|
The Diddler posted:I do this. I have it set up to rclone my monthly VM backups, some videos that I may want to rewatch in the future, and I have an encrypted repository for sensitive documents. It took a while to get set up properly, but it's nice to have offsite backups of important stuff. You still have to get some friends to go in on it with you to get the unlimited storage (or eat the whole $60/mo cost) right?
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
Munkeymon posted:You still have to get some friends to go in on it with you to get the unlimited storage (or eat the whole $60/mo cost) right? I think so. We've been at it for a couple of years, but I don't think that part of it has changed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
It has always said the "Business" plan ($12/month/user) gives you 1tb of storage if you have less than 5 users (unlimited if 5 or more). Everyone on the internet has been clucking that even with less than 5 users, that cap was not enforced. No idea what it is like currently. https://gsuite.google.com/pricing.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Moey posted:It has always said the "Business" plan ($12/month/user) gives you 1tb of storage if you have less than 5 users (unlimited if 5 or more). Everyone on the internet has been clucking that even with less than 5 users, that cap was not enforced. No idea what it is like currently. I am reupping from my Synology to Gsuite. It will be well over 1TB. Will try to remember to report back when it's done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
Smashing Link posted:I am reupping from my Synology to Gsuite. It will be well over 1TB. Will try to remember to report back when it's done. Let us know what your upload speeds are like as well. In theory, I should be able to dump lovely comcast/xfinity this coming fall for some fiber (1gig symmetrical) and no data cap. I think I could deal with $12/month to get a copy of my packrating offsite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
Moey posted:Let us know what your upload speeds are like as well. I am getting 24 Mbps upload to Gdrive compared to about 60 Mbps on Ookla from a .edu office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
rclone to gdrive never has a problem saturating my gigabit (fios) upstream completely
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Really want to pick up a Powervault M4110 for my M1000e Bladecenter, wonder if itll take SATA. Please do the needful and report back. SATA is just a subset of SAS! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
pzy posted:rclone to gdrive never has a problem saturating my gigabit (fios) upstream completely Probably my work internet then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
Linus Torvalds has pretty strong feelings on ZFS  The licensing concerns are understandable but a part of me was still hoping for it to get more integrated, beyond ZFS on Linux. I suppose it doesn't really matter in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 13:45
|
|
|
My home PC does double duty as a gaming rig and plex server. I've got a giant tower full of drives I've collected over the years, and recently I've been considering downsizing my case to a saner form factor. Downsizing means less space for drives, so I've been looking at other options to host the plex server and general data backup/storage. I'm looking for something relatively compact to sit on my desk, and Synology's offerings seem pretty good to do what I want. The OP is very out of date so I'm not really sure what else is out there. If I'm looking for something compact with a relatively fuss-free setup to run plex and keep things backed up, what should I be looking at?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
He's got good points. Lack of Maintenance plus possibly tempting Oracle suits, plus no real clear advantages performance wise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
eames posted:Linus Torvalds has pretty strong feelings on ZFS I had to send this to a couple of linux hippies. They are going to be destroyed.. which makes me laugh. Im a jerk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
I wonder how FreeNAS will handle it if Oracle ever comes knocking....
