If it really is fully open-source please make that more visible on your landing page.
It is a huge deal if I can start investigating and deploying such a solution as a techie right away, compared to having to go through all the internal hoops for a software purchase.
How hard is it to go to the GitHub repository and open the LICENSE file that is in almost every repository? Would have taken you less time than writing that comment, and showed you it's under MIT.
It's not entirely uncommon to only have parts of the solution open. So a license on one repo might not be the whole story and looking further would take more time than giving a good suggestion to the author.
Agreed. For all the people arguing "just click the link and the license is there!!", I have been burned several times before where a technical solution has a prominent open permissive license github repo (MIT or similar etc) based component as its primary home, only to discover later on that essential parts of the system are in other less permissive or private repos behind subscriptions or fees.
The rest of us get around that particular issue by going through the source code and all the tradeoffs before we download, include and adopt a dependency, not after.
Good for you! This of course doesn't help in the situation where a dependency author retroactively changes the licensing state of a component, or reconfigures the project to rely on a new external dependency with differing license states (experienced both of these too!).
Having the landing page explain the motivations of the authors vis-a-vis open source goes a long way to providing the context for whatever licensing is appearing in the source repos, and helps understand what the future steer for the project is likely to be.
There are loads of ostensibly open source projects out there whose real goal is to drive sales of associated software and services, often without which the value of the opensource components is reduced, especially in the developer tooling space.
> Good for you! This of course doesn't help in the situation where a dependency author retroactively changes the licensing state of a component, or reconfigures the project to rely on a new external dependency with differing license states (experienced both of these too!).
No, but I also don't see why that matters a lot. Once you adopted a third party project as a dependency, you also implicitly sign up to whatever changes they do, or you get prepared for staying on a static version with only security fixes you apply yourself. This isn't exactly new problems nor rocket science, we've been dealing with these sort of things for decades already.
> There are loads of ostensibly open source projects out there whose real goal is to drive sales of associated software and services, often without which the value of the opensource components is reduced, especially in the developer tooling space.
Yeah, which is kind of terrible, but also kind of great. But in the end, ends up being fairly easy to detect one way or another, with the biggest and reddest signal being VC funded with no public pricing.
If I have to dig through your website/documentation to find basic information we’re not getting off to a great start. It’s pretty common for open source projects to proudly proclaim they are open source from the get-go. “____ is an open source tool for ______.” Simple as that
Seriously all the nitpicking I see of any project people post here but “tell us you’re open source at the top when you’re open source” means we’re lazy? Being open source is an important decision and you should tell people! It’s a good thing!
Isn’t a big part of getting a project out there actually letting people know what it is? Especially if you’re trying to give a tool to the open source-valuing community. That’s a high priority for them. That’s like having a vegan menu and not saying you’re a vegan restaurant anywhere public facing.
I agree it's a good thing, but I'd also agree it's not something you need/have to shove in people's faces, especially when it's literally one click away to find out (The GitHub icon in the top right takes you to the repository, and you don't even have to scroll or click anything, the sidebar shows "MIT License" for you).
There is a GitHub icon fairly prominent on the top right. Choosing to spend precious text for a fleeting would be user on it is a choice and not everyone wants to market that fact very prominently. Should everyone who writes their project in rust include that prominently as well? It seemingly markets very well and a lot of people seem to care about that as well.
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 is gone.
My guess is they will continue to lose the most valuable employees unless they replace management with some internally well-respected staff that understands their customers well.
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.
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 stone and only support own HDD's...
I know nothing about the reasoning behind the original decision from Synology, nor the internal politics at play, but typically the customer support tail is not wagging the dog of the rest of the company. Might be bias/anecdata from the places I've worked, but product usually drives everything, and the support staff has to deal with the consequences.
Yes, but it's not support wagging the dog,
If they sell a NAS, the customer adds drives to it and already runs into issues requiring support, it creates cost which becomes part of a product problem.
In B2C that's a legal warranty-issue in many countries, because if the product didn't provide the advertised core-functionality the customer has the right for a full refund of the purchase price (within the EU for a period of 24 months!)
> Customer-Support is usually happy to have a clear-cut criteria to reject
> support-requests as "officially out-of-scope".
All they needed was criteria at which point they can tell their customers "Please test if this reproduces with genuine Synology drives, and if they do we'll file an internal bug to fix your issue."
“We only support Synology-branded drives” would have gone over a lot better, because we could have used non-symbology drives without support. Instead they actively prevented non-Synology drives from working.
