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

651–660 of 679 posts

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#651

Post by Auracle »

leokennis wrote: post #290
cm2187 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if their brand is that great. I have been using synology NAS for about 15 years. It is very solid and easy to use, but the hardware is expensive, non customizable, the underlying OS is based on an ancient linux kernel. I have now run into the volume size limits (200TB) and disk sizes keep increasing exponentially. And they don’t support enterprise SSDs (SAS/U.2). So in my mind I was already thinking of m…

I find Synology NAS's to be at the sweet spot between "too simple for anything except accessing some files remotely via the vendors app" (like WD) and "another tech babysitting project". DSM is rock solid in my opinion, and gives enough freedom to tinker for those that want to. The QuickConnect feature makes it easy to connect to the NAS without being locked in to one specific app.

I just lost a bunch of files on mine due to their Drive software. I was setting up a folder to sync and just clicking the folder in their file explorer when setting it up isn’t enough to actually select it, so the sync went one level higher than it should have. That decided to wipe out the folders on that level instead of trying to sync them back to my computer, for whatever reason.

Also for whatever reason when you use Drive files don’t go into the regular recycle bin. They go into the Drive recycle bin…but only if you have file backups (whatever they call them, where it saves copies of files if they’re changed) enabled. I didn’t, for that folder.

Poof go 15 years of raw photo files.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#653

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

reactordev wrote: post #650
LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just an illusion. You're still running under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThreadX

Only for initial boot into Linux. But yes, technically it’s step0.

As I understand it, that is incorrect. It's more like a hypervisor still running in the background. That may have rolled back more and more with recent versions, but in principle the hypervisor can show shit like temperature, voltages and frequency in wrong ways, or delayed to the 'guest', whatever that may be. Actually that was the case, for some time, as some low-level tinkerers and/or overclockers discovered.

Similar to anything running in SMM (System Management Mode) on X86/AMD64 since the times of the 386SL. Be it BIOS, APM, ACPI, UEFI, or whatever.

I repeat: "It's just an illoooshn..." (There is now raw iron/silicon for consumers)

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#654

Post by 8fingerlouie »

qmmmur wrote: post #646
8fingerlouie wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends. Do you use iCloud optimized storage, or do you download originals to your machine ? Kopia only backs up what it can see, and in case of iCloud optimized storage, it only backs up size optimized miniatures and not the original files. Second, I haven’t researched this, but iPhoto used resource forks and extended attributes quite extensively for its library, and if the same is true for Apple Photos, Kopia wi…

Interesting. I don’t optimise the storage so that’s not a huge concern but the extended attributes possibly is. Does Arq support s3 apis?

yes, but before you "panic", look into if it's really a problem. Kopia is a fine tool, and while it's a bit lacking in native integration, it works well, and for some things even better than Arq.

Arq wins on system integration. It supports waking the machine from sleep at backup time, keeping it awake while backing up, materializing cloud only files, and many other "nice to have" things.

Kopia however wins on efficency and speed. The same ~3TB backup (incremental) done with Kopia and Arq here finishes in 3-5 minutes with Kopia, and 45 minutes with Arq, and Kopia supports deduplication across multiple clients, meaning if you backup your family photo library from multiple locations, Kopia will only store it once.

In any case, even Apple doesn't recommend backing up Apple Photos libraries, and instead recommend exporting the photos, which is what i do with Parachute.

https://www.arqbackup.com/documentation/arq7/English.lproj/s...

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#655

Post by jacquesm »

thoroughburro wrote: post #614
jacquesm wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot swap for drives is a must on a NAS. If you have to power it down to swap out a drive there is a chance that your small problem becomes a larger one. Better to replace the drive immediately and have the NAS do the rebuild without a powercycle.

> If you have to power it down to swap out a drive there is a chance that your small problem becomes a larger one. What are you thinking of, here? Just a scary feeling?

No, I've seen this happen on larger arrays. The restart with a degraded array risks another drive not coming up and then you are on very thin ice. Powercycles are usually benign but they don't have to be and on an array there is a fair chance that all of the drives are equally old and if one dies there may be another that is marginal but still working. Statistically unlikely but I have actually seen this in practice so I'm a bit wary of it. The larger the array the bigger the chance. This + the risk of controller failure is why my backup box is using software RAID 6. It definitely isn't the fastest but it has the lowest chance of ever losing the whole thing. I've seen a hardware raid controller fail as well and that was a real problem. For one it was next to impossible to find a replacement and for another when the replacement finally arrived it would not recognize the drives.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#656

Post by nottorp »

K7PJP wrote: post #521
hnlmorg wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That’s the point. The tiny nuc sits on the desk while you hurt your feet on your power adapter beneath.

The Mac Mini sits on your desk and there’s nothing under it.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#657

Post by jacquesm »

yabones wrote: post #435
toomuchtodo wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think more employee ownership and control, a "seat at the table," would've prevented technically competent leadership from testing customer hostile business decisions? > Regarding employee morale: It was very depressing for me during this period to open Hacker News and see threads complaining about my employer. I can confirm that it spurred a job search for me. Indeed. I believe that if you're a shareholder em…

Absolutely agree. I'm a huge fan of co-op type ownership structures for this reason. They might not be moonshots or unicorns, but they always have longevity.

Mondragon Corporation. Have a look, fascinating.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#658

Post by Xss3 »

jacquesm wrote: post #179
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…

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…

I was almost ready to pull the trigger on a few grand of their stuff when the bombshell drooped. Am going with Ubiquiti now.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#659

Post by qmmmur »

8fingerlouie wrote: post #654
qmmmur wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I don’t optimise the storage so that’s not a huge concern but the extended attributes possibly is. Does Arq support s3 apis?

yes, but before you "panic", look into if it's really a problem. Kopia is a fine tool, and while it's a bit lacking in native integration, it works well, and for some things even better than Arq. Arq wins on system integration. It supports waking the machine from sleep at backup time, keeping it awake while backing up, materializing cloud only files, and many other "nice to have" things. Kopia however wins on efficen…

Yep. I setup Parachute this morning and now backup that export using a script. Pretty easy.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#660

Post by 112233 »

j45 wrote: post #307
Fischgericht wrote: post #264

NOT true. They have NOT fully reversed on this. Please read: https://kb.synology.com/en-global/DSM/tutorial/Drive_compati...

Thanks for sharing. It seems like they want to make sure NAS' are running NAS grade drives, instead of consumer grade (SMR) drives which can have serious issues when rebuilding an array after a drive failure. Customers buying inappropriate drives for NAS and then eventually blowing back on Synology, if a driver of this could be handled differently.

Any example of such damaging blowback that is ravaging other NAS vendors who carelessly allow their users to recklessly use inappropriate drives?
Post reply on HN