Selfhosted
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
view the rest of the comments
Strange, I've had no issue controlling NFS shares or ACLs. Have set up 4 Synology NAS's, with shares out the wahzoo. No problems. User error maybe?
That disk upgrade thing was a mountain out of a molehill. All they are doing is reserving some of their disk health features for synology branded disks because they're the only ones they can verify meet their standards for their software.
Then explain why one can successfully use and old synology to "mark" drives as "authentic synology" and move them into a newer DSM model to use them. This means the mechanism amounts simply to marking disks and not binning disks or any kind of actual hardware selection. Which in turn means that "certified" Synology disks are nothing more than disks with a Synology signature. And not even in firmware, but on the platter.
And that is the "molehill" everyone is calling Synology out on.
As explained ad nauseum on various yt channels, having a hw compatibility list makes sense for users likely to buy support, like business users. It makes little sense in a home market where users are both more likely to buy 3rd party disks and will not likely invoke official Synology support.
But add on top of it that there is no functional hardware difference between certified and non-certified, and it becomes pretty clear that Synology is to be avoided.
Because they have to have a way for legacy users to maintain functionality. Going forward though, new drives in new devices are handled differently. It's basically a quality control type thing - they're providing the support and warranty for them, so they're only "guaranteeing" that their checks work on their drives. That makes sense. They don't want to be on the hook for saying that a drive that isn't theirs was perfectly healthy and then it drops dead an hour later and you lose all your data.
Again though, the disks still work. The compatibility lists simply tell you if they are officially supported and will get certain features.
Avoiding them because of missing a few proprietary synology disk health checks is such a strange thing to do lol. You won't get synologys disk health checks if you were to make your own server, so why is not having them on a synology a deal breaker?