It would have been way better than what they did, I agree. However, it would've been pretty shitty from a user perspective still. I'd be pretty angry as a customer if customer support just refuses to help me with anything unless I buy Synology-branded drives.
Plenty of companies support products that work with third-party components. It's not realistic for them to support those components. The standard approach is to support the aspects they can control, and the customer is on their own for problems that involve the third-party component. Your phone won't charge? Is that our charger? No? Try one of ours. It works with ours? OK, our job is done, go talk to the company that made your charger.
> Plenty of companies support products that work with third-party components.
Exactly. And they typically help you with issues even if you do use third-party components.
> Your phone won't charge? Is that our charger? No? Try one of ours.
That's not really how it works. If I have tried 5 third-party USB-C chargers of different brands, and they all charge all other USB-C devices perfectly but not my phone, my phone vendor will hopefully be more helpful than "sorry, can't help you, you've only tried with third-party chargers".
That really depends on the company. Comcast would tell me to reboot my computer even after it was clear their modem wasn't getting a signal. Any decent company will help you out if you've made a good case that the problem is on their side, as in your example. But if your phone only fails on one charger made by somebody else, and works otherwise, they're not going to help you fix the charger.
> Any decent company will help you out if you've made a good case that the problem is on their side, as in your example.
Not if they follow yason's guidance of:
> All they needed was criteria at which point they can tell their customers "Please test if this reproduces with genuine Synology drives, and if they do we'll file an internal bug to fix your issue."
---
Whenever there's a reason to suspect a drive issue, Synology's support should obviously ask you to verify that your drives are good. Maybe provide a drive testing feature in the Synology software which tests for common failure modes. Maybe ask you to try connecting the drives to other machines. Maybe try to put in another drive. That's fine.
But a blanket policy of "we won't help you unless you test with our branded drives" is what I'm arguing against.
2. Support provided: Somewhat decent tested models that meet x features
3. Unsupported but works: list of drives
4. Does not work: list of drives.
There is no shortage of models of drives that do crappy crap that totally suck completely. Like lie about things going wrong in the drive. Or take a long break when dealing with failed sectors. Putting down a list of well supported drives is a must in that market. This said, only supporting branded drives sucks.
There's a lot of difference between "we don't officially support X" and "we will programmatically prevent you from using X". Even "using X will void your warranty" is actually significantly better for the user than just straight up preventing the use of non matching proprietary drives.
That's true, but there's a pretty big difference between 'ban' and 'unsupported'. It's entirely possible to do the latter without doing the former. Synology actively and painfully punished its customers who didn't use its own drives, deliberately degrading their experience in order to try and force them to buy more of Synology's own drives.
Cutting support can be an understandable, if unwelcome, business decision. But Synology's ban was a deliberate attack on their own customers, for Synology's own profit.
There's a misunderstanding, I don't defend Synology's decision.
I'm just stating that from my experience it is unlikely that especially Customer Support would step up and complain about such a decision, it would more likely be R&D, Product or Sales.
Not to throw shades at Customer support at all. They are the ones dealing with the pressure of fast resolution time per case vs. large complexity to identify root-causes across different HDD-vendors, it's reasonable that they highlighted the difficulty here and someone thought he found the "silver bullet"...
>especially Customer Support would step up and complain about such a decision
As a life long customer support person I disagree.
Customer support would 100% complain about this as they get to deal with pissed customers that have a completely good, decent manufacture drive that won't work and you are the anvil of which they will beat their hammer upon. R&D/Product are much more separated from the pissed customers. Support is the first group that gets beat by issues like this, followed by sales.
They could also oppose the change simply out of a belief in what's best for the customers, and an ethos of hardware compatibility. It would represent no change to their burden to continue the company's long-standing policy.
It's a little bit trickier though, if you're selling hardware with a one off cost and not a subscription. Because your installed base grows even with flat revenue. The lifetime cost of CS (including the calls from people who need to be turned down) needs to be baked into the sales price, but that's a bet.
My experience is with enterprise software, where most products were born as shrinkwrap and slowly moved to other models, and I agree, it's not an easy problem to solve. Even if you size lifetime costs correctly (and very few people can), it is quite hard to scale a support org; even if one can see the storm coming, one might not be fast enough to be prepared for it for a number of reasons (geography, capital investment, training times, churn, brain drain, etc etc).
That's why some big names have literally declared support bankruptcy and just don't provide almost any support (google, amazon...).
Customer support who are happy to leave customers high and dry and rinse their hands of the problem are basically soulless already; they care more about their own immediate convienence (while still on the clock!) than they do about the human being on the other end of the phone line.
