←back to thread

The Synology End Game

(lowendbox.com)
452 points amacbride | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
tecleandor ◴[] No.45061701[source]
Not only that, but their security situation is terrible. Their OS is full of EOL'ed stuff.

On products you can buy TODAY, you find:

  - Their Btrfs filesystem is a fork of a very old branch and doesn't have modern patches
  - A custom, non standard, self built, ACL system for the filesystem
  - Kernel 4.4
  - PHP 7.4 (requirement for their Hyperbackup app)
  - smbd 4.15
  - PostgreSQL 11.11
  - smbd 8.2p1
  - Redis 6.2.8
  - ...
They claim it's OK because they've backported all security fixes to their versions. I don't believe them. The (theoretical) huge effort needed for doing that would allow them to grow a way better product.

And it's not only about security, but about features (well, some are security features too). We're missing new kernel features (network hardware offload, security, wireguard...), filesystem (btrfs features, performance and error patches...), file servers (new features and compatibility, as Parallel NFS or Multichannel CIFS/SMB), and so on...

I think they got stuck on 4.4 because of their btrfs fork, and now they're too deep on their own hole.

Also, their backend is a mess. A bunch of different apps developed on different ways that mostly don't talk to each other. They sometimes overlap with each other and have very essential features that don't work and don't plan to fix. Meanwhile, they're busy releasing AI stuff features for the "Office" app.

Edit note: For myself and some business stuff, I have a bunch of TrueNAS deployments, from a small Jonsbo box for my home, to a +16 disk rack server. This was for a client that wanted to migrate from another Synology they had on loan, and I didn't want to push a server on them, as they're a bit far away from me, and I wanted it to be serviceable by anyone. I regret it.

replies(9): >>45061875 #>>45061915 #>>45061964 #>>45062039 #>>45062320 #>>45062512 #>>45067692 #>>45069567 #>>45075740 #
kace91 ◴[] No.45061915[source]
My main issue with their system is how closed it is.

I got an issue where mind would randomly start writing disk like crazy and maxing cpu usage, to the point I was bothered by the noise. I’d stop all containers, leave it as close to idle as I could manage, still spiking.

There was no way I could learn what was causing it.

I would like to assume it was a disk maintenance process or something, but for all I know it could be mining bitcoin and I’d be none the wiser. It went on for some weeks then stopped.

replies(4): >>45062085 #>>45062236 #>>45063558 #>>45064574 #
1. tetris11 ◴[] No.45063558[source]
There are guides on how to mainline Synology NAS's to run up-to-date debian on them

https://forum.doozan.com/list.php

replies(2): >>45065218 #>>45069201 #
2. jauntywundrkind ◴[] No.45065218[source]
People seem very attracted to Synology because it requires very little thought & effort.

FWIW the new Ugreen NAS run Debian. I don't know a ton about it, but it's be great if they could stay a little more up to date. This Synology story with ancient forks & weird encryption sounds truly bogus.

replies(2): >>45066436 #>>45070356 #
3. tetris11 ◴[] No.45066436[source]
I'm attracted to them because you can find them secondhand on ebay for very cheap, and their power draw / performance ratio is quite decent compared to other systems.

I will say that the Ugreen NAS seems to offer more performance for less watts, so it's definitely something I will keep an eye on in the future if it pops up on Ebay.

> This Synology story with ancient forks & weird encryption sounds truly bogus.

It's not. My Synology is running Linux kernel v4, and I opted to use their "SHR" RAID configuration and can confirm that it's some weird BTRFS variant that is likely deadlocked due to the kernel.

The encrypted volumes I've made also look very much like the EcryptFS files I've been seeing on other setups.

I'm currently in the process of mainlining it to kernel v6 to reap the better power and idle / hibernation rewards, as well as just using a standard Ext4 FS with updates

replies(1): >>45074692 #
4. layer8 ◴[] No.45069201[source]
If you want to run Debian instead of DSM, you have a much wider choice of NAS hardware than just Synology.
5. import ◴[] No.45070356[source]
I have a Ugreen, just got the latest update runs on kernel 6.12
6. ValentineC ◴[] No.45074692{3}[source]
> It's not. My Synology is running Linux kernel v4, and I opted to use their "SHR" RAID configuration and can confirm that it's some weird BTRFS variant that is likely deadlocked due to the kernel.

SHR is mostly MD-RAID and LVM, and works with ext4 too.