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 this in the longer term, regardless of the reversal they've shown they do not have their customers interests at heart at all. It's dumber that it even seems: they were raking in a substantial amount of money precisely because of this one factor, and they pretty much shot the goose that was laying the golden eggs.
I've been a loyal customers of theirs and wasn't even looking at other options but there won't be another cent of mine going to Synology. I was already miffed at their mark-up for a little bit of memory before this happened. It is a matter of time before they crash and I don't want to end up with an unsupported piece of hardware. Trust is everything in the storage business.
> 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 their customers were so loyal to the brand that they wouldn’t leave, and that the customers weren’t smart enough to recognize that the artificial restrictions had no real basis in reality.
I remember attending a meeting where the CEO bragged about a decision he made that arbitrarily worsened a product for consumers. He laughed that people still bought it and loved it. “Can you believe that? They’ll buy anything we tell them to.” was the paraphrased statement I remember.
Of course, the backlash came when they pushed too hard. Fortunately this company recognized what was going on and the CEO moved on to other matters, leaving product choices back to the teams. I wonder if something similar happened with Synology.
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.
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 employee owner, you are likely incentivized to not kill the golden goose versus folks at the top making decisions unilaterally, but you also need some ability to say no to bad decisions. Like Costco, employee and customer happiness first, profits after.
(big fan of employee ownership and control contributors, aligning incentives and outcomes and all that jazz)
> 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?
The only peers at the company who were enthusiastic about the decision were the ones who were buying more company stock and wanted it to go up. They thought that anything that increased the bottom line would increase the stock price, and therefore they were on board.
So, no, I don't think increased employee ownership solves anything.
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.
No, it's actually true, they are quite stable. What they lack though is outliers in terms of success. They tend to be quite conservative and as a consequence they are risk averse and tend to play it safe. For a high return you need a different appetite for risk. Of course the key to a different risk appetite is to be able to externalize the negatives of that risk but to be able to reap the rewards. Such asymmetric bets are at the root of most successful business empires, you'd never see them in a co-op.
Not a fan of employee ownership. It's the antithesis of diversification. You're now depending on one company for both your salary and your investments.
Work for a salary. Invest in a diversified portfolio that's not tied to your employer.
>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?
Do you think there's some magical moral/ethical line that gets drawn between employees and executives, where the former are naturally "good" and the latter "bad"?
>Like Costco, employee and customer happiness first, profits after.
This is such a strange myth. Do you go to Costco? There's nothing great about the customer experience. It's a discount store of decent quality that pays the employees decent wages. It's better than Walmart and Amazon, but nobody dreams of working there.
> "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?"
Employee control doesn't reduce investor pressure for increased profitability. Employee ownership just means that the employees are now the ones exerting the investor pressure and if anyone thinks employees will be willing to take less total compensation (why? "Loyalty to the company"? "Solidarity"?) instead of hopping to a new job, well, good luck with that.
Careful about reading too much into "employee ownership". It can be and at least sometimes (I suspect usually, at least in the US) is structured such that it doesn't really work the way you might think.
1) The shares can be non-voting shares. LOL.
2) Only a relatively small portion of the overall "pie" has to go to employees for them to be able to say they're "employee owned". There can still be non-employee owners involved to a large degree.
3) That slice of the pie will tend to be weighted so heavily toward those near the top of the org chart that in practice it may be more like "upper-management owned" anyway.
I think the main reasons companies in the US choose it are:
1) Propaganda. "You're an owner!" It's a way to trick unwise employees into working harder for (effectively) nothing extra, and even into exhorting others to do the same.
2) Probably some kind of tax-avoidance reasons.
3) As a vehicle for a kind of stock-compensation system without having to take the company public or do occasional odd maneuvers with investors for that stock to be de facto liquid for employees.
IME there's zero percent more meaningful "ownership" involved than, say, Google folks who receive stock as part of their comp (and nobody calls Google "employee owned"). It's a misleading name for the structure.
As a self employed business owner I should definitely start billing us as “employee owned”.
I’m unaware of any tax avoidance advantages but I should ask my accountant (pretty sure he’ll say no though. :D )
I’ve actually considered various ways of assigning non-voting shares in the past as a way to grant employees some skin in the game without ceding control or permanently diluting ownership. It’s not a ‘startup’ in the HN sense so handing out shares willy nilly doesn’t make sense.
A good habit to practice is to see how far you can go reconciling apparent contradictions with charitable interpretation. I think in this case, I can see "brand loyalty" on a continuum ranging from "feels good about product" to "so completely loyal that lock-in would be redundant". The furthest extreme would produce an effective contradiction, but anything short of that can make sense of the term while leaving space to understand lock in as a rational, or at-least non-contradictory action.
I think that can backfire spectacularly, as we're seeing with Synology, but I suspect that a non-trivial amount of the time, it simply happens and works, no revolt is staged, and profits flow (for better or worse).
