Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #9537 > unrolled thread

A new (and better?) kid on the block?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi

Contents

  A new (and better?) kid on the block? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-09-06 12:14 +0100
    Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 12:40 +0100
      Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-09-06 17:38 +0100
        Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-09-06 18:13 +0100
          Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-09-06 18:27 +0100
        Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 18:20 +0100
          Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2015-09-08 00:44 +0000
            Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingo@home.no> - 2015-09-08 18:18 +0200
              Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 18:23 +0100
          Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-09-13 12:37 +0100
            Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-13 11:39 -0400
              Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 11:45 -0400
                Re: A new (and better?) kid on the block? Dom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2015-09-13 17:45 +0100

#9537 — A new (and better?) kid on the block?

Google for, "Orange Pi".

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9538

"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message 
news:msh73i$a2b$1@dont-email.me...
> Google for, "Orange Pi".

Haha - perhaps the next one will be called Heliotrope Pi.

The board looks interesting - some definite enhancements compared to the 
Raspbery Pi, and for a similar price. Shipping from China looks quite 
slow.

IIRC there are a few of these competitors to the Raspberry Pi. I wonder 
if the competition will affect spec or price of the Pi we know and love.

James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9540

"James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:msh8kn$f8v$1@dont-email.me...
> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:msh73i$a2b$1@dont-email.me...
>> Google for, "Orange Pi".
> Haha - perhaps the next one will be called Heliotrope Pi.
> The board looks interesting - some definite enhancements compared to the 
> Raspbery Pi, and for a similar price. Shipping from China looks quite 
> slow.
> IIRC there are a few of these competitors to the Raspberry Pi. I wonder if 
> the competition will affect spec or price of the Pi we know and love.

Perhaps the one killer interface is the SATA one?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9545

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 17:38:57 +0100
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:

> "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:msh8kn$f8v$1@dont-email.me...
> > "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message 
> > news:msh73i$a2b$1@dont-email.me...
> >> Google for, "Orange Pi".
> > Haha - perhaps the next one will be called Heliotrope Pi.
> > The board looks interesting - some definite enhancements compared
> > to the Raspbery Pi, and for a similar price. Shipping from China
> > looks quite slow.
> > IIRC there are a few of these competitors to the Raspberry Pi. I
> > wonder if the competition will affect spec or price of the Pi we
> > know and love.
> 
> Perhaps the one killer interface is the SATA one?
> 
That depends how it (and the Gbit Ethernet) are attached - if they're
hanging off the USB hub then it's nothing that couldn't be done with a
RPi.  It might have been more useful to build in Bluetooth and WiFi.  I
wonder how much the extra bits affect power requirements.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9548

Rob Morley wrote:

> "gareth" wrote:
>
>> [Orange Pi]
>> Perhaps the one killer interface is the SATA one?
>
> That depends how it (and the Gbit Ethernet) are attached - if they're
> hanging off the USB hub then it's nothing that couldn't be done with a
> RPi.

Seem to be dedicated SATA and Ethernet controllers on the PCB, still 
doesn't prove they're not hanging off a USB controller I suppose

> It might have been more useful to build in Bluetooth and WiFi.  I
> wonder how much the extra bits affect power requirements.

There's a Wifi antenna connector on board (H3 spec sheet implies it's 
SDIO connected) no mention of bluetooth though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9547

"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mshq3j$jbd$1@dont-email.me...
> "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:msh8kn$f8v$1@dont-email.me...
>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:msh73i$a2b$1@dont-email.me...

>>> Google for, "Orange Pi".

...

>> The board looks interesting - some definite enhancements compared to 
>> the Raspbery Pi, and for a similar price. Shipping from China looks 
>> quite slow.
>> IIRC there are a few of these competitors to the Raspberry Pi. I 
>> wonder if the competition will affect spec or price of the Pi we know 
>> and love.
>
> Perhaps the one killer interface is the SATA one?

As for whether that is a killer or not I don't know. I suppose like all 
these things the SATA port is brilliant if you need it and unnecessary 
if you don't.

Would you add a SATA drive? If so, what for?

From what I saw it looked as though the SATA drive would be powered from 
the Orange Pi, which was a little surprising given the presumed current 
required to spin a drive - but welcome, if true. IIRC the input power 
was 5V at 2A.

I confess I could do with seeing a table of the Raspberry Pi models and 
various similar machines alongside each other for comparison. If I had a 
suitable web site I would add a page to it. (I do have update access to 
some web sites but such a comparison table would not fit content-wise.)

James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9565

On 2015-09-06, James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:mshq3j$jbd$1@dont-email.me...
>> "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:msh8kn$f8v$1@dont-email.me...
>>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:msh73i$a2b$1@dont-email.me...
>
>>>> Google for, "Orange Pi".
>
> ...
>
>>> The board looks interesting - some definite enhancements compared to 
>>> the Raspbery Pi, and for a similar price. Shipping from China looks 
>>> quite slow.
>>> IIRC there are a few of these competitors to the Raspberry Pi. I 
>>> wonder if the competition will affect spec or price of the Pi we know 
>>> and love.
>>
>> Perhaps the one killer interface is the SATA one?
>
> As for whether that is a killer or not I don't know. I suppose like all 
> these things the SATA port is brilliant if you need it and unnecessary 
> if you don't.
>
> Would you add a SATA drive? If so, what for?
>
> From what I saw it looked as though the SATA drive would be powered from 
> the Orange Pi, which was a little surprising given the presumed current 
> required to spin a drive - but welcome, if true. IIRC the input power 
> was 5V at 2A.
>
> I confess I could do with seeing a table of the Raspberry Pi models and 
> various similar machines alongside each other for comparison. If I had a 
> suitable web site I would add a page to it. (I do have update access to 
> some web sites but such a comparison table would not fit content-wise.)
>
> James