Now, it's probably inevitable that many of them will be this way, but what I'm saying is keeping these customer service reps satisfied with easy dismissals isn't actually the lifeblood of the company. Happy engineers who derive satisfaction from the quality of their work on the other hand are extremely important to the long term viability of the company. If you tell the engineers that you're compromising the utility of the product they worked so hard on, to screw over paying customers, for the convienence of the soulless customer service reps who just want to play solitaire on their computers instead of helping people, the company has a real problem.
I’ve worked in tech support at all levels. At most companies it doesn’t matter what customer service is happy or sad about, their job is to deploy the policy given. Customer support as an organization’s opinion isn’t generally valued at most companies.
Even when I worked tech support for some high end equipment I would have to explain to high ranking sales teams “It doesn’t matter what I think. If I break the policy it gets me in trouble even if you make a big sale because of it. If you can get my boss or someone up the chain to tell me to do what you’re asking then I’d be happy to do what you’re asking.”
That's why I can imagine someone just calculated support-costs per unit sold to get an actual profit-number, was unhappy with the result, asked CS for justification for their effort and one thing they came back with was a metric of support-cost related to HDD issues.
Maybe the high Synology HDD price is even calculated to include THOSE support-costs. So they are not better than other HDDs, but the price already includes possible support to get them set up in a Synology NAS.
Could be one of those "management ideas", because in B2C they cannot charge for support required to just provide the advertised core function of the product...
The cost of providing customer support is clear and easy to measure, while the benefit is nebulous. This leads to incentive structures centered around controlling costs. That means rewards for handling more calls, and thus punishment for taking too long on a call regardless of the merits. In such an environment, it is inevitable that the reps will care about their call times instead of the customer. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
If you empower customer service to actually provide service, they will. Shitty service isn't because of shitty reps, it's shitty incentive structures. They're not trying to cut down on support effort because they want to play solitaire, they're doing it because serving too many customers with difficult problems will literally impoverish them.
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". So that's more in-touch.
I personally avoid Synology because of my experiences with poorly supported Tailscale (and abismal performance using Samba over Tailscale), and their crazy stance over ssh and ssh-keys. Only admins can use ssh. So there go all your options of quickly sharing stuff with people after getting their ssh key. I really regret our Synologies, should have gone with a normal Linux server and a ZFS array. Of course, I just had wrong assumptions at the start (and someone else made the call actually.)
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.
I've realized that at my current workplace it's a recurring theme that I suggest a solution, it gets rejected, we circle around for a year, finally we go back to my solution. It is indeed extremely demotivating, because it gives me an impression that I'm working with stupid people. I don't want to leave the company, but I'll try to switch teams next year.
At my company there is a team like this who are solely responsible for a significant piece of internal infrastructure.
People bring them ideas. They reject them out of hand. "Can't be done" "We'd have to rewrite the whole thing" "That's not how it works". Even if you write all the code and show them exactly how to do it and that it does work.
Then they come back three moenths, six months, a year later and have a big demo showing the cool thing "they thought of". Yep, the idea they previously rejected, usually pretty close to exactly. They live by the ole adage NIH.
The evidence is based on what was given. If the parent cannot convince the team/management then there is something wrong.
It could be confidence.
It could be social standing.
It could be that they are not explaining their viewpoint properly to the stake holders.
If the parent is not gaining traction and blaming it on intelligence, likely, the parent can't see others viewpoints either and is not trying to bring the team along...
It's not my job an as engineer to fight a broken decision-making process. If the manager sees that he repeatedly makes wrong decisions, then it's his responsibility to answer why, not mine. I'm him subordinate, not the other way around.
I've been at a couple of places where I've had similar experiences and I get to the point where I'll explain it once, and if they're not listening or discard the suggestion without really considering it, then I'll just wait for them to figure it out themselves.
I get paid either way.
I'm generally looking for another job when it gets to this point. It's not healthy to stick around when things get to that point.
I’ve been there. After a while, I realized that they’re paying for my advice. If they take it, awesome. If they don’t, and I feel like I did a good enough job communicating my reasons, then that’s their option, and their consequences.
I get it. The situational context makes a huge difference, too. Most of the people I advise now are Chief Something or Another. Their jobs are generally to take a whole lot of inputs and make business decisions. Maybe I’ll say “I don’t think we should do that because X”, and they’ll decide to do it anyway because Y is a higher priority. As long as it’s not something truly horrible, like “let’s sell our user list” or “we don’t have time to hash passwords” or something else egregious, eh, fine. They asked for my advice, I gave it, and they’re free to do whatever they want with it.
