
FAIL

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

"Your i3 running full windows with all those drives will draw hundreds of watts, these devices are typically draw 25-50.

So lets say yours runs 300w, 24/7 all year. That's 2682 Kwh."

I have a download box using a sandy bridge dual core celeron G530, DC - DC power supply and a SSD. The system uses 17W from the wall socket idle running XP Pro and peaks at around 40w with 100% CPU load. This is a standard 65W chip with comparable idle consumption to an I3.

The base power draw of the system is therefore 17W + drives which is the ball park for these NAS units.

If you need big storage, buying multiple NAS units isn't a great option.

In my view this are ok as an always on basic device with a couple of drives providing the base unit costs around £100.

£3-500 for what's basically a simple cpu board and a box for drives is crazy.

3
2

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

OK matt, you have 2 disks in RAID 1. One disk says a bit is 0, the other says it is 1 (perhaps flipped by a cosmic ray, power surge, flipped memory bit, or an intermittent disk surface error). Which one is correct? You don't know. That's where ZFS comes in. Read up on ZFS and enlighten yourself.

1
1
K
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

Sorry, but you talk bollocks :)

I built and use an Intel i3 based NAS box, with 5 hot swap drives. The case has a 150w power supply.. but actually draws less than 100w. The drives are Samsung 5.2k rpm ECO drives.. And no the HDD's don't power down, in fact I run VMWare on it at least 4 VM's running at all times..

0
2
Silver badge

Re: @Matt

".....'fake RAID' where the BIOS can boot from it but it is the OS that has to actually do the RAID....." If it does the job, and with a lot less cycles than ZFS, what is the problem? More mythical "bit rot"?

".......We all know you have an irrational dislike of all things Sun, but from an integrity point of view ZFS is one of the best choices for file systems....." So it's just me is it? So if ZFS is just so wonderful, why hasn't Oracle dropped BTRFS? Why does Oracle Linux use OCFS2? It looks like Oracle isn't too keen on ZFS either. And why has no other UNIX vendor dropped Veritas for ZFS? Because it's not up to the job.

ZFS is just a ripoff of WAFL and has the same performance issues. It will slow as the file system fills up. ZFS can't cluster which makes it a poor choice for real servers and hogs too much CPU which makes it a poor choice for low-power NAS solutions. It also has problems with hardware RAID. OCFS2 and BTRFS don't have those issues so I would rather recommend them than leftovers from the Sun carcass.

/SP&L

0
4
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

"OK matt, you have 2 disks in RAID 1....." Well, actually I have two sets of four disks with hardware RAID5 from proper Adaptec cards, and then software mirroring between the two chains of disks, which I couldn't do with ZFS. So far it's been up except for mirror splits for backups and fscks for three years, no bit rot. In fact I have never seen a case of the mythical bit rot you Sunshiners insist is always just waiting to happen, either professionally or at home.

".....(perhaps flipped by a cosmic ray, power surge, flipped memory bit, or an intermittent disk surface error)....." What, no hobbyhorse sh*t on the drive surface, surely just as likely?

"....You don't know....." Oh but I do know male bovine manure when I hear it, and you're so full of it it's coming out your ears!

".......Read up on ZFS and enlighten yourself." Instead, why don't you tell me when ZFS is going to get the features like online shrink needed to match better file systems like OCFS2? I suggest it is you that needs to do a shedload more reading about the alternatives instead of just parroting the Sunshine.

/SP&L

0
4
Silver badge
Linux

Re: I don't get NAS boxes...

A n00b is going to have a problem with fixing any NAS. This goes for appliances as well as Windows boxes. There is simply no magic in Windows (or even MacOS) that hides the complexity of this stuff. "Normal people" just have trouble with the idea that they can create a shared drive under Window and use it on another machine.

Never mind anything that's really interesting.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: @Matt

"If it does the job, and with a lot less cycles than ZFS, what is the problem?"

The problem is no integrity checking, same issue for Linux software RAID, etc. My data is valuable, so I want to know if it is uncorrupted, and this is something I have seen before.

"Why does Oracle Linux use OCFS2?"

Because ZFS' license is not compatible with the Linux kernel's GPL one, resulting in it generally being relegated to user-space where performance sucks (same for all other fuse systems). This is a legal issue, not a technical one.

"ZFS is just a ripoff of WAFL"

Hmm, I think the NetApp versus Sun/Oracle case was closed on that one after several of the patents were struck down. Odd you see that as a problem, as NetApp's customers like things like snapshots and copy-on-write. OK, they don't like the usurious license fees NetApp like to charge to actually *use* such features, but that is a separate issue.

"It also has problems with hardware RAID"

Not really, but if you use hardware RAID, or a separate software RAID layer to present the storage to ZFS, you then lose the key advantage of error detection and recovery of 'silent' HDD/bus/memory errors that most dumb RAID systems miss. It will at leat tell you the file(s) are corrupt, but too late to do anything by then.

I have wondered why you have such a problem with anything Sun-related, as your other posts on DB stuff are clear and rational. So why are you not so caring about data integrity in a storage system? What do you uses/recommend to verify data is exactly the same as when written?

1
1
Silver badge
Linux

Re: @Matt

>> "Why does Oracle Linux use OCFS2?"

>

> Because ZFS' license is not compatible with the Linux kernel's GPL one,

Huh? Oracle OWNS ZFS. They own it along with everything else that was part of Sun Microsystems.

If they really wanted to use it then licensing it would not be a problem. They own it. They aren't some random 3rd party.

The fact that ZFS is not a clustered filesystem is likely why Oracle uses OCFS2 instead.

It's kind of like comparing apples and potatoes.

1
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums