I’m looking to replace my sff J5040 Wyze machine. Its still plenty fast enough, but storage has become an issue with its limited USB endpoint availability of ~50 device limit.

I know that just switching it up to a newer Intel system could give me double the endpoints because of the two XHCI chip setup, but I was thinking that if I’m going to replace it, I’d like to not limit myself.

As such, even though Ryzen is far faster than I need, it does now support USB4. Does anyone know if the switch to USB4 would give the system a larger address range and have more than 127 USB devices or is that limitation still in place and I might as well not waste my money?

  • breakingcups@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

    I have to ask, even though I’m afraid of the answer, exactly how many USB storage devices are you (planning on) hooking up to that poor machine?

    • frazorth@feddit.uk
      cake
      OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Its currently got 16 disks, and a ZigBee. So not a lot from my point of view.

      However its also got the internal hubs to split the front and back ports, I think the Bluetooth is hooked up to USB on the board and there are a few other things that appear as codes. What it means is that trying to connect another disk to swap out on my ZFS fails to enumerate on the USB. I dont think the number of items are unreasonable but this little box wasn’t quite designed for this usecase.

      [Edit] As mentioned on the other thread, these only have 50 endpoints because Intel, and each device is 2 endpoints so there are only 20 devices total that can be plugged in.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    A quick Google does not produce any results showing an increased device limit.

    I’m curious, what are you doing to reach 127 device endpoints, especially on a thin client?

    • frazorth@feddit.uk
      cake
      OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I’m not. Intel does not let you get that high.

      https://community.intel.com/t5/Embedded-Intel-Core-Processors/Hardware-limitations-on-USB-endpoints-XHCI/td-p/264556

      From Intel.

      First Limitation

      Fundamentally, the customer is correct. You will never be able to achieve 127 actual USB devices attached to a Host Controller (i.e. Intel system). As the customer pointed out, each USB device (USB key, keyboard, mouse, etc.) is typically counted as two endpoints (two logical USB units), and each USB hub, multiplier, or repeater is counted as another 4+ endpoints. So, it comes to about 50+ devices per each Host Controller.

      With these systems it was only 25 devices total (unless you use hubs), so they introduced two controllers to allow 100+ endpoints.

      It’s because of this reason that Intel added a second USB Host Controller in the majority of its Core platform chipsets. If you look at the Features page of the 8 Series Chipset ( when partnered with the 4th Gen Intel Core processor), page 39, http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/chipsets/8-series-chipset-pch-datasheet.html http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/chipsets/8-series-chipset-pch-datasheet.html, it states having “Two EHCI Host Controllers, supporting up to fourteen external USB 2.0 ports”. So, with two Host Controllers, each at 50+ device, you have a potential of connecting up to 100+ USB devices per 4th Gen Core platform system.

      And thats not considering the internal hubs that split back and forward ports.

  • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    There was a recent video from everyone’s favorite youtube Canadians that tested how many USB devices you can jam onto a single controller.

    The takeaway they had was that modern AMD doesn’t seem to give a shit and will actually let you exceed the spec until it all crashes and dies, and Intel restricts it to where it’s guaranteed to work.

    Different design philosophies, but as long as ‘might explode and die for no clear reason at some point once you have enough stuff connected’ is an acceptable outcome, AMD is the way to go.

    • frazorth@feddit.uk
      cake
      OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Nice!

      The 127 endpoint limit isn’t even that hard, the spec is 127 endpoints per controller, however Intel appears to have done the dirty and restricted systems to 127, and even then you need two controllers to get that high. 😡

      If AMD let’s us use multiple controllers to go higher then thats awesome, but its also following the spec.

      [Edit] I’ll have to see if I can find the video.