But sure, even then it’d get super annoying if they always ignored it. At some point it’d be obvious that my business goals don’t align well at all with theirs, so maybe it’s time to find a better fit.
Synology's days are numbered imo. Their userbase exists at a careful precipice of people who are technically inclined to understand the importance of a NAS vs cloud hosting solutions, but not so technically inclined to build their own NAS. This can't be a very deep market. You can only really have marketing chase the less inclined of these who are still on cloud services and hoping to educate them that the cloud services are really bad afterall, despite the conveniences of the walled garden you have to educate to the point where they leave that garden. Educating a less technically inclined populace towards technical merits is one of the most difficult tasks in marketing. You also can't really market to the people who are building their own NAS because they will just see the spec sheet for what it is, and see synology hardware stack is nothing special and is in fact quite marked up and not very performant to begin with.
And while this doomed business is existing, something new emerges from the far east to further challenge it. Chinese N100 nas boards. Chinese nas cases. N100 mini pcs already built with spare 3.5" SATA hookups. More and more videos and posts of people building their own nas and showing how they did it.
Really, what is synology's value proposition? It relies on a bit of knowledge but a careful amount of ignorance too.
I think you may be underestimating the amount of people who would buy the easy sollution. I've been part of a makerspace where we've tinkered with 3D printers since before it was cool. I still have a Bambu Lab printer myself because it's the "iPhone" of 3D printers that just works out of the box. I used to have a Linux laptop and now I have a MacBook because it's easy.
If I were to buy a NAS it'd be the "iPhone" NAS because it was easy. Though I don't think your prediction for Synology is wrong. I'd certainly pick the one that didn't previously try to push their own HDD's.
It is also competing for simple solutions like an old mac mini and DAS. Now that would truly be an "iphone" like experience for someone already in the mac ecosystem since time machine lets you choose another mac on LAN as a backup endpoint with little fuss, and now you can make use of Airdrop for mobile devices. AFAIK backing up to a linux box is not nearly so trivial at least with still using Time Machine.
I think it speaks volumes about the work ethic (or less charitably, moral character) of the HN comment section that so many people are bewildered as to why support would prefer to troubleshoot questionable hardware than tell people "fuck off and come back with supported hardware" all day. Unless you're a real POS doing that sort of work sucks way worse than actually working to solve people's problems even if the latter requires a few more brain cells. And it only takes the most casual contact with the support people in your organization to understand this. If the people answering phones and chats didn't actually want to solve people's problems they could make more money working at the DMV counter or selling time shares or whatever. The people this decision is bad for are the engineers who have to work marginally harder to write more robust code to work with hardware they can't necessarily get hands on in advance to test with.
We are talking about run-of-the-mill HDDs here with SATA 3 (2005) and SMART (<2000) interface.
No product is perfect but these interfaces are very well tested and billions of machines run as expected with them.
The move from them was purely for money reasons.
Based on my experience dealing with SFPs I highly suspect they looked at their bug tracker and concluded that 13% of the sketch-ass mystery drives were causing 50% of their labor expenditure.
And by "issues" I mean highlighting all the little cases where they had a) coded to spec with no ability to handle out of spec but foreseeable if you're cynical (which the fresh out of school junior engineers who typically wind up handling these things aren't yet) conditions b) failed to code to spec in some arcane way that shouldn't matter if the thing on the other end of the cable isn't questionable.
Of course, the money side of things almost certainly motivated them to see it one way...
Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't SFP evolve pretty heavily here?
The newest version is from --2022-- 2016. There are also quite high data-rates involved.
SATA and Smart are stable for a long time.
Smart has some special commands depending on manufacturer but the core set of functions always work.
I think we would all be OK with a "please don't buy list" of HDDs that are well known to cause problems.
"Model X of Manufacturer Y doesn't work well. Please buy something else."
They did not opt for this. They opted for "you have to buy our own overpriced drives".
TBH this is quite sad.
I recommended Synology to some people before...
Feels like I have to walk back on my word.
This is 21st century American business. Synology wasn't going to choose their drives for maximum reliability after a long, hard, and most importantly expensive benchmarking period, they were going to stuff the cheapest drives they could buy from suppliers in there and charge more than any other drive. There's a very reasonable chance this would have produced lower quality outcomes and more support calls in the long run than random drives purchased on the open market.
Yes, this is absolutely deeply cynical, but my priors were earned the hard way, you might say.