The example coming to my mind right how is Pitney Bowes, which sells big envelope stamping and sealing machines. They sell a proprietary sealing fluid (wtf) that, as far as I can tell, is water with blue food coloring. And a costly proprietary red ink cartridge for stamping. But people sign the contracts and the world keeps on keeping on.
> Isn't that a contradictory position? Locking in raises the cost of disloyalty, loyal customers (by definition) don't need to be locked in.
In this case, the customers were loyal to Synology for the NAS but not the hard drives.
By locking them in further, they thought they could capture their customers' hard drive purchasing, too. They thought the brand loyalty would allow it.
You see this a lot when a company’s founders leave and are replaced by MBAs. Customer goodwill isn’t a tangible asset, so the MBAs burn it to produce more quarterly revenue. It works great for a while until the customers wisely decide never to let that company burn them again.
By that stage the MBAs have scored even higher paying jobs at bigger companies based on how much they boosted profits, so I guess it continues to work for them afterwards too.
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.
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 moving on for my next NAS and go custom hardware, that policy just made it a no brainer. And reading comments on reddit I feel there are many people in a similar state of mind.
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.
Exactly. About 10 years ago I wanted to set up a NAS to store a variety of things. I have the knowhow to hand roll just about anything I wanted, but I lacked the desire or time to do so. At the same time, the simple things were tying me to apps or otherwise putting me on rails.
Instead I bought a lower end Synology & stuffed it with some HDs, and it's been pretty fire & forget while satisfying all of my needs. I'm able to mount drives on it from all of the devices in my network. I can use it as a BitTorrent client. I use it to host a Plex server. And a few other odds & ends over time.
Meanwhile the only issues I had were needing to solder a resistor onto the motherboard to resolve some issue, and replacing some HDDs as they were aging out.
All in all it has struck a perfect balance for me. I'll grant that "solder a resistor onto the motherboard" is likely beyond a typical home user but it's also been a lot less fiddling than some home-brew solution.
> Meanwhile the only issues I had were needing to solder a resistor onto the motherboard to resolve some issue
You and I must have a different idea of "fire and forget." I've been running my NAS on a generic Dell running stock Debian for over a decade now, and I've never had to get the soldering iron out to maintain it!
Agreed. it was a pretty freak issue, albeit one that had a well known fix. I stated it here in full disclosure and did state that this was beyond what most people would consider tolerable. And I'll admit that I came very close to throwing it in the garbage and buying a new one.
Still, other than replacing old drives, something that'd happen regardless of solution, that's the only fiddling I ever had to do.
That was almost certainly the Intel Avoton clock degradation issue. It hit Cisco and lots of other networking vendors too. I lost Supermicro and ASRock boards to the same thing. Soldering on the resistor gets the CLK circuit back into spec for a while, but I had an officially-repaired board eventually fail again in the same way after a few more years since it keeps degrading.
That's a good reminder, I forgot about it being temporary. Looks like it was ~6 years before the initial failure, and it's been ~4 years since.
I should start investigating potential migration paths that would allow me to do a HDD migration as that would be ideal. Although it looks like that might be a pain due to some of their OS-level limitations.
I swapped my dead C2750 (Supermicro A1SAi-2750F) board for my cold-spare C3558 (A2SDi-4C-HLN4F) and was right back running again. I guess if you're talking about an appliance it's a little different, but this was just my home firewall/router FreeBSD+PF+Jails machine.
And actually a good reminder for me to eBay up another cold spare, because I totally forgot to.
Same here. Still rocking a DS415+ from 2015. Had to solder a 100ohm resistor to work around the Intel Atom C2000 flaw. Has had a new set of spinning rust in that time too. It's also connected to UPS so will power down if there's an extended outage. Stuck on DSM 7.1 but it does the job.
As for the ancient Linux kernel, I want the device I’m using for backups to be secure. I’m not saying I need to be using the kernel on ~main, but there are important security fixes merged in the last 5 years.
I'd be far more weary of the application level services provided by Synology than of the kernel in this context, as long as the vendor backports the various fixes and you update the kernel you should in theory be fine. But the applications get far less scrutiny.
What you really never ever should do is expose your NAS to the internet, even if vendors seem to push for this. Of course you'd still be vulnerable to a local compromised application on another machine that is on the same network as the NAS. It's all trade-offs. My own solution to all this was quite simple but highly dependent on how I use the NAS: when not in use it is off and it is only connected to my own machine running linux, not to the wifi or the house network.
It's hard to find any other products that compare to DSM. It really is something special. It's worth a small premium in hardware costs. But I share a lot of the concerns as everyone else here and will be considering other options.
I find that Linux NAS and router project require essentially no babysitting. You do have to do some initial setup work, but once it's done, there's no maintenance (other than replacing failed hardware) for years and years.
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.
My story is similar. I've been using them for a decade, and was shopping for an upgrade when they made the proprietary drive announcmement.
