Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The firmware is different. PC cards' firmware is optimized for BIOS, whereas Macs use EFI and thus need a special firmware to work. It is possible to flash the firmware to be EFI compatible though (but only certain GPUs work).

My 9800Pro on my old PowerMac is a reflashed PC one ($80 at the time already flashed compared to $300 for the "Mac" version). Firmware is firmware and simple to write over. They could easily include auto-sensing firmware these days and have both on board (or just a dip switch or something to switch them) and sell ONE card for everyone, but that wouldn't let them mark the Mac versions up 400% for no reason what-so-ever.
 
My 9800Pro on my old PowerMac is a reflashed PC one ($80 at the time already flashed compared to $300 for the "Mac" version). Firmware is firmware and simple to write over. They could easily include auto-sensing firmware these days and have both on board (or just a dip switch or something to switch them) and sell ONE card for everyone, but that wouldn't let them mark the Mac versions up 400% for no reason what-so-ever.

Wow. That's definitely a downside. I mean are these enclosures going to be hot swappable though? Will they require a restart to become functional? I'm getting an 11 inch Mac Book Air for iOS programming and the Unreal 3 SDK is probably going to want a little bit more GFX power than what the Intel 3000 chipset is going to be able to offer. So either I'm stuck doing it on my beast of a PC or I can get one of these. But the insight in to EFI is definitely a good one and I thank you guys for answering my question. :)
 
gigabit ethernet? really?

I'm about done trying to convince you that others might have different needs than you have.


Who would use a daisy chain of spinning hard drives? Most people MIGHT have 1 external hard drive for backup purposes.

But *some* people need more. I have a pair of SansDigital 5-bay eSATA cabinets attached to my Dell Core i7-940 mini-tower. They contain 20 TB of storage, carved into three 6 TB arrays and a 2 TB array.

I'd love to replace those with daisy-chained TBolt cabinet(s) with a 3ware RAID controller like the 9750 with a half GiB battery-backed cache. (I have a 3ware 9650 with 256 MiB and a 6 TB RAID-5 array on my other PC.)

Of course, without TBolt on a PCIe card I'm SOL.


So that leaves servers that have capped out on gigabit ethernet? You would need a fairly large LAN, or a huge ISP connection to fully saturate gigabit ethernet connected HDD's.

You realize, of course, that a single spinning hard drive is much faster than Gigabit ethernet?

You realize, of course, that driving a GbE takes a huge amount of CPU power unless you are using jumbo frames with jumbo-frame compliant switches and a $500-$1000 NIC with a TCP/IP or iSCSI offload engine? (And even then, unless your clients also have $500 network cards they'll be chewing up tons of CPU as well.)

I don't think that you understand server environments any larger than a Time Machine on a Linksys.
 
You realize, of course, that a single spinning hard drive is much faster than Gigabit ethernet?

I would preface that with the word some. Your typical 5200 RPM plain vanilla SATA averaging 50-70MB/sec isn't going to saturate Gigabit. Some of the 7200 RPM ones could (given efficiency losses; theoretically the limit is around 125MB/sec, but I usually see it top out around 85-90MB/sec on large files, but then that's approaching the practical writing speed limit even on my 7200 RPM Barracuda drive.) but just barely. But going RAID and most of the newer SSDs can easily be bottle-necked by it.

There is a newer 10Gigabit standard that would have no trouble ,though.
 
I would preface that with the word some. Your typical 5200 RPM plain vanilla SATA averaging 50-70MB/sec isn't going to saturate Gigabit. Some of the 7200 RPM ones could (given efficiency losses; theoretically the limit is around 125MB/sec, but I usually see it top out around 85-90MB/sec on large files, but then that's approaching the practical writing speed limit even on my 7200 RPM Barracuda drive.) but just barely. But going RAID and most of the newer SSDs can easily be bottle-necked by it.

WD WD30EZRX 3 TB 5400 RPM green drive - 125 MB/sec
Seagate ST32000542AS 2 TB 5900 RPM green drive - 109 MB/sec

(low LBA spiral read, 1 MiB transfer size)

Yes, I should have said "some" rather than "a". A single current "green" drive, however, can saturate GbE. Even more likely, unless you have a $500 NIC with an offload engine, is that the CPU will be the bottleneck.


There is a newer 10Gigabit standard that would have no trouble ,though.

Copper 10 GbE Intel NIC - $515 at Newegg (needs PCIe x8 slot).