Your experience with SFPs does not translate to hard drives. Hard drives are very, very, very standardized. SFPs are not. Yes, all SFPs have a standard hardware interface, but the optics coding varies wildly.
Remember all those switch vendors (especially the money grubbing ones like HP, Dell...)? Their switches won't work with optics that are not coded for THEIR hardware, even though...an SFP is an SFP... I mean look at fs.com and the gazillion choices they offer for optics coding.
HDDs on the other hand are vendor agnostic. They HAVE to work in "anything" as long as the hardware interfaces (i.e. SATA/SAS/NVME etc) are matched.
Calling a spade a spade is a good thing. Synology got greedy, tried to fuck over their customers and the customers told them "Go fuck yourself, you aint that unique".
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.
From every success story like yours, how many people have tried it but given up and returned to a commercial solution because of a bug in OMV and absence of support except for a community forum filled with rabid (and usually clueless) fanboys?
So can Synology. "I'm sorry, sir, but your XYZ drive doesn't appear on our list of recommended/supported drives. I'll need to refer you to XYZ Corp for this issue. Is there anything else I can help you with today?"
That's all they ever needed to say. Instead, they said, "Fuck you, pay me."
Are you saying Synology’s move to support first party drives was a good thing? Plenty of companies deal with unpredictable hardware and, in fact, Synology has for years, in part thanks to standards.
There are way too many companies where higher ups and marketing will refuse to listen to the engineers about what people actually like about their products.
See every company currently shoehorning AI chatbots into software that doesn't need it
Do you have inside info about this? I'm just wondering why the internal support people would fight a decision like only allowing supported drives, wouldn't that make their job easier?
There's nothing wrong with guessing, just be clear that it's a guess and not an attempt to represent known facts. I don't know if the comment got edited or just reads more clearly on a second pass, but at first it felt ambiguous.
People are booing because HN commenters generally kind of meritocratic and lowkey idolize company leaders. It's an unpopular opinion here, but executives aren't in their positions because they are smarter than everyone else, or better at business, or have better product ideas. They're generally there for less meritocratic reasons: They went to the right prep school and college, they were friends with the right people already in the executive class, they rubbed elbows with other business leaders in MBA school, they golf at the right country clubs. Then they get that sweet VP title and fail upward all the way to retirement.
It depends on who their target audience is. VMware for example have strict hardware compatibility lists because their target audience is big enterprise. But Synology being a consumer NAS, this decision was perhaps not wise. They're sort of standing in two markets. They need to make a decision as to which products are enterprise and which are consumer.
I don't think any enterprise clients would mind a strict HCL.
Evidently profitability went down due to the change, so if anything they were fighting for their jobs by opposing it. (If it is indeed true that they were opposing it internally, still not sure where exactly that claim is coming from.)
I don't know about Synology, don't know anyone there, but in my case I do this kind of thing out of principle.
Often I'll just voice my opinion and try to convince management even if it doesn't directly affect me (I don't work support). I think that, generally, we all benefit when things are done well and relations are not adversarial.
In the specific case of NAS support, I doubt that would make a lot of difference. I bet 90% of people will call about their NAS not working without first checking that it's actually plugged in. Why do you think this question is on top of the list? Had a very similar complaint last Friday: I work in infrastructure, and some people were installing something that needed networking. Dude comes up: "I don't get any network". Huh. I ask if it's actually plugged in. Nope.
I'm curious, do you know of examples of companies that lost their best engineers despite reversing course on a shitty policy?
My understanding is that people want to pay the bills, and esp. in this economy, most prefer to have a job rather than searching for a new one. That ofc is different for the more senior engineers who are in demand, but the junior ones will probably still stick around despite the management's policies.
There is a time span between the policy is comitted internally and the time that policy is reverted. In Synology's case it's probably more than half a year, in other companies it could take a full year or more to reverse course.
Half a year is plenty enough to move away.
Of course people don't like looking for a new job, but they don't like shitty leadership either. And speaking of paying the bills, you won't get much of a bonus or promotion when profits are plunging, so moving away earlier than later is usually a good idea.
At the very least, some people who otherwise wouldn't have actively looked for other opportunities might start doing so. This can have consequences several months down the road, even if they don't quit immediately.
Yep. I’d already started moving things out of Docker on my DS923+ and onto RaspberryPis, of all things, which are perfectly powerful for my needs. Synology’s police shoved me toward planning and implementing alternatives as I vowed never, ever, to spend a penny on such a locked down device. It’s going to be hard for them to un-ring that bell.
