3 ms·
Patch support for SOHO NAS systems is miserable. We bought some Cisco and Qnap NAS systems a few years ago. Every feature I touched had some bug or another, or
by creshal 11y ago
Patch support for SOHO NAS systems is miserable. We bought some Cisco and Qnap NAS systems a few years ago. Every feature I touched had some bug or another, or not the features I needed, or remote changes (Google sync, Apple Time Machine) broke a feature and it was never patched, etc. pp. …
After six months they were all reconfigured to expose a single iSCSI drive and a Linux box did everything else.
- Jedd 11y agoVery similar to my experience. A multitude of features I would never want to use, partly out of doubt (security, stability, etc). My primary need was native (robust, sane, GUI-driven) iSCSI presentation ... which it completely failed to provide out of the box. That is, with a single iSCSI target, any significant activity over a GbE link would cause the QNap to crash. QNap support guided me towards a beta release of their software -- this solved the immediate problem, but I've never felt comfy upgrading (a one way process) from that release for fear of breaking iSCSI or other basic features. A less than ideal situation.
- puzzlingcaptcha 11y agoI got a low-end 2-bay qnap for home and quickly ended up putting Debian on it (http://www.cyrius.com/debian/kirkwood/qnap/ http://www.cyrius.com/debian/kirkwood/qnap/) It's very well supported (running kernel 4.3 from testing now, the only thing that doesn't work is the crypto accelerator) and it gives you a lot of flexibility while keeping the advantages of the hardware (low cost, footprint and power consumption).
- creshal 11y agoThat would have been an interesting alternative, yes. (The NAS systems are long sold or dead, but the Linux boxes that replaced them are running Debian too.) The hardware is decent for the price, it's just the software that's problematic.