3 ms·
The title is hugely misleading though - the j model documentation was always very specific that they can't support btrfs and you could never initialize the arra
by izacus 6y ago
The title is hugely misleading though - the j model documentation was always very specific that they can't support btrfs and you could never initialize the array into that mode.
(At least it was when I was buying my Synology - and opted to + model which specifically supports it. This is the list devices Syno has with btrfs support: https://www.synology.com/en-global/knowledgebase/DSM/tutorial/Storage/Which_Synology_NAS_models_support_the_Btrfs_file_system https://www.synology.com/en-global/knowledgebase/DSM/tutoria...)
The RAID array had to be moved from another device to work. Running your RAID array on a device that explicitly doesn't support it feels like a really risky behaviour.
- wasyl 6y agoThey still should've handled it differently. Show a warning to the user encouraging them to migrate, give a reasonable window before the feature is actually disabled, and don't let the users upgrade to a version which will break their storage. Synology made a mistake which they admit: > DSM incorrectly allowed administrators to migrate from a BTRFS-capable device and utilize previously created BTRFS volumes on the affected devices And they're punishing users for it
- izacus 6y agoYeah, that's the crappy part. My intuition says that they didn't deliberately plan to remove it and it was a side effect of some firmware update cleanup.
- brnt 6y agoWhat is the reason it cannot be 'supported' anyway? It clearly was possible. BTRFS has been mainlined for nearly as long as EXT4, and incurs no particular overheads compared to EXT4.
- izacus 6y agoWhatever reason they chose to not support btrfs on their cheap ARM models. Might be stability, might just be pure market segmentation.
- mopsi 6y agoCheapest models have insufficient RAM for btrfs.
- brnt 6y agoIt does not require more ram than ext4 in the configurations that DSM provides.
- op00to 6y agoSource? How about cpu capabilities? Were they tested?
- brnt 6y agoYou're making the claim ;) The main thing an fs is, is a layout for data on disk after all, no mainline fs will do this in a way that is particularly consumptive of resources. Specific features like RAID and deduplication are known to add to RAM and CPU requirements. Synology uses BTRFS for neither, so any performance differences are almost certainly not due to the specific fs. I also have not seen any evidence of perf diffs.
- josephcsible 6y agoIf that were the case, then why did btrfs work perfectly on them all until this update?
- pilsetnieks 6y ago> the j model documentation was always very specific that they can't support btrfs and you could never initialize the array into that mode The problem was that the GUI didn't reflect that, which was the bug. And then they "fixed the bug" the same way that they "fixed the glitch" with Milton in Office Space
- luma 6y agoThe GUI never allowed you to create such an array in the first place. If a user goes out of their way to put their storage array into an unsupported configuration, I get a lot less upset when the vendor makes that harder to do.
- justapassenger 6y agoEven if it’s true, that GUI never allowed it (there’re people disputing it), migrating disks between different products from the same NAS manufacturer isn’t what I’d call going out of your way. It’s one of the reasons to stay loyal to the brand when you upgrade. If it’s incompatible, it should be rejected at the start, or changed later with tons of communication and proper checks (like blocking you from further sw upgrades until you migrate your array). Randomly breaking it is Synology going out of their way to hurt users.