In a few years, when it’s time to replace this NAS, if they’ve demonstrated that they’re serious about doing right by their customers, I may replace it with another Synology. And if not, I’ll have already migrated my services off it such that I’ll only need a “dumb” NAS and can choose from any of their competitors.
A bad reputation never goes away either. Trust once lost is not something that returns easily. Some customers might forgive a company but many wont and any business willing to be this scummy will almost certainly do something else (or the same thing again in a few years).
"That feeling of being ignored despite having given this company your everything for many years" is a strong argument against giving a company your "everything." They'll cut you loose in a minute.
Horowitz talks about this in-depth in “What you do is Who You Are.” There are waypoints in a company’s life that can change their trajectory and when you have the weight of employees, their family and company’s existence on your shoulders, it’s easy to compromise on a value like customer centricity. Your culture needs to be strong enough so that doesn’t happen.
This is a quite competitive market, far from monopolies. So let them do what their incentives and company culture lead them to. The reality is that often such leaders can come out net positive on a personal level even if they drive the company to the ground because they extracted out everything in a short term ("eating the seed corn"), then will go somewhere else. But at least the company and its products disappear. It's evolution. It's not always better to save them by being some kind of internal hero.
I also believe that this peek into the mentality of the organization leadership makes doubt in customers if the organization can be trusted again. I, personally, will think more than twice before choosing them again. This will be several years of recovery for the reputation, if it ever happens at all. Synology is in the box called 'squeezing cutomers for money' and the customer has no incentive to spend any time or money to test if the classification is still valid. Will stay there, despite this step. There is doubt that they changed their way of thinking. They only reacted to the repercussion to THIS specific action of theirs, that became measurably very bad for THEM. It was not like they revised their action after the outcry, no. They had to bleed, they want to stop THEIR bleeding, not making it good again for the customer. benefit for the remaining customers is just a coincidence here. I am not hopeful for their change of mentality. Which could be something disappointing to hear for faithful employees.
Very true, and also users aren't naive, it just signals that the greed factor is now winning over the pride into the product and it's the end of the product line as a truly DIY platform. I expect they'll wait a few months then find another way to achieve the same goal, like gating some features to NASes with official HDD only, or throttling 3rd party I/O
This is why it's so important to track dissenting opinions before a decision is made and before the consequences are revealed.
Were I an investor in Synology I would be calling for some people to lose their job over being this wrong when the right answer was easily accessible.
There's probably some people who got this right who could take a shot at running things, but you can't know without having the dissenting opinions in writing ahead of time.
In my experience the secondary effect on morale from the leadership who did this not being impacted or punished is even worse. My experience is that employees would love to see leadership held accountable (as the employees are) and morale rebounds. If leadership is not held accountable it’s much worse for morale.
I worked for a game developer that went through a stretch of unpopular decisions with the community and it definitely upset me in both my role as a player and as an employee.
The second time I worked for a developer whose game I played I'd learned to compartmentalize and things went smoother.
Is this not the norm in any mid-to-large company that makes a bad decision (or even a decision that’s seen to be bad)? In my experience internal morale often suffers before the customers catch on.
It's this level of out of touch with their market that gives me zero faith in them as a brand. They also killed their Videostation product, that was downloaded over 66 million times according to their package manager, rather than offer users the option of paying to license video decoders. All they have done over the past few years is remove features, add more vendor lock in, and be tone deaf to their market. They deserve their own downfall, utter corporate stupidity.
> killed their Videostation product ... rather than offer users the option of paying to license video decoders
YES, yes, a million times yes.
Footgun, own goal, whatever term you like: if your "prosumer" products are essentially teasers to get the people who select the commercial products familiar with your brand, decisions like killing Videostation and banning non-Syno HDDs are not putting your best foot forward.
> That feeling of being ignored despite having given this company your everything for many years.
People need to learn, that unless you are a real shareholder, never give company everything. Give just enough so they don't fire you. Company is not yours and it will drop you the moment spreadsheet says no.
I think I do get it. This is one of those rare cases where:
* This interpreation is understandable: 'this is a ridiculous cash grab, this single act says so much about the attitude of this company that the right answer for consumers is to run for the hills, and for those who work there to start looking for the exit'.
* ... but perhaps not: I can totally see it; the cost of the process is much higher than the hardware here. Adding a tiny extra cost with the aim of allowing synology to offer more integration is presumably worth it. Also, scams with harddisks are rife (written-off heavily used old disks being resold as brand new) and synology is trying to protect their customers. I think it's a bit misguided, but there is an explanation available that has little to with 'cash grab / enshittification' principles.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt: Even if you know you're right, if you're dependent on others understanding that you're right, then you either [A] do a fantastic job on explaining the necessity of your actions and keep plugging away at it until you're sure you got that right or [B] you. can't. do. it.
