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

261–270 of 360 posts

Re: The Synology End Game

#261

Post by mihaaly »

atlasduo wrote: post #30
codeflo wrote: post #12

The year is 2025. Delivering a good product is not considered profitable enough anymore. If a company or product is beloved by customers then that means it doesn't squeeze them to the max. This is clearly money left on the table that someone will sooner or later extract. High-end brands are not exempt from this.

Easily explained: when times are tough, delivering growth naturally is hard. Squeezing the customer is the lowest hanging fruit. Sure, long term reputation is severely damaged, but why would decision makers care? Product owners interests are not aligned with interests of the company itself. Squeeze the customer, get your miniscule growth, call it "unlocking value", get your bonus, slap it onto your resume and move on…

This is more about EBITDA.

Serving the needs of customers (practically the quality of the product) sits down in the list of importance. Sales strategy, marketing, PR, organizational culture, company values, ..., basically the self-serving measures come all before that.

Re: The Synology End Game

#262

Post by SirMaster »

M95D wrote: post #251
SirMaster wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? 6.1 Electrical Characteristics The maximum power requirements for the LSI SAS 9200-8i HBA under normal operation are as follows:  PCIe 12.0 V = 0.74 A  Power — Nominal = 7.92 W — Worst Case = 13.20 W Seems like it uses just a little more than 1 large capacity HDD.

It's 2-3 times more than the drives. All 8 HDDs consume 4W in sleep, and they sleep more than 80% of the time (all night, all day while I'm at work, they only start 2-3 hours in the evening).

I am pretty sure the card is not using 8+ watts when all the drives on it are idle...

I can't believe people are worrying about something less than 10 watts.

10 watts in constant use for a whole year is like $12 at the average electricity cost in the US.

I don't even let my HDDs sleep, the constant spin up and spin down and temperature cycle associated with puts way more wear and tear on them and would cause them to fail quicker and that is way more expensive to replace.

I have 20 HDDs connected to one of these SAS2 controllers in my home server.

Re: The Synology End Game

#263

Post by Marsymars »

benoau wrote: post #260
Marsymars wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd suggest separate systems for NAS and media serving. I've a Ryzen Embedded system with lost of RAM as my NAS box and a small Intel N-series based system as my Plex server that pulls media off the NAS box.

Yeah but these days you can easily have one system with 10 - 20 cores so you should be able to handle both workloads very well.

You can, but for media serving and transcoding you ideally want Intel Quick Sync, and it's simpler to have separate systems for your Quick Sync system and your "many cores" system.

Re: The Synology End Game

#264

Post by jchw »

I just recently grabbed an old Supermicro chassis off eBay and have been getting things slowly set up recently. So long Synology, and thanks for all the fish.

(I'm just going to run a stock Linux distro rather than anything particularly fancy, personally. Good enough for me. Maybe this is finally an excuse to run copyparty somewhere.)

Re: The Synology End Game

#265

Post by SirMaster »

M95D wrote: post #185
storus wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you care that much about power why are you using 8 tiny 2TB HDDs instead of 1 or 2 big HDDs?

You don't need a NAS for 16TB, you just need a RasPi with a 16TB USB HDD connected to it and a second one for backups that you keep mostly offline.

Re: The Synology End Game

#266

Post by sexeriy237 »

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…

QNAP DOESN'T RESPOND TO RESEARCHERS THAT FIND ZERO DAYS IN THEIR CODE. that should tell you all you need to know

Re: The Synology End Game

#267

Post by SirMaster »

M95D wrote: post #246
horsawlarway wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference here is pretty much negligible to the vast majority of folks. 10w is... Nothing. There are only very specific cases where it's worth picking hardware on this constraint, and unless you're on a solar powered sail boat or something similarly niche, you probably shouldn't be prioritizing this. In my region, 10w comes out to about 0.90 USD/month. Or roughly 3 pennies a day. Over the entire lifetime of the…

I've done the calculations just now: 10W constant over 10 years would cost me 275 euro. My hard drives (7 ST2000DL003 and one ST2000DL001) are 10-15 years old now. They're all different batches, none failed yet, so I expect it to last at least 5 more years, possibly a lot more. The current NAS setup I have (router + DAS + 2 USB) is around 50W. Over 20years it will cost me ~2800 euro in today's prices. So you see, the…

Your setup is a tiny niche of a niche. Nobody using a NAS is using tiny 2TB HDDs in 2025 when 20+TB drives are so available.

I feel like you are making your setup more complicated than is even worth and searching for a weird solution when all you need is a RasPi with a big 16+TB USB HDD connected to it.

Re: The Synology End Game

#268

Post by CamperBob2 »

M95D wrote: post #256
CamperBob2 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few watts more or less is so far down any sane list of concerns when selecting a NAS solution, I can't believe it's dominating the discussion here.

It's nice to be rich and not care, isn't it... I calculated that over the entire lifetime of my current system, the energy will cost me more than the system itself, all 10 HDDs included, and it's only 50 W or so.

The rich people I know got that way by being very selective regarding what they care about.

Re: The Synology End Game

#269

Post by nine_k »

joshstrange wrote: post #106
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…

This. I came to Synology after years of managing regular Linux (Debian) servers, then Unraid, and then Synology. Synology was the most expensive thing I’ve used but I also _never_ think about it. The same could not be said for previous setups. I want a stupid-easy NAS, plug-and-play, hotswapable bays. I’m not interested in having to shut down a tower and open it up to swap/add drives. I have 2x12-bay Synology’s and I…

> I’m not interested in having to shut down a tower and open it up to swap/add drives.

How often do you actually do this? In 15 years of running my own NAS boxes, I so far had to do it once. I, of course, choose slow, middle of the range disks.

Re: The Synology End Game

#270

Post by Krasnol »

turtlebits wrote: post #212
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…

I switched to QNAP and it's been fine.

I wished I'd have spend some time looking them up before I bought 2 new drives for my old Synology. The new QNAP is so much better. I'd have switched just for the UI already..
Post reply on HN