Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Synology End Game

lowendbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 360 posts

Re: The Synology End Game

#181

Post by bayindirh »

lmm wrote: post #172
bayindirh wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it looks like only units which are accessible from the internet are hit, but isolated units did not get hit.

> only units which are accessible from the internet Sort of. Accessible via Asustor's own software which they'd been promoting to users, which I'm pretty sure had some kind of hole punching / bridge node setup so that you could use it even if you were blocking all inbound connections to your NAS. Obviously if you completely disconnect it from the internet in both directions then you're safe (but also can't get update…

I plan to keep mine in an egress only state behind NAT (It can connect somewhere, but it's not reachable). Maybe, maybe I'll include it in my VPN setup.

Re: The Synology End Game

#182

Post by wtcactus »

I’ve bought an Ugreen NAS right when they came out. Installed TrueNAS and it’s been rock solid and with a lot of hardware features Synology doesn’t offer all this time.

There’s really not a lot of reasons to use Synology anymore (only thing I miss was the sync solution they had. It was indeed better than Syncthing and the likes).

Re: The Synology End Game

#183

Post by torben-friis »

nolok wrote: post #119
torben-friis wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main issue with their system is how closed it is. I got an issue where mind would randomly start writing disk like crazy and maxing cpu usage, to the point I was bothered by the noise. I’d stop all containers, leave it as close to idle as I could manage, still spiking. There was no way I could learn what was causing it. I would like to assume it was a disk maintenance process or something, but for all I know it co…

Ever since they added the "universal search" thingy, their NAS do that anytime they reach a decently large video file. Even if you turn down search indexing, media indexing, media thumbnails, ... It still kills itself with no throttling processing those files. May or may not be what you encountered, but had a customer caught by this and found out the hard way you can't stop it. My issue is not the processing, it's th…

That might be it, I use it for radarr/sonarr so there’s a good amount of large video files in there.

And yes, the lack of trotting is an issue, since you can’t even reach an administration panel. When it’s bad even ssh struggles.

Re: The Synology End Game

#184

Post by tecleandor »

8fingerlouie wrote: post #140
Shank wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The encryption is also broken. If you use encrypted shared folders, you have an arbitrary filename limit ( https://kb.synology.com/en-ro/DSM/tutorial/File_folder_path_... ). If you use volume encryption, your encryption key is stored on the NAS itself, which is capable of decrypting the data, unless you buy a second Synology NAS ( https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2023/06/volume-encryption-in-syno... ) to act as a key vault…

The filename limit comes from ecryptfs ( https://www.ecryptfs.org/ ) which is what Synology uses for encrypted shared folders. As for full disk encryption, you can select where to store the key, which may be on the NAS itself (rendering FDE more or less useless) or on a USB key or similar.

For full disk encryption you need DSM >= 7.2 and you can either, store it locally (useless) or in a KMIP server. [0]

As a KMIP server you use:

  - Another Synology NAS with DSM >= 7.2
  - A KMIP compatible key server
Except for the demo implementation that Synology uses (PyKMIP), all the KMIP compatible servers I've found have licenses in the tens of thousands a year. So if anybody has any suggestions to substitute PyKMIP...

--

  0: https://kb.synology.com/en-global/DSM/tutorial/Which_models_support_encrypted_volumes

Re: The Synology End Game

#185

Post by M95D »

storus wrote: post #160
M95D wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want less power and more storage. I want less than 10W idle for the whole system, maybe except HDDs, but even those will be in sleep much of the time. x86 boards are mostly ATX-powered and I don't think any ATX power source can go that low and still be efficient (not draw 20W while powering a 10W system). And yes, mobile phone CPUs are good enough. I'm using a Turris Omnia now and Marvell 385 is OK, except I have t…

HDPlex GaN power supply? 1 HDD consumes around 5-7W idle, so with 8 HDDs you get to 40-60W on HDDs alone (all idle); adding 6W with N100 seems like insignificant fraction. The moment you actually use any HDD the consumption per HDD shots up to 8-10W whereas N100 shots up to 14W so you end up with 64-80W from HDDs and 14W from N100. Why would you like to squeeze component that is the least important (CPU) while retain…

There is power management for HDDs, you know...

For my typical usage, the hard drives are probably more than 80% in sleep mode. If I had more SATA ports, I could probably add a frequent-access cache on a SSD and then they would be 99% sleeping.