So they still messed up, and the damage is now done.
If indeed this is the explanation (they messed up on communication but they had honest intentions so to speak) I'd hope they can now fix it, take their lumps, and survive.
But if not, yes, the well respected staff will leave and they'll end up being another crappy company that primarily serves as a reference for the dictionary definition of "enterprise software". Expensive and shit.
To me it's obvious why they initially chose to use validated hardware:
1) the unlabelled SMR debacle a few years ago probably wasted untold amounts of time and caused unwarranted damage to their brand from frustrated people who just paid $1k for their Synology, $1k for drives, and then couldn't build a working array with them, possibly even losing data and productivity in the process.
2) penny pinching cheapskates buying broken hdds on the used market and complaining that "their Synology doesn't work". Or swapping failed drives with garbage and again wasting time of support.
3) they are premium products, not intended for the hobbyist. Their customers generally are willing to spend more in exchange for a premium experience. In order to provide this, especially to less tech savvy people (you know, people who want to actually USE their NAS instead of just tinker with it every day), it made sense to control the quality of the drives.
However the Internet peanut gallery has been so used to being exploited that their scam detectors falsely activated and they all swarmed out of their (neckbeard) nests. So synology has no option than to backtrack and offer free tech support for the bottom quartile of "knows just enough to break it" techies.
The damage is indeed done. If they wanted to do it the right way, they should have offered Synology branded HDDs (from whatever upstream vendor) AT COST to their customers.
Switching gear was slower and laying new fibre wasn't an option for your average company. Particularly not point-to-point between your DB server and your replica.
So if real-time synchronization isn't practical, you are then left to do out-of-hours backups and there you start running into bandwidth issues of the time.
Plus long distance was mostly fibre already. And even regular electrical wires aren’t really much slower than fibre in term of latency. Parent probably meant bandwidth.
Copper doesn't work over these kinds of distances without powered switches, which adds latency. And laying fibre over several miles would be massively expensive. Well outside the realm of all but the largest of corporations. There's a reason buildings with high bandwidth constraints huddle near internet backbones.
What used to happen (and still does as far as I know, but I've been out of the networking game for a while now) is you'd get fibre laid between yourself and your ISP. So you're then subject to the latency of their networking stack. And that becomes a huge problem if you want to do any real-time work like DB replicas.
The only way to do automated off-site backups was via overnight snapshots. And you're then running into the bandwidth constraints of the era.
What most businesses ended up doing was tape backups and then physically driving it to another site -- ideally then storing it an fireproof safe. Only the largest companies could afford to push it over fibre.
To be fair, tape backups are very much ok as a disaster recovery solution. It's cheap once you have the tape drive. Bandwith is mostly fine if you want to read them sequentially. It's easy to store and handle and fairly resistant.
It's "only" poor if you need to restore some files in the middle or want your backup to act as a failover solution to minimise unavailability. But as a last resort solution in case of total destruction, it's pretty much unbeatable cost-wise.
G-Drive was apparently storing less than 1PB of data. That's less than 100 tapes. I guess some files were fairly stable so completely manageable with a dozen of tape drives, delta storage and proper rotation. We are talking of a budget of what 50k$ to 100k$. That's peanuts for a project of this size. Plus the tech has existed for ages and I guess you can find plenty of former data center employees with experience handling this kind of setup. They really have no excuse.
The suits are stingy when it's not an active emergency. A former employer declined my request for $2K for a second NAS to replicate our company's main data store. This was just days after a harrowing data recovery of critical from a failing WD Green that was never backed up. Once the data was on a RAID mirror and accessible to employees again, there was no active emergency, and the budget dried up.
I don't know. I guess that for all intents and purposes I'm what you would call a suit nowadays. I'm far from a big shot at my admittedly big company but 50k$ is pretty much pocket change on this kind of project. My cloud bill has more yearly fluctuation than that. Next to the cost of employees, it's nothing.
> There's a reason buildings with high bandwidth constraints huddle near internet backbones.
Yeah because interaction latency matters and legacy/already buried fiber is expensive to rent so you might as well put the facility in range of (not-yet-expensive) 20km optics.
> Copper doesn't work over these kinds of distances without powered switches, which adds latency.
