Recent content by kamina

I understood Synology removed them from the compatibility charts because they caused issues for users. ZFS has serious issues, but thats not to say BTRFS does not - most of the sites investigating just used ext4 (no issues) or zfs (issues).

I've been pretty slow to proceed with this.. Checking now it seemed prices have come down all over the board... Any more experiences? ATM I'm considering going with AWS since I'm getting quite used to it from work. Even considering Glacier as it is meant to be a disaster recovery backup.

Ironically samba is next (though it seems to require an account with write permissions) https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2017-7494.html

There is a lot of competition in cloud services. While price has traditionally gone up with demand, the rule mainly applies to scarse resources where the limited supply will drive the prices up. With software this will only somewhat apply on an uneven field without proper competition (and even...

Most ransomware will encrypt data on mounted network drives if you have write permissions. Most cloud providers are able to decrease prices if demand goes up.

The VM is exactly like a real CPU with a bit of overhead on top. If yo don't over provision memory and understand what you are doing (there are limits to how much vm's will work well per cpu etc) then you might notice VM's have advantages as well (snapshots etc). Just remember what the CPU's...

A VM on a nas is fine for light DB work as long as you can allocate enough memory to fit the data cached in vm memory. We run a lot of databases on virtual machines, though part of them have fusion-io disks (not all). Well thought out systems have no issues being on a VM, they can handle tens...

No need to feel guilty, Synology would never have been able to create their products without all the GPL software others have shared for free. They make the choice to use stuff others created without paying for it in exchange having to share their work under an open license. It's the whole point...

I had about 70MB/s read speeds on my old Synology 211j which is now about 5 years old, the new budjet NAS devices should be a lot faster. But this is talking of large files like video's, when you move to small files like pictures (or worse yet thumbnails of pictures) then it get's a lot...

Macs do use smb3 by default, but I doubt most NAS devices can have a very robust smb3 with multiplexing implementation as it was just added about a month ago? Is there even an official smb3 release with multiplexing? My mac and qnap give same results with smb2 and 3. Sent from my iPhone...

I guess the important thing to understand is that the cloud is just somebody elses 24/7 VM... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I used to manage a netapp cluster with several shelves of FC and Sata disk. It was a really cool device, but having worked with it I can feel some PR in the netapp comments... On the other hand they were pretty good at the things they highlight so I would assume the ideas are correct (Raid 6 or...

Where are you hosting the NAS? If you are actually in the same location then your problem might be that your connections are routed via the ISP. Most common reason could be that your local router would actually be in switched mode.

Saying QNAP is better with third party back up software compared to all other NAS devices would require something more to support it. It's still just a Samba mount whatever the NAS and there should be very little difference in such a scenario. I certainly don't notice any usability difference in...

I was just testing generating some stats based on a DB dump on my work computer (mbp, quad core, 16GB ram) and found it to be faster in a Linux VM with sufficient memory... So you never know.