Wikipedia has comparison tables for certain microprocessors:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Intel_processors

A similar comparison table for fruit Pi machines would seem to be
as appropriate.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9574

On 09/08/2015 02:44, Robert Riches wrote:
>
> Wikipedia has comparison tables for certain microprocessors:
>
>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Intel_processors
>
> A similar comparison table for fruit Pi machines would seem to be
> as appropriate.
>

There is this at least:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_single-board_computers
-- 
Torfinn Ingolfsen,
Norway

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9578

"Torfinn Ingolfsen" <tingo@home.no> wrote in message 
news:msn1kh$g86$1@dont-email.me...
> On 09/08/2015 02:44, Robert Riches wrote:
>>
>> Wikipedia has comparison tables for certain microprocessors:
>>
>>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Intel_processors
>>
>> A similar comparison table for fruit Pi machines would seem to be
>> as appropriate.
>>
>
> There is this at least:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_single-board_computers

IME those large Wikipedia comparison tables have some shortcomings:

1. They are too comprehensive making it difficult to focus on the items 
you want to see.

2. They are not database driven, making it impossible to reduce the 
sizes of the tables by selecting the attributes you want to see.

The Specifications table at

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi#Specifications

is much better. In fact it's better than any I have seen elsewhere even 
on raspberrypi.org.

James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9627

On 06/09/2015 18:20, James Harris wrote:
> Would you add a SATA drive? If so, what for?

Vastly faster and more reliable I/O.

SD cards may have high headline transfer speeds for large sequential 
transfers by they are far slower than a modest laptop drive for the 
small random transfers which you get when using them as the primary disc 
for an OS.

SD cards are also quite unreliable, and often fail catastrophically 
without notice when used as primary storage. They have far less 
sophisticated write buffering an wear levelling than an SSD.

I'd probably put a cheap small SSD on for the OS, and a large spinning 
rust drive to use as a NAS.

---druck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9631

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:37:46 +0100, druck <news@druck.org.uk> declaimed the
following:


>SD cards may have high headline transfer speeds for large sequential 
>transfers by they are far slower than a modest laptop drive for the 
>small random transfers which you get when using them as the primary disc 
>for an OS.
>
	This would be the place to point out that Class 10 cards are rated
explicitly for large single streaming transfers (video written to a freshly
formatted card). Class 6/4/2 cards are still rated on smaller fragmented
I/O (still image cameras with some images deleted, MP3 music files). While
I would hope the top brand class 10 cards manage a class 6 (or at least 4)
response on fragmented conditions, there is no promise of such.
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9632

On 9/13/2015 11:39 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:37:46 +0100, druck <news@druck.org.uk> declaimed the
> following:
>
>
>> SD cards may have high headline transfer speeds for large sequential
>> transfers by they are far slower than a modest laptop drive for the
>> small random transfers which you get when using them as the primary disc
>> for an OS.
>>
> 	This would be the place to point out that Class 10 cards are rated
> explicitly for large single streaming transfers (video written to a freshly
> formatted card). Class 6/4/2 cards are still rated on smaller fragmented
> I/O (still image cameras with some images deleted, MP3 music files). While
> I would hope the top brand class 10 cards manage a class 6 (or at least 4)
> response on fragmented conditions, there is no promise of such.

I'm not clear on how that is a worst performance than a rotating hard 
drive.  When you have random access on a hard drive the seek time 
dominates the performance.  On writes this can be mitigated by a large 
buffer, but that won't work for all combinations.  For reads, random 
accesses are the worst for a rotating drive.  Performance drops like a 
rock.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9633

On 13/09/15 16:45, rickman wrote:
> On 9/13/2015 11:39 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:37:46 +0100, druck <news@druck.org.uk>
>> declaimed the
>> following:
>>
>>
>>> SD cards may have high headline transfer speeds for large sequential
>>> transfers by they are far slower than a modest laptop drive for the
>>> small random transfers which you get when using them as the primary disc
>>> for an OS.
>>>
>>     This would be the place to point out that Class 10 cards are rated
>> explicitly for large single streaming transfers (video written to a
>> freshly
>> formatted card). Class 6/4/2 cards are still rated on smaller fragmented
>> I/O (still image cameras with some images deleted, MP3 music files).
>> While
>> I would hope the top brand class 10 cards manage a class 6 (or at
>> least 4)
>> response on fragmented conditions, there is no promise of such.
>
> I'm not clear on how that is a worst performance than a rotating hard
> drive.  When you have random access on a hard drive the seek time
> dominates the performance.  On writes this can be mitigated by a large
> buffer, but that won't work for all combinations.  For reads, random
> accesses are the worst for a rotating drive.  Performance drops like a
> rock.

The fast streaming performance is partly due to using very large page sizes.

When you write to a hard disk you can easily write one sector (512 or 
4096 bytes) at a time.

On an SD card you may have page sizes in the MB ranges and even to write 
4096 bytes means reading that x MB block into a buffer (in the SD card 
controller), erasing the whole block, then writing in the new contents. 
So that's three operations instead of the one that the disk needs - and 
erasing/writing is slow on flash media.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi

csiph-web