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 17:12
|
|
|
Clanpot Shake posted:My home PC does double duty as a gaming rig and plex server. I've got a giant tower full of drives I've collected over the years, and recently I've been considering downsizing my case to a saner form factor. Downsizing means less space for drives, so I've been looking at other options to host the plex server and general data backup/storage. My suggestion would be to use Unraid and repurpose the bunch of drives and the giant tower and leave it in another room or in the corner. I'm not sure if you're actually upgrading your PC when downgrading to a new case form factor. But if you are, you can use your old hardware for the Unraid box. It's really simple to set up once you get the hang of it. If you're set on a Synology though, I haven't heard much bad things about it other than cost. Just make sure you get at least a 4-bay one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
Hackernews discussion on this topic.CommieGIR posted:He's got good points. Lack of Maintenance plus possibly tempting Oracle suits, plus no real clear advantages performance wise. No filesystem can ever really demonstrate a "clear advantage performance-wise". The best a filesystem can do is run at drive speeds, maybe a bit higher due to transparent compression reducing disk load. ZFS is and always has been about making your data more secure and letting you know when it's not secure, rather than being something that magically makes your drives faster. Most of the time, it does not significantly impact speeds above and beyond what the drive can deliver - although it does chomp memory like there's no tomorrow, because it integrates a caching layer. "lack of maintenance" is one perspective, the other perspective is "the linux kernel team refuses to present a stable ABI/API and thus projects like this require constant maintenance in the first place". There is a law that "kernel does not break userspace", there is no equivalent law for the kernel breaking the kernel. Any minor kernel release can break a kernel module, the expectation is that you have people constantly working on your kernel module and if they ever stop working then well, that's the last version of the kernel that will work with your kernel module. This basically isn't a problem if you use ZFS with FreeBSD where the ABI is stable. And frankly ZFS on Linux has had several data-loss bugs relating to problems with their kernel/upstream distro/downstream distro model, so arguably the Linux model isn't really a good one for this sort of thing in the first place. Again, because any minor kernel release can break everything, and every upstream change in userland can break everything completely outside the ZFS code itself (this has happened, a change in 'mv' behavior broke ZoL and caused data loss). It also would not be a problem if, again like FreeBSD, ZFS were a first-class citizen in the kernel. But Oracle deliberately released ZFS under a license that is incompatible with GPLv2 and thus ZFS can never be upstreamed into the core kernel repos. It will always have to be a externally maintained kernel module and thus subject to breakage. You also cannot really implement something like this without a kernel module either. Userland filesystems have universally terrible performance because it means you have to context-switch back and forth between userland and kernel multiple times per IO operation, so that actually would horribly gimp performance to the extent that you probably wouldn't want to use it. The long and short of it is that it was a loving stupid idea to move the repo of record to ZoL in the first place. ZFS on BSD will continue downstreaming those changes and will work perfectly well as a storage appliance, ZFS on Linux will continue to be a second-class citizen on Linux and will never be as stable or reliable as its BSD counterpart. And IMO, it would not be unfair to characterize the thing Linus is railing against as being ZoL rather than ZFS itself. CommieGIR posted:I wonder how FreeNAS will handle it if Oracle ever comes knocking.... The problem is specifically the combination of GPLv2 "copyleft" licensing and CDDL licensing (which, while open source, is not GPL compatible). GPL is specifically designed so that you cannot combine it with non-GPL code, so that people will be forced to also license their code as GPL, it is "viral" by design. It is a deliberately communistic perversion of copyright law and licensing, in order to encourage the creation and spread of a public, open codebase. That's why it's called "copyleft". BSD licensing does not work like that, it can be best characterized as "this code is given freely and as-is, do whatever you want with it (including releasing non-free derivative works), just don't sue us". That is compatible with the CDDL. So, while Linux can never upstream ZFS, BSD can do it perfectly fine. FreeNAS is based on BSD code, specifically FreeBSD. Sun deliberately chose a GPL-incompatible because at the time, the idea was that OpenSolaris could benefit from code downstreamed from Linux, but that it would be impossible to move Solaris code (like what became OpenZFS) back to Linux. In particular, Sun did not want dtrace or ZFS moving back to Linux, as these were seen as a major competitive advantage at the time. This is working as intended - the fact that OpenSolaris is now dead is irrelevant to the licensing. The correct answer would be for Oracle to dual-license OpenZFS code as GPLv2 but lol Oracle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jan 