NASLite Network Attached Storage

If I may be so bold to ask ... will v2 be "limited" to the Ext2 format, or will NTFS, and FAT32 be welcomed into the NASLite family?
Thanks ...

NASLite-2 will natively support ext2 and ext3 only.

There are various reasons for sticking with the above two. FAT32 for example, is most definably not a file system fit for a NAS. Consider fragmentation and the 2G file size limit. NTFS on the other hand is probably much better suited for a NAS, however the folks in Redmond have made it very difficult to implement stable NTFS support in Linux. It is possible to do R/W access to NTFS, but stability is questionable at best.

We try very hard not to make unnecessary compromises with NASLite, especially when stability and data integrity are concerned. In Linux, ext2 and ext3 are most definitely as robust as one can expect.

Hey tony. Just had an idea. Since many user have drives that are already in ntfs or fat-32 format maybe you can support mounting those file systems, but do it as readonly.

What is the benefit? well this allows users to copy info from one drive to another drive. The one being copied to would be ext2 or ext3.

I am not sure if you are planning to implement better filemanagement via telnet. If you implemented something like midnight commander and other simple file manager copy info from one drive to the next would be MUCH quicker to backup drives. No need to congest a network for something trival. obviously there is the issue to implement something like this. Try to keep it simple and not to technical so anyone could use it.


Anyway not sure how bloated the software would get just to support what I have mentioned but it might be something to think about.

Also will there be some kind of file management via telnet?(like mentioned above)

i had pondered posting exactly what you just did in light of the fact that migrating drives locally is far better than doing it via the network.

However i came to the conclusion that booting into Knoppix or the like would probably be far superior in the log run.

I would say though that being able to telnet or SSH to the box and move files about completely locally would be rather handy.

We’ve considered adding a simple file manager to the console/telnet interface, but there are a number of issues that need working out. In order to do a full-screen “like Midnight Commander” file manager, we’ll need to include curses, terminal defs as well as a number of additional items to support such task via telnet. That will be an additional meg or so of non-essential bins that will have to reside into the root ram disk.

We’ve not given up on it, but there is more work to be done before we feel comfortable with such a tool. Until then NASLite-2 will not include a native file manager.

Future plans for NASLite are to include a web-based admin interface. That in turn will open the door to a host of possibilities that are just too difficult to do well in ASCII. The drawback obviously is bloat, so striking a happy medium is still pending.

why not just impliment a simple Java based file system explorer like interface on the http side of it... or even better yet, instead of Telnet, use SSH, so we can use WinSCP to do it?

http://winscp.net/eng/index.php

ie use SFTP >:) would that work? SFTP via a 'admin' account alowing us to read AND write.

In order to support WinSCP, there are a number of items that need to be addressed. For beginners, the additional server-side lib and bin requirements will be about 2meg upfront. That will require a 16Meg RAMDisk. In addition, the root size will increase making it way too large for proper decompression in a reasonable amount of RAM, thus requiring a split root. A split root creates a host of issues that currently are not of concern.

Stability and compatibility in NASLite come at a price. If the OS is any larger, the boot process becomes much more complicated with many additional requirements. As it stands, NASLite-2 is pushing the envelope to a point where we are no longer able to add items without looking for things to trim.

Granted, a file management solution will be a great addition, but compromises, such as they are, often require a choice. Our reasoning is that NASLite is a NAS server and files can be managed via the client. I know that’s not optimal for moving files locally, but considering the complications of an alternative, it’s very sufficient.

If NASLite was a larger OS with all the necessary support, WinSCP will most definitely be an excellent solution. Any additional support included in NASLite currently emphasizes hardware management and not file management. File management tasks are left to the clients that own the files.

Hope that makes sense

hmm, wow 17 meg ram disk....

let me lookat my NAS server.. hmm 512 meg ram.... other peoples NAS servers on average.... >256 MEG RAM, and your bothered about 17 meg ram disk.... pfft come on... thats silly..

Or get it running from the USB, use a 2.6.* kernel, compile USB into it, and get it to mount the USB as its drive if 17meg RAM disk is way too large....

Smallest USB drive available now is really 128 meg, thats more than enough, and given the speed of USB and the files for SSH/SFTP to run from, even USB 1.1 is fast enough.

And giventhat NASLite 2 will be released on USB first, thats the best way to test it out. If it dont work, release 2.1 and remove that option.

Your product is an end-user related item, ie your customers PAY for it, so why not 'try' to do something that your customers have enquired, requested for a long time... even since version NAS Lite 1.1. Give it a try and see what people say.

After all if the product does not have features that everyone requires, no one will buy it will they?

Sanjiyan,

What is unique about NASLite?

I understand the wish for a SSH access to a shell but for what should something like SFTP or secure copy be good. Both things transfer the data to the client and back to the NAS!

So what's the difference to the current behaviour?

Well its a home NAS sysem

oh and its cheap

and is good and it works thats whats unqiue...


to me anyway P

Well then, if you consider NASLite to be a home NAS system that is cheap and is good and works, and you also consider those qualities to be unique to NASLite, then there must be no other alternative that is uniquely a home NAS system that is cheap and is good and works!

Do I understand you correctly?

dont even bother trying to figure me out, I ave up trying to year ago

Anyway, I have one more question... I lied two questions...

Will drive/directory user permissions be available to us in this version? ie username/password acess to certain drives/directories ?

and also..

Can we rename drives from this 'funky' Disk-1, et al.

Wow!

I actually took you seriously. What was I thinking

now now... no need to be sarcastic.....


Sarcasim... the lowest form of wit...

And if you can contain your sarcasim, please reply to the message above