It was the impetus I needed to realize that it only takes an hour to build my own, better, NAS out of junk I mostly already owned and save a ton of money. I won't be going back.
I started with FreeNAS or whatever flavor of it existed well over a decade ago. It was enough hassle that I went Synology because the stuff I like tinkering with isn't the storage of my most important data. Everything I do with NUCs, Pis, VMs, etc is somewhat ephemeral in that it's all backed up multiple times and locations.
I spent five hours debugging a strange behavior in my shell with some custom software this morning and submitted a bug report to a software vendor that was not the expected cause of the issue. I feel great about it. I used to feel great about my Synology NAS, too.
Qnap, Ugreen, whatever else, we'll see when my current model is due for replacement. Synology will have to perform pretty much miracles before then for me to consider them again after three generations of their hardware that were all very satisfactory. What a major mistake.
They weren't perfect, but they were perfect for my needs. Not anymore.
You can build a little hot-swappable NAS with nice trays to slide disks in and out, an easy web GUI, front panel status lights, support for applications like surveillance cameras, etc, with junk you mostly already owned?
I don't think most people consider easy hot-swaps + front panel status lights particularly key features in their home NAS.
I don't swap drives unless something is failing or I'm upgrading - both of which are a once every few years or longer thing, and 15min of planned downtime to swap doesn't really matter for most Home or even SMB usage.
-----
As for the rest, TrueNAS gets me ZFS, a decent GUI for the basics, the ability to add in most other things I'd want to do with it without a ton of hassle, and will generally run on whatever I've got lying around for PC hardware from the past 5-10 years.
It's hard to directly compare non-identical products.
For me and my personal basic usage - yes, it really was pretty much as easy as a Synology to set up.
It's entirely possible that whatever you want to do with it is a lot of work on something like TrueNAS vs easy on a Synology, I'm not going to say that's the case for everything.
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're worried the hard drives won't spin back up, I'd say you should instead spin them down regularly so you know that risk is basically zero. If you're worried the power supply will explode and surge into the drives when you turn it on, you should not be using that power supply at all. Any other risks to powering it down?
And for the particular issue of replacing a failed drive and not wanting to open up the case while it's powered, you can get a single drive USB enclosure to "hot swap" for $20. And if you use hard drives you should already have one of those laying around, imo.
Agree, you should consider replacing your drives on your primary server (backup servers we can debate) as soon as you start seeing the first SMART problems, like bad sectors. If you do regular data scrubbing, and none of these problems show up on the other drives, I'd argue the risk that they fail simultaneously is fairly low.
Hot swap drives are necessary on data centers where you don't want to have to pull the whole server and open the top cover just to replace a disk.
But on a home NAS? What problem would having to power it down and power it on for drive replacement create? You're going to resync the array anyways.
I don't mind them and I do use them but I consider them a very small QOL improvement. I don't really replace my disks all that often. And now that you can get 30TB enterprise samsung SSDs for 2k, two of those babies in raid 1 + an optane cache gives you extremely fast and reliable storage in a very small footprint.
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.
In fact I find the synology disk trays to be very fragile. Out of the 48 trays I have, I think a good 6 or 7 do not close anymore unless you lock them with a key. A common problem apparently.
Sure. You buy a chinese case with 6-8 bays off Aliexpress, throw some board with ECC RAM support into it and a few disks. You install TrueNAS Scale on it, setup a OpenZFS pool. Front panel lights are controllable via Kernel [0], it even offers a ready-made disk-activity module if you want to hack. Surveillance cameras are handled by Frigate, an open source NVR Software which works really well.
Especially when you want to build and learn, there's next to no reason to buy a Synology.
Very valid advice, but you don't do all that in "an hour," of course. Synology's purpose in life is to provide a solution to users who are more interested in the verbs than the nouns.
They are the Apple of the NAS industry, a role that has worked out really well for Apple as well as for most of their users. The difference is, for all their rent-seeking walled-garden paternalism, Apple doesn't try to lock people out of installing their own hard drives.
Kudos to Synology for walking back a seriously-stupid move.
Once you have the case, an hour or two is pretty reasonable... you can even have your boot device pre-imaged while waiting on the case to get delivered.
Not to mention the alternative brands that allow you to run your own software... I've got a 4-bay TerraMaster (F-424 Pro) as a backup NAS. I don't plan on buying another Synology product.
I'm no stranger to building boxes or running servers, but I've run a couple of different Synology NAS over the past 15 years. My estimate is that if I were to put together my own system, it would probably take several days and cost about the same as if I were to buy Synology. I'm not familiar with building NAS systems specifically, so that might be part of the issue. But saying you can do it in one hour seems like hyperbole.
When I looked into it last, I planned to spend about as much as a Synology, but it would have much more compute, memory and as much storage. I was likely going to run ProxMox as a primary OS, and pass the SATA controller(s) to a TruNAS Scale VM... Alternatively, just run everything in containers under TruNAS directly.