Netgear 4 port 10 GbE copper switch - $7,879 at Newegg.
 
Re: Saturation of GgE etc.

The problem with modern hard drives isn't so much that they've increased in mechanical speed - (head latency is much the same, if anything slower RPM models have become more popular) - but the data density on each platter has increased very rapidly. Higher data density = more bits read per revolution which translates to high throughput even with off-the-shelf 'eco' drives.

We've been waiting for a fast external data solution for non-expandable Macs for a few years, as USB, FW800 and GbE to consumer NAS units have all been out-classed by the underlying hard drive speed. Of course, in the PC world eSATA has been a solution to this problem.
 
- but the data density on each platter has increased very rapidly. Higher data density = more bits read per revolution which translates to high throughput even with off-the-shelf 'eco' drives.

This effect is very true, and is compounded by the fairly huge caches on modern drives. The WD WD30EZRX 3 TB 5400 RPM green drive ($120 at Fry's) has a 64 MiB buffer, so it can do full track and perhaps full cylinder read-ahead and write-behind. Burst speeds can often come close to the 6 Gbps SATA speed in normal use.


We've been waiting for a fast external data solution for non-expandable Macs for a few years....

With TBolt there are no "non-expandable" Apples. I wonder if the turtle-necked overlord realizes what a Pandora's box he has opened.... Why buy a $4000 Mac Pro when an $800 MiniMac can do the same work?
 
Last edited:
What was the point of a neat little box when you need a zillion extensions hanging out? And now a damn graphics card that will totally hog the TB port....

My iMac already has two 7-port USB hubs that are nearly filled - partly because USB 2.0 can't deliver enough power to many peripherals, so those take two connections. Then I have multiple 5400rpm "portable" hard drives (that never move) and take 10 seconds to spin up whenever the system needs to find anything. They're cheap, but maybe a bad idea in hindsight.
 
What was the point of a neat little box when you need a zillion extensions hanging out? And now a damn graphics card that will totally hog the TB port....

My iMac already has two 7-port USB hubs that are nearly filled - partly because USB 2.0 can't deliver enough power to many peripherals, so those take two connections. Then I have multiple 5400rpm "portable" hard drives (that never move) and take 10 seconds to spin up whenever the system needs to find anything. They're cheap, but maybe a bad idea in hindsight.

Back to Sean's comment, this illustrates one of the biggest reasons for daisy chains (or trees, in the case of USB) of disks.

People buy what they need, or think they need.

:loop
A year later, the disk that was "way bigger than I need" is full, and they buy another one that's "way bigger than I need".
Goto :loop
 
WD WD30EZRX 3 TB 5400 RPM green drive - 125 MB/sec
Seagate ST32000542AS 2 TB 5900 RPM green drive - 109 MB/sec


I'm not getting even close to those numbers in 10.6.8 with a 2.5" 500GB 7200 RPM Hitachi internal SATA drive I bought last year in my MBP with Xbench. In 10.6.3, the same drive got 110MB/sec, but the 5400 RPM 300GB drive the MBP came with (that the Hitachi replaced) only did around 65MB/sec (with 10.6.3). I'd imagine it'd be even lower now with 10.6.8.

Re: Saturation of GgE etc.

The problem with modern hard drives isn't so much that they've increased in mechanical speed - (head latency is much the same, if anything slower RPM models have become more popular) - but the data density on each platter has increased very rapidly. Higher data density = more bits read per revolution which translates to high throughput even with off-the-shelf 'eco' drives.

I would imagine the speeds he quoted were due to the 3TB size (on a 3.5" platter). OTOH, my WD 3TB external can only do 35MB/sec (according to the box) in USB3. Since USB3 supposedly isn't the limiting factor there, I don't know what the issue would be other than slow drives (probably two 1.5TB drives in that particular enclosure, being one of the first 3TB drives they offered). I know in USB2, I'm lucky to get 20MB/sec writes on large files.​
 
Last edited:
I would imagine the speeds he quoted were due to the 3TB size (on a 3.5" platter). OTOH, my WD 3TB external can only do 35MB/sec (according to the box) in USB3. Since USB3 supposedly isn't the limiting factor there, I don't know what the issue would be other than slow drives (probably two 1.5TB drives in that particular enclosure, being one of the first 3TB drives they offered). I know in USB2, I'm lucky to get 20MB/sec writes on large files.

