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

541–550 of 679 posts

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#541

Post by teekert »

stirfish wrote: post #382
teekert wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think stuff like this can be countered, but it would require a step in the other direction, becoming more open, ie open source some important component (or make ssh work normally?). Show that you do really listen. Repent. It seems like Ubuiqiti is back in our collective hearts after they accidentally showed other peoples camera footage in people apps. Now their tag line is "Building the Future of IT. License Free".…

What if you were to run your guest ssh in a container with the relevant volumes attached? I can't recall how the base ssh works with Synology DSM, but everything interesting I do with my NAS is done with containers.

I usually run containers by writing some yaml (and then use podman/docker compose), I’ve started and then quit trying to use whatever interface Synology offers, call me stupid but I find it intimidating.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#543

Post by internet101010 »

bapak wrote: post #82
jeffparsons wrote: post #21

Don't get confused here: they didn't decide that their policy change was wrong — they just didn't expect quite as much backlash. Make your purchasing decisions accordingly.

[flagged]

Ubiquiti sells equivalent NAS units with better technical specs for half the price.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#544

Post by QuiEgo »

al_borland wrote: post #508
QuiEgo wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nightmare scenario is that Apple locks you out of your Apple ID for some reason. Luckily, Apple also provides a pretty easy backup path that lets you have a local copy, if you have a Mac and a NAS: - setup your Mac’s photos app and iCloud to download everything locally - setup Time Machine backups from your Mac to a NAS That’s it. You get 3-2-1 (your Mac, iCloud, and your NAS) and can get a copy of your data even…

I thought about going this route, but I have 73GB of photos currently, which will only continue to grow over time. While not the biggest library, it’s approaching the point where I’d need to start buying upgraded storage on any new Mac I buy, or use external storage for my Photos library. One of the things I like about iCloud Photos is my computer doesn’t need much local storage, Photos will manage it, downloading fu…

Makes sense. Unfortunately closest thing I’ve seen is https://github.com/boredazfcuk/docker-icloudpd but that requires turning off Advanced Data Protection which is a nonstarter for me

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#545

Post by HumblyTossed »

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,…

>>> but i'm guessing lack of innovation also plays a big part.

It's a NAS. It just needs to be reliable.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#546

Post by tracker1 »

ffsm8 wrote: post #101
zeroflow wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree with you. The appeal for me was the "it just works" factor. It's a compact unit and setup was easy. Every self-built solution would either be rather large (factor for me) and more difficult to set up. And I think, that's what has kept Synology alive for so long. It allows entry level users to get into the selfhosting game with the bare minimum you need, especially if transcoding (Plex/Jellyfin) is men…

Surprising to read your take Transcoding was the reason I moved away from Synology. The rest was fine , not great but ... Okay But there was no way to improve transcoding performance. If a stream lagged, it would always lag. Hence I jumped ship and just made my own

I now have a mini pc next to my NAS, and leaving my NAS to only file storage chores. That said, I also am running NVidia Shield TV Pro boxes with Kodi for local media and largely don't have to worry about the encoding.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#547

Post by _joel »

ArchD wrote: post #516
_joel wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://jrs-s.net/2015/02/03/will-zfs-and-non-ecc-ram-kill-y...

This article is only saying that ZFS can mitigate disk data corruption caused by bad RAM, mainly through using checksums, not that it can completely prevent disk data corruption. Also, it does not talk about the scenario where the in-RAM data being corrupted does not come with checksum. For example, data received from the network by the NFS/SMB server to be written to a file, before it gets passed to ZFS. This data i…

Don't take my word, here's Matt Ahrens, a, ZFS developer. It's not required but a good idea.

"There's nothing special about ZFS that requires/encourages the use of ECC RAM more so than any other filesystem. If you use UFS, EXT, NTFS, btrfs, etc without ECC RAM, you are just as much at risk as if you used ZFS without ECC RAM. Actually, ZFS can mitigate this risk to some degree if you enable the unsupported ZFS_DEBUG_MODIFY flag(zfs_flags=0x10). This will checksum the data while at rest in memory, and verify it before writing to disk, thus reducing the window of vulnerability from a memory error.

    I would simply say: if you love your data, use ECC RAM. Additionally, use a filesystem that checksums your data, such as ZFS."

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#548

Post by croon »

Hikikomori wrote: post #416
croon wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always opted for building my own and running linux every time it has come down to replacing, but I might split out NAS and compute this time and take a chance on a UGREEN one (maybe DH4300?), the reviews look solid for a new product segment from them. I'm likely not buying a Synology at this point. If anyone has one of their (UGREEN) models (or other brands) I'd be interested in hearing perspectives. Edit: A lot…

I bought a Terramaster DAS as I already had a NUC, just connected with USB, supports 10Gbit but my NUC only does 5. Looked a lot at NAS alternatives and ugreen, asustor, aoostar all seem pretty good, as you can just run truenas or a linux distro. Can also do DIY chassi with mini itx board.

I checked out Terramaster too, but was unsure of the interface. Does the HBA do any abstraction or is it IT mode and direct access to the disks?

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#549

Post by liquid_thyme »

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…

Lock-in actually helps internal development. If you're targeting fixed hardware, writing software gets a lot easier.

Your "guess" is not logical.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#550

Post by liquid_thyme »

submeta wrote: post #147

Too late. Sold my Synology NAS a few weeks ago and moved on to TrueNAS. - I absolutely despise when companies get greedy and try to get the maximum out of their customers. Adobe does this. Apple does this. And some other companies.

If lockin allows you to ship quality software and tight integration across your product line, there is probably a rationale there. People defend Apple - presumably because of this.
Post reply on HN