For my backup NAS, I wound up going with a TerraMaster box and loading TruNAS Scale on it.
Someone building their own probably isn't too afraid of missing out on a webgui or installing something like FreeNAS or whatever is the popular choice these days.
I think the NAS market is in for an upheaval due to the markups for fairly crappy hardware and then squeezed from the bottom by cloud storages.
RPI 5 can be got with 16gb of memory and has a PCI-E port, some might complain about the lack of ECC ram but does all those cheap ARM cpu's on lower end NAS'es really have that?
I think the biggest factor might be that case manufacturers haven't found it to be a high enough margin, but it only takes one to decide that they want to take a bite out of the enthusiast NAS market.
In any case, none of the requirements you listed seem that exotic. There are computer cases with hot-swap ready drive cages, and status lights (or even LCDs) are easy to find. The software is probably already on github. The toughest ask is probably for it to be "little", but that's not something everybody cares about. So I don't find the GP's claim to be that much of a stretch.
they’re pretty clearly referring to _their_ use case and not everyone’s. i think people are mostly talking past each other about this. there isn’t one feature set that matters for everyone, so of course a synology is perfect for some and for others it can be replaced with “junk”.
There are several drive tray cases for ITX and mATX that you can choose from. As for a Web GUI, you can get TruNAS Scale running relatively easily and there are other friendly options as well... so yes.
I have been running TrueNAS (was FreeNAS) for ~10 years now and never had issues. There is the risk that TrueNAS gets rug pulled and no longer is free for non commercial use, but so far it has been fine.
The thing is, I'm still running FreeNAS 9, not even TrueNAS. If they rug pull, not only will there be forks, but the old versions should just continue to work!
Trivially on their (and qnap's) amd64 systems at least. There are some quirks where they are more similar to an embedded system than a PC, but it's not a big deal. Things like console over UART (unless you add a UART) and fan control not working out of the box, so you set it to full speed in bios or mess with config.
Nope, the purpose of a Synology unit is to be about as complex as a toaster. Put it on the shelf, plug it in, make sure auto-updates are enabled, and forget about it until it sends you an email in 5-10 years that one or more drives is full/failing. I bought a synology almost 10 years ago and it's been purring away in a closet somewhere and never causing problems the entire time.
If you want a device to tinker with, this is the wrong product for you.
They've also been pretty hostile around video transcoding which seems like a baffling position to take given their audience. I still have an older tv that can't deal with h.265 and I'm refusing to upgrade to the latest version of synology OS because they remove the transcoders.
This is why I don't use NAS from them. I don't understand why I would want to be limited in these strange ways. I have multiple NAS that I have created myself for myself, my family and my friends. If I want to have h264, h265, AV1, or whatever I just install it.
I have zero respect for software patents and will not be structuring my life differently to respect them.
> What is interesting here is that Synology leadership is quite technical
They probably used bad data to make the decision. They probably thought they had accurate and high quality information that led them to believe nobody cared about this. My guess is they had some metric like "Only 0.0001% of customers use custom drives" or similar. They did the cost-benefit analysis of losing all those customers and a little bit of backlash and concluded it was worth it to force huge margins on vendor lock-in drives.
I had one of their entry-level consumer products years ago, and it was okay, but the photo management app was basically unusable on the anemic CPU it came with— it would spend multiple days grinding away trying to generate thumbnails for a few gigs of digital photos.
After that coloured my feelings a bit, I swung too far the other way and tried to roll my own with regular Ubuntu, which quickly became a maintenance and observability nightmare.
I've settled for now on Unraid for my current setup, and I'm pretty happy with that, though some of the technical choices are a little baffling; I think my ideal NAS platform would be something with the ergonomics and features of Unraid but built on a more immutability-first platform like NixOS, CoreOS, Talos, etc.
I went with a UGreen NAS a couple of months ago specifically because Synology had added this restriction. It's been a happy decision so far.
When reading up and watching videos for what I should get, everything pointed at Synology as being the "Apple of NAS products." But everything I looked at showed they were coasting on their status and had actively worsened their products in recent revs.
Same here. I recently started thinking about upgrading my Synology NAS to something newer they offered. When I read about the hard drive restrictions I thought no-one would be _that_ stupid. Imagine my surprise when it turned out to be 100% true. I mean, what the fuck?
So, I started to look around and landed on Ugreen. They offered a NAS with more RAM (and the ability to upgrade), better connectivity (2.5GbE + 10 GbE), faster CPU, ability to install custom OSes (like TrueNAS), the OS resides on a separate, user-replaceable M.2 NVMe drive. All that for less money. Plus, since I control the OS, there's no way they can push some garbage it's-for-your-own-good-wink-wink update down my throat.