You need a retimer, which adds on the order of 5~20 bits of latency.
> And that becomes a huge problem if you want to do any real-time work like DB replicas.
Almost no application would actually require "zero lost data", so you could get away with streaming a WAL or other form of reliably-replayable transaction log and cap it to an acceptable number of milliseconds of data loss window before applying blocking back pressure.
Usually it'd be easy to tolerate enough for the around 3 RTTs you'd really want to keep to cover all usual packet loss without triggering back pressure.
Sure, such a setup isn't cheap, but it's (for a long while now) cheaper than manually fixing the data from the day your primary burned down.
Yes but good luck trying to get funding approval. There is a funny saying that wealthy people don't become wealthy by giving their wealth away. I think it applies to companies even more.
Apple generally tries to erase info about acquisitions from their official company story, they want it to look like internal Apple innovation.
When it comes to CPUs they bought P.A. Semi back in 2008 and got a lot of smart people with decades of relevant experience that were doing cutting-edge stuff at the time.
This was immensely important to be able to deliver current Apple CPUs.
PA Semi was kind of an interesting acquisition. The team was definitely very skilled, but there are always gotchas. Before the acquisition happened we were on their receiving end of their dual core PPC and it was not great at all. We had a lot of issues with board bringup, power, and heat. More errata than I've ever seen. We eventually had to went with x86 for the project instead, which was more performant and certainly a lot easier overall at the time.
I had previously encountered some of that team with the SiByte MIPS in an embedded context, I know they were highly skilled, they had tons of pedigree, but PA Semi itself was a strange beast.
You are misrepresenting this slightly in my opinion.
Yes, we have strong laws around alcohol sales in Sweden that try to limit damage to society from excessive alcohol consumption while bringing in tax that can be used for state services instead of going to corporations.
However!
We have a well-run state monopoly (Systembolaget) that sells alcoholic beverages at reasonably good prices, with a wide selection and friendly knowledgeable staff. You don’t need BankID to shop at any of their physical stores which are spread all across the country. If they think you might be under 20 you will need to show physical ID, passport is fine.
Any restaurant or bar that sells alcohol will happily sell to you, unless you are underage.
Low-grade alcoholic beverages (<=3.5%), including many beers, can be bought in any grocery store.
I met Christian at a conference in Lund back in 2005 as I was doing my master thesis within the constraint programming area. He came across as both very knowledgeable and very kind and caring. RIP Christian.
> social rights are nothing more than obligations on the rest of us
I don’t agree here. It is not a zero sum game, everyone can win with social rights.
I have read some Bertrand Russel, albeit many years ago now, and from what I remember he certainly did not argue against social rights, on the contrary.
Do you have a reference to work by Bertrand Russel that argues for your point?
When I feel my anxiety gets too much space in my brain these are some things that work for me:
- Sim racing with my Moza setup
- Trail running
- Mountainbike riding on not too easy terrain
All these activities does the same thing, forces my brain to focus here and now and take time-critical micro-decisions.
Other activities that puts me in the same frame of mind would probably work too. For example climbing worked for me when I did that, and even working through a large set of pretty easy maths exercises worked while I was more focused on maths in my life.
In between the most focused parts of these activities I often gain deeper insights and feel grounded.
baybal2: All your submissions and comments on HN are ”dead” and not visible to users unless they enable “showdead” in the settings. Either way no one can reply to you.
I recognize your nick from good thoughtful discussions from a few years back. My guess HN admins made your account “dead” because of the high number of posts with support for Ukraine.
I've been round and vouched for their comments in this thread. Not quite sure what's happened moderation wise, but almost all their comments for the past few months are on the war, which are dead, except for a couple on other subjects which are not dead. I wonder if there's a flagging ring going on.
> baybal2: All your submissions and comments on HN are ”dead” and not visible to users
Thanks for making me look.
It's unfortunate. baybal2's comments are thought provoking. I'm not sure what nationality he is, but the non-western perspective he brings does add a lot. (Edit: ethnic Chinese, Russian passport. The perspective I'm seeing is someone with a deep understanding of the authoritarian mindset. His understand of the western mindset is not so good. The contrast between the two mindsets is very enlightening.)
Even more thought provoking is their automatic "dead" status. It seems some pychops activity is happening here on HN, right under our very noses.
It's a pity I have to hack the CSS to read them. But I guess I should be thankful I can do that. If the web had evolved into something like PDF, I couldn't.
It is a huge deal if I can start investigating and deploying such a solution as a techie right away, compared to having to go through all the internal hoops for a software purchase.