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Clanpot Shake posted:My home PC does double duty as a gaming rig and plex server. I've got a giant tower full of drives I've collected over the years, and recently I've been considering downsizing my case to a saner form factor. Downsizing means less space for drives, so I've been looking at other options to host the plex server and general data backup/storage. If you've been happy with Plex-on-your-PC, and the issue is just a lack of space for drives, it might be worth it to see what simiply ditching all your smaller drives and replacing them with a few large ones would cost. A 4-bay Synology like the DS918+ that can handle Plex well is gonna be $500+. For that price you could get a pair of 12TB Easystores to shuck and throw into a mirror, if that'd be sufficient space for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 17:59
|
|
|
No performance benefits over what? Btrfs, where the stability page has a bunch of things labeled "mostly OK"? OK, maintainer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 17:59
|
|
|
eames posted:Linus Torvalds has pretty strong feelings on ZFS CommieGIR posted:He's got good points. Lack of Maintenance plus possibly tempting Oracle suits, plus no real clear advantages performance wise. Remarks about benchmarks is just more fuel to the trashfire that is benchmarking and his personal obsession which affects the project to the exclusion of everything including correctness and data-integrity (fsyncgate, probably other issues I'm forgetting). Paul MaudDib posted:Sun deliberately chose a GPL-incompatible because at the time, the idea was that OpenSolaris could benefit from code downstreamed from Linux, but that it would be impossible to move Solaris code (like what became OpenZFS) back to Linux. In particular, Sun did not want dtrace or ZFS moving back to Linux, as these were seen as a major competitive advantage at the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=1472s Munkeymon posted:No performance benefits over what? Btrfs, where the stability page has a bunch of things labeled "mostly OK"? OK, maintainer. Linus is a smart guy, there's no doubt about that - but filesystems and randomness are two areas he's demonstrated many times by his words and actions that he doesn't have a loving clue about. BlankSystemDaemon fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jan 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
Let's just all go back to ReiserFS!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Let's just all go back to ReiserFS! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
D. Ebdrup posted:Why not listen to one of the people who was at Sun at the time, has done work on ZFS, and explicitly says it wasn't about incompatibilities - instead of just repeating lies spread by GPL zealots? Top comment was from a Sun tech lead: Danese Cooper posted:Lovely except it really was decided to explicitly make OpenSolaris incompatible with GPL. That was one of the design points of the CDDL. I was in that room, Bryan and you were not, but I know its fun to re-write history to suit your current politics. I pleaded with Sun to use a BSD family license or the GPL itself and they would consider neither *because* that would have allowed D-Trace to end up in Linux. You can claim otherwise all you want...this was the truth in 2005. My interpretation is that the engineers may have wanted to go for a more open license, corporate did not. They could have gone GPLv2, they could have done CDDL in the meantime and then dual-licensed GPLv3 once they were ready... they didn't. Sun wasn't always the shining beacon of open-source they get made out to be. They still wanted to keep their core competitive advantages in-house. d-trace and zfs were the reasons to go Solaris. But, Cantrill and Oracle's COO at the time disagree and say the engineers were pushing for BSD and management wanted copyleft. Sun still didn't actually dual-license it though. They could have, they didn't. So who was actually right based on the facts? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jan 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
Just shucked all my drives, installed and data pool all set up. Just need to set my sharing/SMB settings up and I’ll be gold. Might even actually do time machine backups now too while I am configuring everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Danese Cooper is cool and good as heck, but how do we know that that's her account? Anyway, it's certainly an interesting argument, and I know that Sun corporate was very different in its philosophy; so it's possible. However, what important to remember is that OpenSolaris wasn't the first time they'd tried it making it open, which is something that surprised me when I heard about it; so far as I remember hearing the story, OpenSolaris opensourcing was started around 2000, but there was a prior attempt made back in the mid-90s as a result of the US government and Fortune500s going Microsoft? It failed because of a bunch of critical code paths were proprietary, if I recall correctly (and OpenSolaris was similarily missing quite a few device drivers that Sun hadn't managed to opensource). Oracle had very little to do with the opensourcing/licensing, they just almost succeeded in closing Pandora's Box, and have demonstrated their evils in many other instances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