Bought it, didn't even start their OS and put TrueNAS Scale on it and I've never been happier. The caveat here is that I use my NAS as a NAS - no apps, no docker, no photos app. All that is on a separate box in the rack.
For me to ever trust Synology again I'd have to see some punitive action towards the idiots there that thought that whole HDD restrictions mess was a good idea. Even then, now that I've had a look around what else is available, I'm pretty sure I'll stay clear for a couple of years.
They probably concluded at this point it wouldn't mean much and they are somewhat right. Every day they fail to address the situation that apology needs to be a lot bigger and it can only get so big.
I hope Synology gets its act together, it has been a convenient product to resell for clients who down-size. Very simple, very low maintenance. And very simple to set up, versus all of the home-grown *nix boxes I have built over the decades.
>What is interesting here is that Synology leadership is quite technical
As long as profits enter the picture, the most technical people in the world can turn into greedy bastards making decisions a pointy haired boss would make
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…
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 active cooling. Might as well go low power x86 then.
Exactly the route I took. I had an aging tower machine full of spinning disks running on an old LSI adapter that was doing hardware raid. They were out of space and I began to get nervous the LSI adapter could die and I would trouble replacing it. Decided JBOD for the future.
External drives were on sale, I bought several and setup with a RPI. Lots of headaches. It took effort to iron out all the USB and external disk issues. Had to work out alternative boot. Had power adapters fail for the RPI. Had to enhance cooling. etc. Kept running into popular Docker containers still not having aarch64 variants.
I finally replaced the RPI with a used Dell SFF. Kept the USB drives and it's been solid with similar power draw and just easier to deal with all around.
Though I am considering going back to a tower, shucking the drives (they're out of warranty) and going back to SATA.
I think most LSI adapters you can get a battery backup for. I've got one on mine, plus a spare battery sitting on a shelf somewhere. I admit when I put the system together for the first time I was a little hesitant to go with hardware RAID but it's worked out fine so far.
I reckon the issue is more in replacement than transient data loss: what are you going to do when you can't find a replacement controller card, or it only available at ludicrous prices?
With a proprietary on-disk format you can't exactly hook them up to any random controller and expect it to work: either you find a new one from the same controller family, or your data is gone.
Replacing your RAID controller is already major maintenance, so there's going to be downtime. I wouldn't be opposed to just wiping the drives and restoring from the latest backup. I routinely do this anyway, just to have assurance that my backups are working.
And a risk! I've had this on a premium machine put together specifically for that purpose and when the raid controller died something got upset to the point that even with a new raid controller we could not recover the array. No big deal, it was one of several backups, but still, I did not expect that to happen.
I've had mixed experiences with my NUC. It has what I think is a firmware bug that causes display output to fail if you connect a monitor after boot. Very annoying if it ever drops off the network for some reason.
There seems to be a Windows-only update tool available that might fix it, but that's rather inconvenient when it's used as a server running Linux! No update available as a standalone boot disk or via LVFS. So I haven't gotten it fixed yet because doing so involves getting a second SSD, taking my server offline to install Windows on it, just to run a firmware update.
If you use a couple of magnetic disks, the pi is fast enough. The disks will be the bottleneck. There are sata cards that allow up to four magnetic disks, and where you power that card which in turn powers the pi. It's very doable.
It's of course more work to set up than synology, and if you want a neat box, you have to figure that out yourself
You'd be surprised. A single spinning rust drive can hit 200MBps for sequential access, so that's plenty to saturate its 1Gbps NIC.
However, in my experience with a Pi 4, the issue is encryption. The CPU simply isn't fast enough for 1Gbps of AES! Want to use HTTPS or SSH? You're capped at ~50Mbps by default, and can get it up to a few hundred Mbps by forcing the use of chacha20-poly1305. Want to add full-disk encryption to that? Forget it.
The Pi 5 is supposed to have hardware AES acceleration so it should be better, but I'm still finding forum posts of people seeing absolutely horrible performance. Probably fine to store the occasional holiday photo, but falls apart when you intend to regularly copy tens of gigabytes to/from it at once.
It apparently hit 387MBps for a few hours while running the montly raid scrub. I run luks on top of mdraid though so the raid scrub doesn't have to decrypt anything.
scp to write to the encrypted disk seems to get me something in the 60 - 100MB/s range.
So long as the storage system is capable of serving a video stream without stuttering, that covers the 99% performance case for me. Anything beyond that is bulk transfers which are not time sensitive.
The alternative to a Synology NAS isn't RPi. There are plenty of alternatives - QNAP, UGreen, a tower running TrueNAS - but a messy pile of overpriced unreliable SoCs attached to SATA hats isn't an alternative for a single device with multiple hard drive bays, consistent power and cooling, and easy management.
The alternative is anything not Synology that can do NAS with SATA SSD or NVMe storage. That’s it. Anything more than that is in a class of enterprise servers that deserve its own discussion over a simple DS1522+
This is nonsense. Both a horse and a pickup truck can be used to pull a wagon, but no one seriously considers one an alternative to the other.
