Sorry? USB3.0 performance 'very good'?
Since noone outside LeMaker is able to test USB3.0 since they chose the super superiour Micro-B connector with non-standard Pin mappings we have to rely on the test results posted here.
When you get 118 MB/s sequential write and 106 MB/s sequential read from a device that's able to reach 150 and 540 MB/s than this is a clear indication that the performance of the test setup really sucks. First of all they still choose only wrong devices (which are too slow to draw conclusions from when performance is bad -- this applies to the SSD they used as well since it features only a 3 GB TurboWrite buffer) and then the whole test setup is crap since it's not clear what might be responsible for this bad performance (the USB-to-SATA bridge, the 'custom cable' being responsible for retransmits, the S500's USB3 hardware implementation, the driver status, silly settings, and so on).
Given this is the maximum limit one can reach with S500's single USB3 connection this would mean if I want to use the Guitar as NAS an GBit-Ethernet adapter and an USB-to-SATA bridge have to share bandwidth and you end up with a network performance of maximum 50 MB/s. Sorry but with the old Banana Pi you can get close to 44/72 MB/s if you setup all parameters correctly. If the Guitar's USB3 performance is really limited to approx. 110 MB/s then where's the point?
But as already said: the whole test is pretty useless. And you can not test storage performance when you ignore EVERYTHING that's important in this area. This applies especially to slow ARM devices where you have to take care of cpufreq settings and IRQ affinity and the like. And without a reference setup known to be able to reach the USB3 limits every test result is completely meaningless.
If they would've chosen a suitable SSD (able to exceed at least 300 MB/s) connected to a JMS567 USB-to-SATA bridge and get these 300 MB/s when connected to a known performant USB host implementation (eg. any Intel chipset with included USB3 controller manufactured after 2012) and if they afterwards use exactly the same test setup with the Guitar and results are in the range of 110 MB/s then we know that there's something wrong with the Guitar's USB3 implementation (be it software -- for example wrong IRQ settings or the still missing UASP support since Actions Semi has no interest to get their SoCs supported in mainline kernel -- or hardware).
A recommendation for a 'better' board? What does 'better' mean? It always depends on the use case and what's important to you (price, features, performance, whatever).
Maybe someone over there is able to do real USB3/storage testing: http://forum.linux-xapple.org/t/ ... rage/37/2?u=tkaiser