All those words and not a single reference to murdering your spouse or driving around without a passenger seat. They're... serious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:All those words and not a single reference to murdering your spouse or driving around without a passenger seat. They're... serious. They also don't seem to know about CAP theory and how you only get to pick two of, and one of them better be partitioning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
D. Ebdrup posted:Danese Cooper is cool and good as heck, but how do we know that that's her account? Well, whether or not it's her, she's said exactly this at Debconf 2006 (at 27:26). quote:According to Danese Cooper one of the reasons for basing the CDDL on the Mozilla license was that the Mozilla license is GPL-incompatible. Cooper stated, at the 6th annual Debian conference, that the engineers who had written the Solaris kernel requested that the license of OpenSolaris be GPL-incompatible.[18] fwiw Sun's COO was also at the conference and disagreed, at 36:00, and then later made another statement disagreeing with her. quote:Simon Phipps (Sun's Chief Open Source Officer at the time), who had introduced Cooper as "the one who actually wrote the CDDL",[19] did not immediately comment, but later in the same video, he says, referring back to the license issue, "I actually disagree with Danese to some degree",[20] while describing the strong preference among the engineers who wrote the code for a BSD-like license, which was in conflict with Sun's preference for something copyleft, and that waiting for legal clearance to release some parts of the code under the then unreleased GNU GPL v3 would have taken several years, and would probably also have involved mass resignations from engineers (unhappy with either the delay, the GPL, or both—this is not clear from the video) quote:Nonetheless she is wrong to characterise the opinion of the Solaris engineering team in the way she does. She is speaking this way because she lost an argument inside Sun, not because her view is representative of the views of Sun or its staff in the way she It's all well and good to say that she's bitter because she lost an argument, and it is 2 on 1 here, but if it's the case that everyone at Sun really wanted either BSD or copyleft then why didn't they dual-license it after the fact? I guess maybe they felt that CDDL really was GPLv2 compatible and that it wouldn't have been an issue, but if they really were after a GPLv2 compatible then why write their own license in the first place? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jan 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Single-vendor multi-licensing is a relatively new thing as far as I can find out, so if it's from 2012 as this paper implies, that explains why they didn't do it then. I can definitely believe that people like Bill Joy would advocate for a BSD license, because... that's kind of his thing, in many ways. But it's clear that there are differing opinions on it, and that there may have been things that went on behind closed-doors which anyone is only likely to hear as a war-story over drinks. Mind you, if I had the money for it, I'd like to trade war-stories with basically every one of the engineers at Sun. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
D. Ebdrup posted:He's talking about performance benefits compared to ext4, a filesystem based on FFS in BSD, that can't detect or correct silent data corruption, isn't atomic with respect to its writes, and has been dismissed by Ted Ts'o. lmao what a turd - clearly we should all still be on FAT32 because with such low overhead it must be faster
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:lmao what a turd - clearly we should all still be on FAT32 because with such low overhead it must be faster And even more ironically, it's now companies like Facebook and Google which are pushing for OpenBMC and OpenFirmware which will be kexec()ing/rerooting itself to a Linux kernel on the system as part of booting up - and the best part is, that this process is basically Linux-exclusive as it doesn't try to be helpful towards any other opensource system which implements its own ways of booting (such as FreeBSDs standard bootloader, which Illumos-derivatives and other opensource projects are beginning to use).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
I don't think anyone mentioned it itt yet, but the 10TB easystores are back at $160.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
ChiralCondensate posted:I don't think anyone mentioned it itt yet, but the 10TB easystores are back at $160. Cool, thanks. 5x of these ordered now to fill my first Synology expansion unit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
This is the Synology Moments app I've installed on my phone. I have DDNS set up already, so I'm planning on feeding it my home IP address and setting up port forwarding as needed. However, I'm unsure how the 'HTTPS' option works; do I just need to tick the box, and it'll automatically transmit the photos securely between my phone and my NAS? - or do I need to do something on the receiving end at the NAS as well? I can VPN into my home network already, which I'm already using on the rare occasion I need to shuffle files between phone and NAS when out of the house; but it would be nice having a drop-in Google Photos replacement, where backup is a hands-off 'set it and forget it' thing instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 13:42
|
|
so I could say that I finally figured out what this god damned cube is doing. Get well Lowtax.