What you are describing is a hobby item for enthusiasts who want to enjoy tinkering, setting something crazy up and constantly debugging it. That is very much NOT the market of people who buy Synology products.
Synology is not a JBOD RAID. It is an appliance that does many things (storage, services, web access, etc.) and can automatically keep itself up to date with no additional contact necessary. It can be hooked up to a UPS for resilience. If you have a problem there are support forums and online articles. It can be synced to other Synology devices at other sites. Etc., etc.
Another way to put this is that Synology misjudged their customers' appetite for alternatives.
The ease of use of the Synology solution was always a plus of the product, but Synology misjudged the values and abilities of its core customer. They also misjudged the rapidly maturing market of competitors (e.g., why am I buying a Synology instead of UGREEN?)
Their core customer always had the ability to set up their own NAS in a more manual way, they just didn't really want to have to do that when an easier solution was available.
This isn't a situation like iCloud where the whole purpose of the product is to provide a service that 99% of the customer base doesn't know how to do on their own.
For a typical Synology customer, setting up their own TrueNAS box is something that probably only takes an hour including watching a YouTube setup tutorial. The person who is considering a Synology solution in the first place tends to be highly technical to begin with.
I can confirm that I bought a Synology NAS because I didn’t want to tinker with the backup system for my family’s data. And when I read about the drive requirements for a new Synology NAS I decided that tinkering might not be such a bad thing. They really screwed up.
Same. I like my Synology unit well enough but I see a trend toward less openness, toward greed (including removing capabilities from units they've already sold) and toward a decline of their business as a result of tanking customer goodwill. So they no longer seem like a reliable bet for the long term, which is what I'm looking for in a NAS.
That is exactly where I am. The value prop on synology has fallen off. Esp since they have let their kernel rot. There are tons of perf they are leaving on the table. The default external ports are usually 1g and most others have moved to at least 2.5g.
I just wanted something I just didnt have to mess with a lot. And could pop in an external USB drive here and there. Other solutions will fill that need just fine too. Just didnt really want to fiddle with DIY.
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.
> 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.
They still fill a niche for me, just not a server niche. The easy-to-access GPIO in a close-to-vanilla Linux system really doesn't have a competitor at its price point. For a fourth grade science project last winter, I had a pi 4 already (but it'd have been about $40 at my local microcenter if I hadn't). We were able to source a few $2 sensors off Amazon. I showed her how to look up the pinouts, figure out which GPIO pin to connect the dupont connectors to, and helped her write a python program to log the data from the sensors to a spreadsheet. She had fun with it, learned some stuff, and it really sparked her interest.
I don't think anyone has outcompeted them in accessibility for that kind of tinkering and learning. Or, if they have, they haven't caught my attention yet, and I've usually got my eyes open for that kind of thing.
Ah, education, right. I never had interest in the whole GPIO thing but I'll admit life has been pulling me in very different directions, hence this dropped off my radar. Thanks for the reminder.
Thing is, I was aiming at servers. I've read many HN comments where people adore a Pi for some reason that I just can't see; they have to install custom kernels, get Pi hats, do some extra cabling, 3D-print cases, mount small (or big) fans, and all that.
And don't get me wrong, I love tinkering myself but after reading people's experiences for a while I just thought to myself "Why all this trouble? Get a $250 - $400 mini PC off of Amazon / eBay / AliExpress and put a 2-4 TB NVMe SSD and you have something 20x more powerful and with 100x the storage space".
Again, I love me some tinkering. But nowadays I want to get something out of it in the end. Like the mini PC I bought that I want to dedicate only to a PiHole even if it's a 50x overkill for it. Might add some firewalling / VLAN management capabilities to it down the line.
So yep, for education RPi and Arduino (+ its derivatives) seem mostly unbeaten.
On a RPi I can control more aspects than I can a mini pc ITX board. I can boot straight to my program. I can write directly to frame buffers. I don’t need Linux. I don’t really need a kernel…
Here are some examples of where an RPi outshines a mini-PC (though one can still achieve the same results, just putting the box outside the box):
Coffee table Digital Touch map.
Weather Station powered by a solar panel and a LiPo battery.
ADSB receiver also powered by solar and a battery.
Arcade Cabinet that sits on a bar top with a bill reader.
Mini JukeBox at the local hacker space.
Sailing autopilot using NMEA2000 connectors.
Wearables.
Playing with high density distributed computing. (More than 5 machines)
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)
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 term availability. For example, the Pi 5 will be in active production until at least January 2036 (assuming the company itself exists of course).
For anyone with a fleet of these, that's an amazing commitment. It means that when a piece of hardware breaks you can buy a band new but identical piece of hardware to replace it.
For most other companies you'd need to buy a different piece of hardware. Yes, the specs would be better, but now you have a fleet with mixed hardware which _you_ need to support and maintain going forwards.