The drives I have, ST2000DL003, consume 0.5W in sleep, according to the spec sheet. So all 8 of them would consume ~4W.

Re: The Synology End Game

#186

Post by TheCondor »

pjmlp wrote: post #145
exmadscientist wrote: post #98

A big part of the appeal of Synology was that you could just forget about it . I have a little one in the corner that's just been sitting there serving files out over SMB for years now. It doesn't need to do anything more and I don't need to think about it. A lot of the alternatives being proposed are not so easy to maintain. A full general purpose OS install doesn't really take care of itself. And I don't have (and…

There isn't many, as stupid as it may sound, I keep burning CD/DVD/BluRay and piling up external drives. Yes, it is a pain versus having a NAS, but at least I don't have to deal with this kind of stuff.

I’m a fan of optical storage and its durability (with reasonable care.)

But the problem is when you need to recover and have 20 Blu-ray Discs with important data scattered about, it takes days.

Or when there is a specific piece of data you want/need and only have a vague idea of where it is/was in history. Maybe if those ultra capacity discs took hold but it looks like the era of optical is ending

Re: The Synology End Game

#187

Post by postexitus »

pjmlp wrote: post #145
exmadscientist wrote: post #98

A big part of the appeal of Synology was that you could just forget about it . I have a little one in the corner that's just been sitting there serving files out over SMB for years now. It doesn't need to do anything more and I don't need to think about it. A lot of the alternatives being proposed are not so easy to maintain. A full general purpose OS install doesn't really take care of itself. And I don't have (and…

There isn't many, as stupid as it may sound, I keep burning CD/DVD/BluRay and piling up external drives. Yes, it is a pain versus having a NAS, but at least I don't have to deal with this kind of stuff.

Are you sure they survive for the time period you intend them to? When I was a teenager, I though the DVDs and BluRays I burned would be forever - 15 years later I am very unhappy to find that some of them started to crack and flay - it's a pain to keep checking them. Nothing like the guarantees a NAS + Cloud backup could provide.

Re: The Synology End Game

#188

Post by euLh7SM5HDFY »

nottorp wrote: post #66
theshrike79 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Jonsbo case and Unraid: https://nascompares.com/2023/09/01/jonsbo-n2-nas-build-with-... The Jonsbo cases are pretty compact and QNAP/Synology-ish. As for Unraid: You pay for it, so you're the customer and can expect some kind of support. It's also pretty damn stable and supports casual "I'll just add this drive to get more space" usage compared to ZFS stuff.

Looks like we killed that site. Some header loads sloowly, but I get 'too many connections' instead of any article text.

[dead]

Re: The Synology End Game

#189

Post by tecleandor »

8fingerlouie wrote: post #139
tecleandor wrote: post #48

Not only that, but their security situation is terrible. Their OS is full of EOL'ed stuff. On products you can buy TODAY, you find: - Their Btrfs filesystem is a fork of a very old branch and doesn't have modern patches - A custom, non standard, self built, ACL system for the filesystem - Kernel 4.4 - PHP 7.4 (requirement for their Hyperbackup app) - smbd 4.15 - PostgreSQL 11.11 - smbd 8.2p1 - Redis 6.2.8 - ... They…

> Multichannel CIFS/SMB) My DS918+ has multichannel SMB and possibly also parallel NFS. It only works if you have multiple NICs connected. Other than that, i completely agree. Their tech stack is horribly outdated, and while i understand their reasoning for not upgrading, there's a limit to how long you can do that. Their reasoning is that they know the software that's currently running, warts and all, and can better…

I think multichannel works, but pNFS doesn't. But I also think I had another different feature in mind, I was just reciting by memory :P :)

Re: The Synology End Game

#190

Post by m-s-y »

DocTomoe wrote: post #2

Semi-OT: I currently have a QNAP TS-451D2. I use it mainly with a MacBook Pro. Something in QNAPs Samba implementation makes it glacially slow in that configuration. While it still does AFP (and then becomes somewhat decent to use), it's only a question of time for apple to chop that protocol. With QNAP having proven to be substandard and Synology going evil, what other options for a mid-range, local NAS for the tech…

FWIW my qnap was also hammering my samba. After a few hours it would limit my transfers to 2Mb.

I fixed it by removing the virtual network switch that gets installed if you use the container services.

Post reply on HN