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

Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

guru3d.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 679 posts

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#241

Post by reactordev »

mrob wrote: post #227
reactordev wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to use a synology device anymore with RPI’s having sata shields and other SoC boards that are readily available that run Linux. Yes, Synology was easy but so is the decision to not ever use them again…

Which SoC boards have ECC ram? ECC ram is essential for any reliable data storage system. Disks have built-in error correcting codes, and RAID can detect errors, but none of this helps if the data is corrupted in RAM before it ever reaches the disk.

The RPI CM5…

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#242

Post by pdimitar »

oakesm9 wrote: post #235
pdimitar wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people love Pi-s so much. They filled a niche, once, years ago, and were quickly outcompeted not even a year and a half after. Get some old i7 or Ryzen, get a big case, put 12-18 HDDs, spend a little extra on quality cooling solution if you have the server in your bedroom / living room, install modern Linux, tinker to your heart's content.

For homelabs, yer you can get something much better for much less. For use cases where consistency and future support is key (education and industry) you really can't beat a Raspberry Pi. Their hardware and software support is top class. The first Raspberry Pi is still supported by the latest version of their OS over a decade later and it's even still being manufactured. For all their products they commit to long ter…

Oh, I see. It's about fleets of easy-to-manage / predictable-to-support machines. That's valid, thanks for making me aware.

And indeed I was wondering about homelabs. RPis were never good there, not even when they got out for the first time. The form factor is what won over people back then. Feature- and speed-wise they were always mostly substandard. Not to mention Linux kernel support and driver issues (that might have been fixed since the last time I looked, admittedly).

And I agree on the fleet thing. Best if you can flash an SD card, drive to the spot in meatspace, pluck away the broken RPi, plug the new one in, wait for boot, test, drive away. Heard people doing that with RPis and others.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#243

Post by reactordev »

izacus wrote: post #234
reactordev wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to use a synology device anymore with RPI’s having sata shields and other SoC boards that are readily available that run Linux. Yes, Synology was easy but so is the decision to not ever use them again…

This is just another version of "why Dropbox when rsync" and equally silly.

What is silly about building your own? Explain? If rsync works for you, why would you buy Dropbox? “Why Lamborghini when Honda” is equally as silly yet I’ve seen them race head to head. Honda won.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#244

Post by nerdjon »

8fingerlouie wrote: post #162

The decision to restrict 3rd party harddrives may be part of the reason why sales (allegedly) plummet, but i'm guessing lack of innovation also plays a big part. Synology has been resting on the laurels for years. They had a "hit" with DSM 6, then did mostly nothing for a decade, released DSM 7, and again, nothing but minor things since. On the hardware side of things, they're mostly still using decade old hardware,…

I have to wonder how much to 3 new NAS systems from Ubiquiti played into this. They seem pretty targeted at Synology at a great price. I have the original UNAS pro and it has been fantastic.

Sure I can't run apps on it, but how much do people really run apps on their synology vs just use it as a basic NAS to begin with? I never found any of the apps really all that great to begin with. The only one I kinda liked was synology sync but really don't need something like that with freesync.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#245

Post by reactordev »

pdimitar wrote: post #216
deelowe wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can a pi achieve the same iops? I'd be highly suspecious of any such claims.

I don't know why people love Pi-s so much. They filled a niche, once, years ago, and were quickly outcompeted not even a year and a half after. Get some old i7 or Ryzen, get a big case, put 12-18 HDDs, spend a little extra on quality cooling solution if you have the server in your bedroom / living room, install modern Linux, tinker to your heart's content.

Because for $40 I have a system that runs at a decent speed.

For $300 I could get an ITX to run.

So for the cost of an ITX, I could run a dozen RPIs. Who wants to have a server running in their bedroom? Have you heard the noise those things make? Sorry, no.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#246

Post by [deleted] »

reactordev wrote: post #241
mrob wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which SoC boards have ECC ram? ECC ram is essential for any reliable data storage system. Disks have built-in error correcting codes, and RAID can detect errors, but none of this helps if the data is corrupted in RAM before it ever reaches the disk.

The RPI CM5…

[deleted]

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#247

Post by ChrisRR »

osivertsson wrote: post #51

When leadership makes decisions that are so out of touch with their customers it also severely impacts internal morale. Yeah, so they reversed eventually. But the technical and support people at Synology probably tried to fight this and lost. That feeling of being ignored despite having given this company your everything for many years. I bet many woke up feeling that the magic that made Synology a good place to work…

There are way too many companies where higher ups and marketing will refuse to listen to the engineers about what people actually like about their products.

See every company currently shoehorning AI chatbots into software that doesn't need it

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#248

Post by numpad0 »

Is this in response to plummeting sales or is this in response to SMR phaseout? IIRC, this began from WD sneaking in DM-SMR drives into WD Red Pro products used for NAS and RAID use cases that can't possibly work with SMRs. I was looking through HDDs and noticed that there aren't many SMR drives at mainstream price zone(which is great).

So who's the one holding the towel? Is it Synology, or could it be WD/Seagate?

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#249

Post by Cthulhu_ »

8fingerlouie wrote: post #162

The decision to restrict 3rd party harddrives may be part of the reason why sales (allegedly) plummet, but i'm guessing lack of innovation also plays a big part. Synology has been resting on the laurels for years. They had a "hit" with DSM 6, then did mostly nothing for a decade, released DSM 7, and again, nothing but minor things since. On the hardware side of things, they're mostly still using decade old hardware,…

Synology was in the back of my head for years as a straightforward home server product, but emphasis on "years". The other day I saw a competitor that had a hand grenade sized alternative, a cooling with 4 or 8 1 TB M2 SSDs arranged around it. And I thought, why the fuck is Synology still top of mind?

I suppose they have plenty of corporate customers still, companies that are too small for their own proper servers (self managed or hosted) but who do want some central storage and more importantly the tech support that comes with it. But those would just as likely go to Dell for all their requirements.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#250

Post by rcxdude »

immibis wrote: post #155
NikolaNovak wrote: post #148

I installed Seagate Ironwolf Pro in my Synology last night. It complained it wasn't compatible. If that drive isn't compatible than I don't know what legitimate criteria possibly could be. (Yes, I get the criteria is "what we prioritized to test" but my point stands,it's the high end of consumer-available NAS drives, not a compute model or a shucked SMR drive:)

IIRC it was official Synology-branded drives only. And they cost about twice as much as the exact same drives without the Synology brand.

Yeah, the NAS wants to talk to a customised firmware. Which is what made it so transparently a money grab: they were reselling drives with a firmware modification at substantial markup.
Post reply on HN