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.
Userspace-accessible GPIOs, I2C, SPI, PCM, and UART on a system that runs Linux. My employer uses them for a bunch of our hardware-in-the-loop test automation, with the GPIOs used for CAN, relays for switching various signals, vibration table control, etc. The USB gets used for SCPI device control (power supply, multimeter, etc.) and DuT connection. It's a lot cheaper to use a Pi for this than it is to use a small form factor x86 machine with a bunch of USB-<protocol> dongles.
power draw. running 24/7 it makes a huge difference in overall power usage, and by switching from a repurposed desktop mobo & cpu, to a dedicated low power saved me thousands in electricity costs every year.
that fact that in EU power isn't cheap... is also a main reason for keeping total power draw as low as possible.
Valid, thanks. But to what degree? The light bulb that runs 18h a day in the kitchen likely draws the same power that my mini form factor Optiplex 3060 does.
To me arguments like "2W vs 10W" are fairly meaningless.
I am much more concerned about data center power usages, especially in the age of LLMs.
Like that ancient German teacher I had that kept preaching we should stop using electric kettles because it's bad for the planet. While the 3 plants in her hometown amounted to ~83% of all power usage and ~92% or all pollution. Boy, was she unhappy when I did that research and pointed it out to her.
Pi-s / SBCs are I suppose very good for computing out there in the meatspace, where you might need a battery because sometimes power stops for 6 hours? Could be that.
She did not offer any alternatives. That was also a very funny element to her preaching. She saw a class of students and thought she can signal her virtues.
She was, shall we say, disappointed with the response.
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.
A “server” doesn’t need to mean a pizza box with 15k rpm jet engine fans.
My server is repurposed desktop hardware in a desktop tower case and is nearly silent except for the subtle hard drive noises. The hardware cost next to nothing and is far faster and more capable than any pi (except the pio of course which wouldn’t be used anyway).
You’re running the pi and drives in a plastic take away container off usb power for that price.
At the very least you want the case and psu. At which point the question is which cpu+motherboard+ram combo do you want in that case. The rpi is one of many such options and is actually quite expensive for the amount of cpu+ram you get for the price.
An ITX isn’t the competitor for a Pi. I’d suggest a USFF prebuilt. I use an HP Elitedesk and Dell and Lenovo each have similar tiny PCs. They’re nearly silent or completely silent, and half the size of a Mac Mini. Cost is about $150 for hardware that is more than enough for me, plus they can have 1-2 SSDs and a hard drive inside the case.
Clarification: They're about half the height of the OLD Mac Mini. Better comparison: They're the size of a typical hardcover book if you chopped it to be square.
I'm uncertain of why $40 vs $300 is even a point of debate on HN. The latter is a one-time investment and you likely can expand it a bit i.e. add a 2.5" or M.2 drive later.
What's the gain of running 12 RPi, exactly? Do you do research work requiring distributed low-cost computing?
They are if the GPU can be attached. I avoid virtual machines in favor of container workloads from containerd for this reason. It’s easier to attach Mali GPU and do my work than it is to find cash in this economy for a dozen RTX’s.
It doesn't even have to be a Pi though, just look at competing NAS solutions that have hit the market since Synology peaked in popularity.
Why am I spending more on a Synology versus something like a UGREEN NAS and just flashing a wide selection of NAS/home cloud operating systems on it? Synology's customer base certainly has the technical know-how to accomplish that.
I've got an RPi 4 with a Samsung 990 EVO Plus 1 TB NVME SSD in an external USB-C enclosure connected to one of the Pi's USB 3.0 ports, and get 280 MB/s.
I would have expected going to an RPi 4 with an NVME SSD not going through USB to do a lot more than just boost storage speed by 80%. I had been thinking of getting an RPi 5 and moving my RPi 4 stuff to the 5, freeing the 4 to replace the 3 that is current running Home Assistant, but for what I'm doing on the 4 I'm no longer sure the 5 would actually give much noticeable performance improvement. It may be better to simply get another 4 to replace the 3.
I guess this is a side note personally don’t think any of the Raspberry Pi hardware is worth it unless you are using the GPIO pins or any of those not-NAS not-PC type of functionality the Pi offers. I think for general compute it’s hard to make it make sense.
I think there are a whole lot of mini PC type of solutions that just make more overall sense.
Around 200-270MiB/s is what has been publicly benched. I’m sure there’s someone squeezing 300 out of one.
The PCIe bus in an RPI is Gen 2 so it’s not that fast. The point isn’t whether an RPI is a Synology device. The point is there are other ways of having a cheap NAS other than Synology.
Hell, a Beelink with an external USB 3.0 HDD rack would also do just fine.
Ubiquiti smelled the blood in the water and released a whole new NAS product line. They don’t run arbitrary apps but for basic storage on the network they look pretty solid.