Someone has sold you a duff drive box. 1.5TB drives should easily hit 100MB/s... I was getting over 60MB/s using 300MB drives and FW800 5 years ago.
 
I'm not getting even close to those numbers in 10.6.8 with a 2.5" 500GB 7200 RPM Hitachi internal SATA drive I bought last year in my MBP with Xbench. In 10.6.3, the same drive got 110MB/sec, but the 5400 RPM 300GB drive the MBP came with (that the Hitachi replaced) only did around 65MB/sec (with 10.6.3). I'd imagine it'd be even lower now with 10.6.8.

Try it running any version of Windows - especially since you yourself point out that Apple OSX is getting slower.

My tests were run on Win7 x64, using a SiI3132 eSATA 3Gbps controller in a PCIe 1.0 x1 slot. Drives were in Sans Digital TR5MB PM case.


I would imagine the speeds he quoted were due to the 3TB size (on a 3.5" platter). OTOH, my WD 3TB external can only do 35MB/sec (according to the box) in USB3.

USB 2.0 should be able to hit (or come very close) to 35 MB/sec. It would be quite surprising if a USB 3.0 drive couldn't do better than USB 2.0 speeds.

What are you using for a USB 3.0 controller?
 
If there is no demand for PCI or eSata port on MBP 15 why would there be a demand for tBolt device like this?

This is a really nice solution for Windows that is under $200. That would be really cool if Macs had this option.
 
Try it running any version of Windows - especially since you yourself point out that Apple OSX is getting slower.

My tests were run on Win7 x64, using a SiI3132 eSATA 3Gbps controller in a PCIe 1.0 x1 slot. Drives were in Sans Digital TR5MB PM case.

USB 2.0 should be able to hit (or come very close) to 35 MB/sec. It would be quite surprising if a USB 3.0 drive couldn't do better than USB 2.0 speeds.

What are you using for a USB 3.0 controller?

I don't havea USB 3.0 controller. I have a Mac connected. They don't have USB3.0.

I agree it should get closer to 35MB/sec, but it doesn't here. I've had it connected to my PowerMac server (USB 2.0 card in it) so perhaps that's the problem. I'll connect it to my MBP and see how it does....


OK, I get 21MB/sec read, 20MB/sec write on the PowerMac and 36MB/sec read, 28, MB/sec write on the MBP so maybe the driver and/or card is limiting the PowerMac (CPU use accessing the drive is only 30%, so I don't think that's it). The same PowerMac gets around 40MB/sec with a FW400 drive and over 100MB/sec with Barracuda 1.5TB Sata drives connected to a PCI SATA card, so PCI itself shouldn't be the limitation. I know USB 2.0 speeds literally doubled from Tiger to Leopard (one of the few speed INCREASES I got on he machine), but perhaps either the PPC driver or the Leopard driver in general is slower?

I must have been confusing the box 2.0 numbers with the Xbench results or something. From the articles I've read, this drive should do 120MB/sec under USB 3.0., but that just underscores my desire to have my next server to at least have USB3.0 regardless of Thunderbolt. The Mac Mini would make a nice littler home media server if it didn't have crappy USB2.0 on it. Until there's at least a USB3.0 adapter for it, it's a non-option, IMO.

I see that Lacie offers a USB3 PCIe card for the Mac Pro and MBP (with expansion port), but from their own web site, over a year later it ONLY works with Lacie brand drives (making it POINTLESS, IMO; I doubt they'll ever sell very many with such a mind boggling limitation). I'd buy a reasonably priced USB3 card for my PowerMac (even though it would get bottlenecked) just to get 100MB/sec from the media drive, but I doubt anyone is going to make a regular PCI card, especially one for the Mac. Unfortunately, they had no 3TB FW options at the time for an external drive (I'm sure you could add one to your own enclosure now).

Ok, I see Caldigit offers a full USB3.0 spec card (updated to support all drives), so PCIe and Express Card users could benefit already. I could get an Express Card for my MBP, but I don't want to tie it up as a media server.
 
