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

521–530 of 679 posts

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#521

Post by K7PJP »

hnlmorg wrote: post #363
nottorp wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one rPIs are severely i/o limited still. May be fine with one ssd. For two, if you like power adapters going into boxes out of which usb cables to go more external hard drives, a Pi may be fine. If you want one neat box to tuck somewhere and forget about it, they aren't. But then people buy Intel "NUCs" where the power adapter is larger than the computer box... And three, the latest Pis have started to require ac…

> But then people buy Intel "NUCs" where the power adapter is larger than the computer box... You say that like it’s a mystery why people by then but NUCs are fantastic little PCs. The power adapter is just hidden under the desk whereas the NUC is sat on the desk (or behind the monitor/TV). It’s the same as with Mac Minis and Apple TV. And other devices of that ilk.

Both the Mac Mini and the Apple TV use internal power supplies.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#522

Post by ddtaylor »

reactordev wrote: post #201
jacquesm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is interesting here is that Synology leadership is quite technical and there was no acquisition or other big event that I am aware of that resulted in this strategy. It was a complete own goal and as predictable as could be. Synology apparently wasn't aware of what their brand values were as perceived by their loyal customers and that's the kind of move you make at your peril. I'll be surprised if they survive t…

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…

Pis are actually pretty terrible at running a NAS. Sure there are people who do it and create content about it (Jeff Geerling) and that's kind of the schtick - it's quirky and weird and has some sharp edges. Great for making content or going down rabbit holes, not so great for actually running a high availability system that just works with minimal fussing.

There are a ton of very capable x86 systems that are small and accomplish the task at great power and noise levels.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#523

Post by MrDarcy »

Aurornis wrote: post #371
jacquesm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is interesting here is that Synology leadership is quite technical and there was no acquisition or other big event that I am aware of that resulted in this strategy. It was a complete own goal and as predictable as could be. Synology apparently wasn't aware of what their brand values were as perceived by their loyal customers and that's the kind of move you make at your peril. I'll be surprised if they survive t…

> What is interesting here is that Synology leadership is quite technical Vagueposting out of necessity: I worked at a different company that made popular consumer products and had leadership with technical backgrounds. That company also went through a period of trying to lock down the platform for profits, which everyone hated. The root cause was that the technical leadership had started to think two things: That th…

Sonos?

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#524

Post by ddtaylor »

mrob wrote: post #326
j45 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ECC is very helpful. Having used both, I can't help but notice how NAS' routinely run just fine without it.

>NAS' routinely run just fine without it. How do you verify your data to confirm that?

Use a RAID5 and hope the write hole doesn't eat it all =(

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#525

Post by CryptoBanker »

jlarocco wrote: post #408
CryptoBanker wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source alternatives such as OpenMediaVault are able to support virtually any hardware. That's no excuse for a company like Synology

It helps that they can tell people to debug the problem themselves.

I've been using them for 4 years across enterprise level HDDs, personal HDDs, portable HDDs, never seen any issues or differences in experience other than speed.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#526

Post by Jaepa »

b3lvedere wrote: post #509
Jaepa wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did that though. They have doubled down and told the users they were wrong & that this was a needed Eventually relenting because of the consequences isn't a laudable accomplishment. Also it very much appears as they not really relenting, just trying to recover some PR https://www.heise.de/en/news/Synology-only-partially-removes...

I stand corrected. Thank you. I was under the assumption you could use any type of drive from any brand now again. It appears i assumed wrong. Just use any SSD brand, but forced to use Synology branded platter HDDs is not quite acceptable.

My guess is that the confusion is very much the point.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#527

Post by tracker1 »

Too little, too late... My current Synology box will likely be my last, I might get another 5-bay expansion, but even that is really iffy. I just don't like the decisions like this that they've continued to make... more lock in, more restrictive features, etc.

For that matter, in the 4-6 drive SOHO range, there are a LOT of NAS products with decent consumer upgrade options and alternative OS support with okay compute power. Not to mention the prosumer options for software that support these devices as well as DIY options are pretty good as well, less than the premium that Synology charges for their hardware.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#528

Post by buccal »

What should be noted, a cost effective M365 backup solution "Synology Active Backup for Microsoft 365" has an external server requirement for OAUTH: https://kb.synology.com/en-af/DSM/help/ActiveBackup-Office36... That seems to have created possibility for quite serious exploit: https://modzero.com/en/blog/when-backups-open-backdoors-syno...

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#529

Post by jacquesm »

MrDarcy wrote: post #523
Aurornis wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is interesting here is that Synology leadership is quite technical Vagueposting out of necessity: I worked at a different company that made popular consumer products and had leadership with technical backgrounds. That company also went through a period of trying to lock down the platform for profits, which everyone hated. The root cause was that the technical leadership had started to think two things: That th…

Sonos?

I almost bought their junk. I went to a store nearby that was promoting them (I live within 10 km of their headquarters and felt like supporting the locals). That didn't really work out though: cloud not optional. For a bunch of speakers. Account required. So, no sale. Salesguy was all pissed and I should 'get with the times'. No thank you. My hardware is mine.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#530

Post by gertop »

WmWsjA6B29B4nfk wrote: post #103
rickdeckard wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I see where you're coming from, in my experience ESPECIALLY Customer-Support is usually happy to have a clear-cut criteria to reject support-requests as "officially out-of-scope". I wouldn't be surprised if the decision was made BECAUSE Customer Support highlighted the support-effort to debug all these unique customer-setups within warranty, and then someone stepped in and proposed to kill two birds with one st…

Certainly has nothing to do with "official" drives being crazily overpriced.

If you compare the branded version vs the equivalent model from the manufacturer you'll find that there's a markup but it's minimal.
Post reply on HN