3 ms·

>These actions were always unsupported. That's not true. At one time, their DSM gave you the option of creating a btrfs filesystem when setting up from scratch

>These actions were always unsupported. That's not true. At one time, their DSM gave you the option of creating a btrfs filesystem when setting up from scratch. It may have been "unsupported" but their own setup process allowed you to continue.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
Are you sure? Sounds like on here and on Reddit people were creating volumes outside of the affected devices or DSM and mounting them on the affected devices. For example, [1] "From my reading, you could never take new drives, stick them in a budget Synology NAS and get BTRFS. The thing is, you could set up those new drives in a higher end Synology NAS, then stick them into a budget Synology NAS and it would work with BTRFS enabled." This type of comment seems repeated in various outlets. Have you personally created a btrfs filesystem on one of these 5 affected devices? I've bought Synology NAS for a long time. Each time I buy one for myself or others, I read the spec sheet and specifically buy one that supports btrfs. It's clearly listed for each model what it supports. If it is as they state, this unintentional bug was allowing people to do things that are not validated to run reliably, then leaving the bug unfixed is also a bad idea. Relying on bugs to do your work is a bad plan. This shows why. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/synology/comments/mqks2q/the_latest_dsm_update_makes_btrfs_drives/ https://www.reddit.com/r/synology/comments/mqks2q/the_latest...