Last edited:
Aiden's got it right - there is huge benefit in a new interface becoming ubiquitous across all platforms, including existing (vs new only) desktops. Allowing TBolt expansions to do PCIE only would be a huge benefit to consumers, as well as those pushing the standard, as let's face it, USB3 has a headstart. There's no reason USB3 and TB can't co-exist...for a time, but let's look at firewire and USB2 - fw is much superior not only in speed/bandwidth but also technically (target mode, fw based networking, etc.), but what happened? Too expensive relative to USB2, didn't get pushed for *every* system possible - do we see any overlap with TB yet? Make it 'free' or nearly so for as many devices as possible, even if it's without displayport for existing systems. Delaying or putting barriers to mass deployment and use just means it takes longer, or becomes niche only as everyone moves to more available (on their system) USB3. Apple ignoring USB3 in their systems doesn't mean the world waits for them.

Chaining of devices is an obvious win for anyone in the pro category - guys doing HD video editing even at the amateur level need storage, and fast - of course they're going to want a fast RAID array. Want to add another device? Video cameras, mixers, anything? Plug it into the end of your array, or display. A single connector to 'rule them all' along with daisy chaining simplifies cabling, simplifies re-use across multiple systems and allows investment in some/many cases that isn't thrown out on the next system upgrade/replacement, and as long as each device plugged in supplies at least out daisychain port, no more forgetting to bring a USB hub or running out of the lame 1-3 USB ports on a laptop with 5 devices, etc. Very convenient. Also, GigE saturates in the ~100MB/second range as stated, with current drives (let alone SSDs) able to saturate it, and you really do NOT want to try pricing 10GBe switches for home or 'small professional' use.

Take another step, and Apple *could* make a single TB port into a universal interface, beyond external bricks. While that alone is pretty exciting if someone does it reasonably well to include graphics, USB3, and daisy-chain ports, what about iPad 3, along with the rest of the the laptop lineup? Universal single docking station. Drop your iPad 3 (or maybe Android tablet in the future, if Intel plays nicely and cheaply enough), MB Air, MBP, and ideally, any other laptop in place, one plug and there you go - desktop graphics, daisy chain ports for TB, any additional storage and other devices, a few USB3 ports, optical drive (optional, plugs into the chassis), keyboard etc - all available, all the same across all devices you plug into it. iPad 3+ now becomes a feasible mobile note taking device, and psuedo-desktop using external storage, reasonable graphics, etc. MBA becomes a lot closer to MBP-capable when plugged in (storage, video, expansion slots), MBP becomes easily able to be made thinner without losing too much except for optical drive.

Check out the growing number of tablets adding keyboards, or more closely, the vaio Z series Power Media dock - their 'dock' attached to a 13" ultralight adds a discrete 1GB RAM GPU, USB ports, and can drive up to 4 displays. The most amusing part? They implemented LightPeak over a USB3 port and that's their dock connector.

There are lot's of great possibilities here, the question is how far it will go, if Intel will help with adoption or if it becomes a failure vs USB3, how greedy companies will get on pricing of TBolt expansion chassis/devices, etc.
 
Daisy-Chaining sucks, dude. Short of 'forgetting your hub', any time you remove a device, you have to re-connect other devices (e.g. you want to plug in a hard drive to Thunderbolt? UNPLUG your monitor. Plug in your hard drive and then plug the monitor into the hard drive pass-through. Done transferring the files off the portable drive? Unplug the monitor again. Unplug your hard drive and plug the monitor back into the computer. At some point, cabling could become a real issue since the monitor has to be last in the chain. Your array might be halfway across the room, but a single TB port computer means your have to plug the monitor into the array across the room, not your computer. That would SUCK. Plus like series-Christmas tree lights, if one device has a failure, everything after it could possibly stop working if the failure includes the pass-through.

I have yet to see any sign of whether it's possible to do a hub with Thunderbolt yet. Yes, there are times when daisy-chaining could be convenient, but I'd prefer a central hub to chaining devices across the room.
 
I have yet to see any sign of whether it's possible to do a hub with Thunderbolt yet. Yes, there are times when daisy-chaining could be convenient, but I'd prefer a central hub to chaining devices across the room.

I'm hoping to plug TB into a USB 3 hub if they ever make an adapter. It should have been made months ago.
 
Daisy-Chaining sucks, dude.

You missed the worst case (and common) scenario -- when you have <cpu> - <disk1> - <disk2> - monitor.

If you need to unplug <disk1>, you have to dismount (or otherwise quiesce) <disk2>. Simply unplugging mounted drives isn't in general a good thing. (Although, by sacrificing performance one can reduce the risk of unplanned or intentional breaks in the daisy chain.)