|
spincube posted:This is the Synology Moments app I've installed on my phone. Yes check it but for the love of all things holy don't expose your synology to the internet. Use the VPN you already have setup! That's the hardest part of the whole process and you have already done it! I use the photo backup feature of the dsfile program and it works fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
D. Ebdrup posted:Linus isn't a lawyer, so what he should have said is that "in the opinion of some lawyers, CDDL is not compatible with GPLv2", because it's not been ruled on by any judges, nor is there any case-law. Other lawyers can, and do, disagree with this legal stance, but there's no real way of knowing since it won't ever get tested in court as Linus, irrespective of any licensing, is completely uninterested in importing it, which is his perogative, since Linux is his.  Linus is rarely wrong, and he hasn't exactly misled the community in the past with his decisions. I agree with what you are saying, but let's be honest: Torvalds puts a fair amount of thought into his justifications usually, he may have more info than we do.Maybe that's why mdadm got included versus ZFS with the main linux kernel. quote:Although the ZFS filesystem supports Linux-based operating systems, difficulties arise for Linux distribution maintainers wishing to provide native support for ZFS in their products due to potential legal incompatibilities between the CDDL license used by the ZFS code, and the GPL license used by the Linux kernel. To enable ZFS support within Linux, a loadable kernel module containing the CDDL-licensed ZFS code must be compiled and loaded into the kernel. According to the Free Software Foundation, the wording of the GPL license legally prohibits redistribution of the resulting product as a derivative work,[115][116] though this viewpoint has caused some controversy CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jan 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 16:51
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:Yes check it but for the love of all things holy don't expose your synology to the internet. Use the VPN you already have setup! That's the hardest part of the whole process and you have already done it! You're right, of course. Unfortunately my router doesn't have its own VPN capability, so I'm running Synology's own VPN Server application on the NAS itself; it's a small pinhole, but sadly unavoidable. (I'd thought about changing OpenVPN ports from 1194 to 443, on the offchance I hit public wifi that blocks VPNs, but I figure 443 is probably a more popular target for opportunists sniffing around. Which is maybe irrational, i dunno.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 17:06
|
|
|
443 is absolutely a targeted port for scans. Anything under 1000 gets scanned by a lot of probe systems, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
spincube posted:You're right, of course. Unfortunately my router doesn't have its own VPN capability, so I'm running Synology's own VPN Server application on the NAS itself; it's a small pinhole, but sadly unavoidable. Yeah the VPN software on the synology is a tough spot. I thought you were going to bypass that entirely and expose it to the internet for that moments app. I will defer to you on the risk associated with the VPN software itself being exposed and staying on top of updates. It's open source and well supported, not some awful thing synology thought up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
Potentially silly question: if I shuck an easystore will it need to be reformatted? I’d like to shuffle some drives around and that would make it easier. Mostly I want to take that 10tb I’ve been using for an offline backup and have it switch places with the old 4tb I have in my desktop
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
2 additional 8TB easy stores arriving today. Still not sure if this will be a z+1 or +2 array. (4x 8TB) First world problems, eh?The Milkman posted:Potentially silly question: if I shuck an easystore will it need to be reformatted? I’d like to shuffle some drives around and that would make it easier. Mostly I want to take that 10tb I’ve been using for an offline backup and have it switch places with the old 4tb I have in my desktop Mostly depends on OS. ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2020 19:14
|
|