I have a DS923+ and it's been great as a combo storage device and low-powered Docker host for homelab stuff. But if I had to replace it, I would break it apart into pure storage (like the Ubiquiti device) and a mini PC to run as a server.
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.
For truly important files (photos), I’ll take the slight added expense of ECC for a little more peace of mind that old photos aren’t being gradually degraded with every resilver or scrub.
The specs claim "ECC" [0], but give no further details. ejolson on the Raspberry Pi forums [1] thinks it is on-die ECC, not traditional ECC, which would mean transfers between the RAM and the memory controller are not protected and there are no means of monitoring errors or triggering a kernel panic if there's an uncorrectable error. Some discussion on Reddit [2] also suggests it's on-die ECC. If this is true, it's better than nothing but still not a replacement for a NAS with traditional ECC RAM.
In that case I incorrectly thought (like the other forum posters) it was like DDR5 on-die ECC. What you describe is better than DD5 on-die ECC. Is this error reporting supported by Linux? Is there some way I can do fault injection (e.g. undervolting the RAM) to check it's working?
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.
I feel like hot swap is great if you work in a datacenter, but in order to be a useful benefit in a home setting, you have to have new, replacement hard drives sitting around on a shelf somewhere. My RAID alarm went off about a year ago warning me that a drive was failing, and I had to place an order and wait a week. Plus, the amount of time it took for the HW RAID controller to rebuild the new drive, I probably could have restored from a full backup.
I don't need my data offline when it doesn't have to be.
You don't need extra drives sitting around. When one fails, you buy one, Amazon can have it over in a day, or local shops. If it's not realistic for that, having one spare isn't a bad thing.
If you replace with a larger capacity drive, the existing raid only uses the same size to keep the raid.
Depending on the drives you are using, SMR technology can take much much longer to rebuild a raid than CMR.
Self-storage should be like a cloud - people need to rely on it like a cloud provider. Hot swap is a negligible cost over the 5-10 years you keep a NAS.
Hot swap chassis whether it's one you buy or a Synology/QNAP, etc is the way to go. Hot swap used to cost a ton, it's considerably come down market.
Storage is like a home appliance for me, just because I could build a stove doesn't mean I should. I've spent enough time swapping hard drives manually and powering off gear to know that I don't care for it if I don't have to anymore.
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 is stored somewhere in RAM by the NFS/SMB server without any checksum before it gets passed on to ZFS. ZFS does not do any work here to detect or repair the corruption.
So, ZFS does not prevent on-disk data corruption caused by bad RAM, and only mitigates it. Using ECC RAM results in a huge relative reduction of such corruption, even though some people may consider the non-ECC probability to be already low enough.
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."
Ill assure you the amount of Linux bros that bought it was probably already small. Most buyers of preconfigured solutions are buying it because it's a preconfigured solutions with no need for a computer science degree.
1) there exist viable commercial competitors providing approximately equivalent functionality
2) the roll your own solution with, e.g., TrueNAS, also provides equivalent functionality and is about 90% as easy.
I say this as someone who owns and manages three Synology boxes and one more recent TrueNAS box. There was a time when Synology offered something quite better than the alternatives, but that time is no longer.
My newest one (192TB) I bought the hardware pre-assembled and tested from a VAR, installed TrueNAS, and was off to the races. It cost more than buying the individual components would have, but it had zero headache and was cheaper than buying the equivalent amount of storage from Synology.
I looked at all of those and they came nowhere near the convenience and software that Synology provides.
It's literally the "Why would you buy Dropbox when I can glue it together with rsync" level of ignorant comment, completely ignoring how behind most of those solutions like TrueNAS are in time cost.
I find that odd given that I literally run 3 Synologies and one TrueNAS - I've had the Synologies for over a decade and the TrueNAS for about three years now. They've all been great and do everything I want in a nas. Perhaps you are looking for more bells and whistles for something like DVR; I just do NFS + SMB and snapshots and remote backup.
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.
There's nothing silly about building your own. What's silly is declaring a convenient, user-friendly product to be pointless because it's possible for a skilled person with a lot of free time to build their own.
If you want to build your own Dropbox with rsync, go wild, have fun, we'd all love to see what you come up with. But I don't have time for that. My family doesn't have the skills for that. Dropbox is great for us, and building our own is not a realistic alternative.
I don't agree with the grandparent comment... I don't think it's silly.
But building your own doesn't scale to all the things. For everybody who wants to build their own X, the same person doesn't also want to build their Y and Z.
They will eventually need to buy some products. So there will generally always be a market for pre-packaged solutions.
For example: someone building an app may need network storage. They may not also want to block the building of the app on the building of the network storage.
I've been a loyal customers of theirs and wasn't even looking at other options but there won't be another cent of mine going to Synology. I was already miffed at their mark-up for a little bit of memory before this happened. It is a matter of time before they crash and I don't want to end up with an unsupported piece of hardware. Trust is everything in the storage business.