I have yet to see any sign of whether it's possible to do a hub with Thunderbolt yet. Yes, there are times when daisy-chaining could be convenient, but I'd prefer a central hub to chaining devices across the room.

The Intel PR fluff from the TBolt announcement does state that star and tree topologies are possible.

At this point, however, we don't even have any hints of vaporware products to make that possible. It's 6 device daisy chains for TBolt 1.0....


I'm hoping to plug TB into a USB 3 hub if they ever make an adapter. It should have been made months ago.

It's possible, but really unlikely to ever happen. The performance at the theoretical maximum would be half or a quarter of TBolt, and even worse if a DisplayPort channel were active.

(edit)
On second thought, I may have misinterpreted what you want to do.

If you want a TBolt device that is a USB 3.0 hub - that should be almost trivial to design. Put a handful of PCIe -> USB 3.0 controller chips in a TBolt device - done. Connect the TBolt cable to your TBolt-equipped computer and go.

I initially read your comment as having a USB 3.0 port on the computer, and connecting that through USB 3.0 to an external TBolt controller.
 
Last edited:
It's possible, but really unlikely to ever happen. The performance at the theoretical maximum would be half or a quarter of TBolt, and even worse if a DisplayPort channel were active.

A simple TB-USB3 adapter is likely (so I've read). The USB end would then go into a regular USB hub. It's an awkward mess, but I don't see a problem with it.... and the max speed should equal USB 3 specs.

(edit)

We are replying too fast to each other...........
 
Daisy-Chaining sucks, dude. Short of 'forgetting your hub', any time you remove a device, you have to re-connect other devices (e.g. you want to plug in a hard drive to Thunderbolt? UNPLUG your monitor. Plug in your hard drive and then plug the monitor into the hard drive pass-through. Done transferring the files off the portable drive? Unplug the monitor again. Unplug your hard drive and plug the monitor back into the computer. At some point, cabling could become a real issue since the monitor has to be last in the chain. Your array might be halfway across the room, but a single TB port computer means your have to plug the monitor into the array across the room, not your computer. That would SUCK. Plus like series-Christmas tree lights, if one device has a failure, everything after it could possibly stop working if the failure includes the pass-through.

I have yet to see any sign of whether it's possible to do a hub with Thunderbolt yet. Yes, there are times when daisy-chaining could be convenient, but I'd prefer a central hub to chaining devices across the room.

Intel claims star topology will work as well, which would indicate more of a typical hub arrangement. You're right about the potential xmas light failure mode of course, and it's bringing back some annoying SCSI memories (although usually cabling, IDs or bad terminators), but I'd expect each device would effectively be a hub and the chipset to be at least somewhat reliable, even if the attached device fails. Of course, we haven't seen a lot in the way of tangible shipping, well, anything, at this point - I guess the only real TBolt devices shipping today are what, the RAID arrays? Nice numbers but I've got more than one system to keep backed up and working from, I'll wait to see what else comes out there (AFAIK, the TB arrays are direct connect only, no NAS, no iSCSI, nada).

My use case is pretty simple and I suppose not ideal for a straight-line daisy chain, either - give me a TBolt docking station that in itself provides a PCIE slot or discrete graphics, a USB3 slot or two, optional optical media, and that's pretty well self-contained acting as it's own hub, and should be enough to make closer to desktop alternatives from ultra-mobiles. What else is connected? KB/pointing device, of course the display, and storage (preferably also able to do NAS duty, considering the pricing). Yeah, going to need more TB ports at some point, but it would make for a good start. If a second discrete TB port can have the channels effectively bonded in the next gen, even better.

Some of it comes down to what we expect Apple will push, and if there's any *real* benefit to many of us that don't want to or can't jump fully on the iCloud wagon, and of course, whatever companies start ultimately producing. If 'we' can keep local fast storage while adding some level of expansion faster than the dwindling expresscards, and better yet possibly use the same devices/benefits on more than a thinned down MBP, it's not a bad deal at all.
Apple makes thinner/smaller shiny new things without entirely alienating the non-Air crowd, iPad, Airs and friends gain a universal dock and Apple (or someone) manages to keep both the casual and Pro users relatively happy and spending their $ with Apple.

Yeah, I still want one, or at least can see wanting one in the future if/when an ultralight + TB setup can replace what I do today.
 
