I am more thinking about the multi-host multi-path capability. But I am not seeing any real easy way around the 6 devices per chain limitation. If you could get around that you could potentially make switches and have your storage connected just like you do for a SAN now (ie using a totally separate bus versus your production network, so really I am thinking about a FC replacement more so than an iSCSI replacement).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Thunderbolt Cable and Promise Thunderbolt RAID Systems Hit the Apple Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am more thinking about the multi-host multi-path capability. But I am not seeing any real easy way around the 6 devices per chain limitation. If you could get around that you could potentially make switches and have your storage connected just like you do for a SAN now (ie using a totally separate bus versus your production network, so really I am thinking about a FC replacement more so than an iSCSI replacement).
I know sorry I forgot I didn't copy the whole quote and had to edit my original post, it's in there now.
from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380890,00.asp
so i guess we are both kind of right, total bandwidth is 20Gbps up AND down, but any single device can only use 10Gbps up AND down!
You seem to be under the impression this stuff will become cheap. The thing is, you're failing to realise that Thunderbolt is not a consumer interconnect, and the more and more is revealed about it, the less it seems it will ever become one.
USB3 will be what consumers will use.
Or you can use a different NIC and isolate your iSCSI SAN from your LAN.
There's also FC external HBAs coming that someone else pointed out (since they're basically an external PCIE card). But why buy an external Thunderbolt FC HBA ? Unless it's to present LUNs from your SAN storage to a Macbook or Mac Mini... just go for the cheaper internal card.But Thunderbolt is not made to network computers/storage. It's made to expand a host's PCIE bus. Round peg, meet square hole...
What a joke, this product won't sell. $1,000 for a 4 bay array is MUCH too expensive.
Even pros won't pay for this - they'll probably opt for a cheaper eSATA array at 1/4 the cost...
You can if the NAS supports iSCSI. The NAS will show up as a local disk drive and work just like a disk drive. No file sharing involved.
Even pros won't pay for this - they'll probably opt for a cheaper eSATA array at 1/4 the cost...
You can if the NAS supports iSCSI. The NAS will show up as a local disk drive and work just like a disk drive. No file sharing involved.
Last edited:
well allow me to retort.
Intel is not integrating TB on their chipsets right now (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4377/intel-integrates-usb-30-and-thunderbolt-into-ivy-bridge-platform). Their TB dev kit is not out yet (see the Intel Dev forum).
Integrating TB on a mobile chipset would require quite a lot of extra silicon, from what I can tell, not sure if the IP is up for grabs to integrate it onto custom chips. Without that there is no way that Apple or whoever will put it on a mobile device.
The digital audio developers by and large *suck* at making hardware (or drivers for that matter), so TB won't happen there except *maybe* at the super-high end. FW400 is more than enough for multi-multi-channel recording and even then most semi-pro companies (Focusrite, M-audio) etc. *mess it up* - looking at support forums every single one of the suppliers is reviled for terrible drivers.
Graphics card in docks is not going to happen. For technical reasons: 10Gbps is really not much. Then there is the cost: IBM has been making docks with PCI slots for their Thinkpads. They're expensive, niche products (one of our developers has one).
Thunderbolt is an interesting idea. Maybe it will catch on as:
1. Thunderbolt to xxx (USB3, FW800, 10GbE, eSata) bridge. Cost will eventually be about the same as PCMCIA cards now, and perform a similar function.
2. High speed disk interface for professional users.
Neither is the 100Gbps TB cables/units, as per previous 40Gbps post, I realised what I had said as soon as I posted, it would be a limit of 20Gbps, the 2 channels are not currently used together though so yes it would be 10Gbps (still beyond anything availible today and near future). However they are not specifically 1 for data and 1 for video.
I see, you haven't used one, have you? The first backup of a decent sized HD takes days on wireless and it still takes hours on the network cable. Because it's not that uncommon that Time Machine corrupts its own backup, you need to do this every once in a while. TB would be a godsend if it even halved the time required for the initial backup.
But then you'd be limited to the wired switch on the Time Capsule. USB3 makes much more sense than Thunderbolt on something like that.
Heck, the internal SATA interface is plenty to saturate the 1 Gbps switch ports.
eSata is here and now - and it's cheap. Just saying there are working, cheaper alternative than Thunderbolt or even USB 3.0.
How can you speak for other people and assume what they will and won't pay?
Show me a similar product that is priced less.
Last edited:
It's the first products to hit the market, and you pay premium for being an early adopter. How much did the worlds first USB cable cost? Economy of scale will make this stuff cheaper down the line, also although it is possible to find a cheaper 4 bay HD raid array, there are other models in the same price range.
Last edited:
I am sure something like that is in the works, likely are many other devices. I understand the cost to entry for manufacturers is higher than USB or even FireWire, but then again neither of those had 100s of devices waiting for them when first implemented.
There was a lot of naysaying USB when it first came out, thousands of Apple fans were quite annoyed when ADB was dropped in favor of this new standard.
Wish there was a TB card I can just plug into my windows servers and use these for data backups.
I know who would be interested, needing, and willing to pay for this.
Professional FCP users.
Oh, there's none left after FCP X?
..well, I doubt there are a lot of prosumers willing to pay for this...
Professional FCP users.
Oh, there's none left after FCP X?
..well, I doubt there are a lot of prosumers willing to pay for this...
I would be willing to bet that was a matter of Promise not having cables on-hand to include, since they're so new. Adding in the cost of the cable and passing that on to the consumer doesn't seem like it would be a deal breaker for the folks willing to spend $1000 on 4 gigs of raid storage.
Don't forget the second cable to connect your display! Cha-ching!
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8E200)
You're id you're even considering this.
Doesn't FireWire so 800mbps? And it doesn't even come with a cable.... And they're charging 50 bucks for it.
I would wait for monoprice cables and a raid that can really take advantage of the speed.
You're id you're even considering this.
Doesn't FireWire so 800mbps? And it doesn't even come with a cable.... And they're charging 50 bucks for it.
I would wait for monoprice cables and a raid that can really take advantage of the speed.
Apple actually states on the TC support page that for the initial back-up you connect the TC via cable!
I see that you missed the entire purpose of the product. If you want to spend more money for a TC, by all means go ahead, but the purpose of a TC is for WIRELESS BACKUPS... if you want a wired backup, save yourself some cash and buy an external hard drive. Of course it would be missing that nice
logo, but if you aren't using the wireless backup feature of your TC, you wasted a lot of money.indeed, because of the time usually required for an initial backup of lots of data.
However, you want to pay a $100 premium for the TB controller so that you can save time on your initial backup???