Can someone please layout the benefits of using this system as opposed to using NasLite v2 which now supports mirrored drives?

Lots of good information can be found on the HomePage as well as the Technology Overview.

 

Cheers

I was moreso looking for a comparison

Mirrored drives effectively cuts total storage capacity down in half, no?  If that's how NasLite works, then that is a big difference from unRAID's technology.  With unRAID, if you had 10 x 500GB drives,  total storage capacity will be 4.5TB, not halved to 2.5TB.  That is the biggest difference I see unless you're looking for something else?

I'm not too familiar with NasLite, but the main reasons I went with unRAID were:

• Like Chung Chang says, unRAID is a lot more efficient in terms of usable storage space than simply mirroring drives.  unRAID only looses the capacity of one drive to provide data redundancy regardless of the total number of drives.  Mirroring looses the capcity of half of its drives because each pair of drives are a mirror of one another.
  
• I had been using hardware RAID controllers, but to get Online Capacity Expansion (the ability to add new drive capacity without having break jump through the hoops of moving the data off the array, breaking the array, adding the drive, rebuilding the array, moving the data back...) you have to buy really expensive hardware controllers.  unRAID can do that for me much cheaper.  NasLite may be able to do that, too.  I don't know.
  
• unRAID treats each disk as a separate fully functional filesystem and disk (although user shares can make data appear to be consolidated across disks).  This means that the redundancy it provides can allow the user to fully recover from the failure of a single disk, BUT IT ALSO means that a failure of multiple disks only looses the data on the affected disks.  Disks that did not fail still have all their information intact.
  

 

unRAID definitely isn't perfect for everyone or every situation, but these are the three factors that sold me.