(AFAIK, the TB arrays are direct connect only, no NAS, no iSCSI, nada)

NAS and iSCSI are network connected storage - no need for having a TBolt connection if you're using NAS or iSCSI. Just an RJ45 and Ethernet.

I could see the usefulness of using TBolt/iSCSI/eSATA on a multi-protocol device, but not using NAS (CIFS/NFS). (That is, a tri-port device that can run *one at a time of* TBolt, iSCSI or eSATA.)

TBolt (really SATA on TBolt), iSCSI and eSATA are block-level protocols. They are basically interchangeable, since they assume nothing about the contents of the drives (RAW, NTFS, HFS+, exFAT, extN, ...).

NAS (CIFS/NFS) are file-level protocols. They assume that the volume has a file system (format mostly irrelevant), and NAS serves the files on the filesystem to the clients, not the blocks on the volume. NAS is much more complicated, you need an operating system on the device that can initialize and maintain the filesystem - and handle the CIFS/NFS requests from the client.

TBolt is very much a "direct connect" cable - it is literally an extension of the PCIe bus on the computer.
 
Last edited:
NAS and iSCSI are network connected storage - no need for having a TBolt connection if you're using NAS or iSCSI. Just an RJ45 and Ethernet.

I could see the usefulness of using TBolt/iSCSI/eSATA on a multi-protocol device, but not using NAS (CIFS/NFS). (That is, a tri-port device that can run *one at a time of* TBolt, iSCSI or eSATA.)

TBolt (really SATA on TBolt), iSCSI and eSATA are block-level protocols. They are basically interchangeable, since they assume nothing about the contents of the drives (RAW, NTFS, HFS+, exFAT, extN, ...).

NAS (CIFS/NFS) are file-level protocols. They assume that the volume has a file system (format mostly irrelevant), and NAS serves the files on the filesystem to the clients, not the blocks on the volume. NAS is much more complicated, you need an operating system on the device that can initialize and maintain the filesystem - and handle the CIFS/NFS requests from the client.

TBolt is very much a "direct connect" cable - it is literally an extension of the PCIe bus on the computer.

That's a good point about iSCSI, SAN and friends being raw blocks vs filesystem level with NAS, but it still doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful. GigE sustains perhaps 100MB/second +/-, vs roughly 6-8x that for the direct attached TB array benchmarks I've seen, and hybrid systems have been around for a while now (typical SAN/LUN based access and fiber switches, HBAs, etc. as well as a NAS head accessing the same storage). I'm not up on the hybrid systems, so you have me thinking a bit here, thanks. :) My initial thought won't work as easily as I was thinking, which would be to treat the TB connection as a 10GbE connection, and running a lightweight network OS on it, or even something like openfiler, freeNAS, etc - effectively increasing your 'local' connection speed, while also offering NAS storage to the rest of your network at reduced speeds (GbE). It *could* be done - as you said, TB is really just a PCIe extension so there's no real reason the TB device can't have a 10Gb/E interface on the other end of the TB cable, but ok, I give - I'd be all over it, but it's probably not happening any time soon. :D

The idea of (significantly sized, like the 4-12+TB TBolt arrays) local storage just isn't as appealing to me when I know I'd continue to need a separate NAS for the rest of the systems. At that point, I'd still take local storage along with the 'dock' as a single or pair of locally attached disks, but just let backups go over the network. It does seem unlikely to have it 'all' just yet, at least. :)

Thanks for that response - I've set up quite a bit of storage in former jobs, but I didn't think that idea through too well until your response.
 
That's a good point about iSCSI, SAN and friends being raw blocks vs filesystem level with NAS, but it still doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful. GigE sustains perhaps 100MB/second +/-, vs roughly 6-8x that for the direct attached TB array benchmarks I've seen, and hybrid systems have been around for a while now (typical SAN/LUN based access and fiber switches, HBAs, etc. as well as a NAS head accessing the same storage).

The ones I've used (NetApp) didn't exactly access the *same* storage. You could carve up the storage pool into LUNs, and serve some LUNs as block devices via FC/iSCSI, and create filesystems on other LUNs and serve them as NAS.

You couldn't access any particular LUN from both SAN and NAS.


The idea of (significantly sized, like the 4-12+TB TBolt arrays) local storage just isn't as appealing to me when I know I'd continue to need a separate NAS for the rest of the systems.

You (and I) want a NAS server with a TBolt port - problem solved! ;)


Thanks for that response ...

...welcome.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.