Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server
-
Btrfs File System
Evolvement of the next-generation file systemBtrfs file system in DSM 6.1 extends its model coverage with more advanced functionality. Learn more about Btrfs file system
File self-healingBtrfs file system is able to auto-detect corrupted files (silent data corruption) with mirrored metadata, and recover broken data using the supported RAID volumes, which include RAID 1, 5, 6, 10, and SHR.
Instant SMB server-side copyThe standard SMB server-side copy requires processing time, even when copying data to the same volume. With the help of Btrfs fast-clone technology, you can achieve instant file copy over SMB on your computer if the source and destination are both on the same Btrfs volume.
DSM 6.1 brings Btrfs file system to more Synology NAS models. Enjoy the powerful features of the next-generation file system. Learn more about Btrfs applied models
-
- Package Center auto-repair: If some packages become broken after a DSM upgrade and require an update, DSM can now automatically fix them during the upgrade to ensure the entire process is smooth.
- DSM code sign: Much like your phone is able to block applications from untrusted sources, your Synology NAS can also block DSM patches that don't match the right sign code, adding an extra layer of security to your stored data.
- SMB 4.4 upgrade: For sparse file support, saving space while archiving image files of virtual machines.3
- RAID F1 is now available on more Synology NAS: To take advantage of the new RAID type designed for all flash.
-
I just installed it today. I happened to be installing a new synology unit anyways.
-
That's pretty cool. I can see that being used in environments like warehouses and stuff that don't really fit the profile for a full blown Microsoft AD setup.
-
@Dashrender pointed out that Synology go their info wrong. They list SMB 4.4 but they meant Samba 4.4 (one version old) as SMB is only up to 3.1.1.
-
Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
-
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
It's good stuff.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
It's good stuff.
Yeah, I know brtfs is the way to go, I just haven't tried it out yet myself. Starting out on IRIX with XFS back in the day makes me a too nostalgic.
-
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
It's good stuff.
Yeah, I know brtfs is the way to go, I just haven't tried it out yet myself. Starting out on IRIX with XFS back in the day makes me a too nostalgic.
I still use XFS for everything.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
It's good stuff.
Yeah, I know brtfs is the way to go, I just haven't tried it out yet myself. Starting out on IRIX with XFS back in the day makes me a too nostalgic.
I still use XFS for everything.
When will be the right time to switch to btrfs then? We know it's been stable for long enough that it's becoming the default in a number of distributions now, but has it really been battle tested well enough yet?
Also, should we maybe make another thread for the btrfs discussion?
-
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
It's good stuff.
Yeah, I know brtfs is the way to go, I just haven't tried it out yet myself. Starting out on IRIX with XFS back in the day makes me a too nostalgic.
I still use XFS for everything.
When will be the right time to switch to btrfs then? We know it's been stable for long enough that it's becoming the default in a number of distributions now, but has it really been battle tested well enough yet?
Also, should we maybe make another thread for the btrfs discussion?
Another thread is good. The basics though are that like ZFS it is usually best for special cases. XFS for normal systems. The features of BtrFS don't matter for normal systems.
-
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
It's good stuff.
Yeah, I know brtfs is the way to go, I just haven't tried it out yet myself. Starting out on IRIX with XFS back in the day makes me a too nostalgic.
I still use XFS for everything.
Also, should we maybe make another thread for the btrfs discussion?
I think the rule is, when in doubt, make a new thread.
-
@brianlittlejohn said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
It's good stuff.
Yeah, I know brtfs is the way to go, I just haven't tried it out yet myself. Starting out on IRIX with XFS back in the day makes me a too nostalgic.
I still use XFS for everything.
Also, should we maybe make another thread for the btrfs discussion?
I think the rule is, when in doubt, make a new thread.
That's a good rule if it doesn't exist already.
-
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
It's good stuff.
Yeah, I know brtfs is the way to go, I just haven't tried it out yet myself. Starting out on IRIX with XFS back in the day makes me a too nostalgic.
I still use XFS for everything.
When will be the right time to switch to btrfs then? We know it's been stable for long enough that it's becoming the default in a number of distributions now, but has it really been battle tested well enough yet?
Also, should we maybe make another thread for the btrfs discussion?
The answer here is you do not switch. You install a distro letting it do its native thing by default and less you have an over arcing huge reason to override defaults. So you will get this when you install a new system that now has it as a default.
-
@JaredBusch said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
It's good stuff.
Yeah, I know brtfs is the way to go, I just haven't tried it out yet myself. Starting out on IRIX with XFS back in the day makes me a too nostalgic.
I still use XFS for everything.
When will be the right time to switch to btrfs then? We know it's been stable for long enough that it's becoming the default in a number of distributions now, but has it really been battle tested well enough yet?
Also, should we maybe make another thread for the btrfs discussion?
The answer here is you do not switch. You install a distro letting it do its native thing by default and less you have an over arcing huge reason to override defaults. So you will get this when you install a new system that now has it as a default.
openSuse, for example, has had it as default for two years.
Really though, I prefer XFS for anything that isn't a storage machine. VMs need something mature, stable and light. XFS does that well.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@JaredBusch said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
It's good stuff.
Yeah, I know brtfs is the way to go, I just haven't tried it out yet myself. Starting out on IRIX with XFS back in the day makes me a too nostalgic.
I still use XFS for everything.
When will be the right time to switch to btrfs then? We know it's been stable for long enough that it's becoming the default in a number of distributions now, but has it really been battle tested well enough yet?
Also, should we maybe make another thread for the btrfs discussion?
The answer here is you do not switch. You install a distro letting it do its native thing by default and less you have an over arcing huge reason to override defaults. So you will get this when you install a new system that now has it as a default.
openSuse, for example, has had it as default for two years.
Really though, I prefer XFS for anything that isn't a storage machine. VMs need something mature, stable and light. XFS does that well.
But does your preference mean that you will override a default installs choice just because that is your preference?
Using anything but default should have very clear reasons because the first time somebody besides you have to troubleshoot it there will be big problems.
-
Its like comparing ReFS to NTFS. You should always use NTFS unless you have specific reasons to use ReFS. One example is using ReFS on a VM storage only volume... it will only be holding .vhdx files.
Maybe that's not the best example because you can't use ReFS some places... but I think enough to get my point across.
-
@Tim_G said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
Its like comparing ReFS to NTFS. You should always use NTFS unless you have specific reasons to use ReFS. One example is using ReFS on a VM storage only volume... it will only be holding .vhdx files.
Maybe that's not the best example because you can't use ReFS some places... but I think enough to get my point across.
That's a good comparison, I think. BtrFS is really good for building a large scale NAS or SAN device where software RAID is needed. But for normal stuff, like ZFS, it's just lots of unnecessary overhead.
-
@JaredBusch said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@JaredBusch said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:
Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.
It's good stuff.
Yeah, I know brtfs is the way to go, I just haven't tried it out yet myself. Starting out on IRIX with XFS back in the day makes me a too nostalgic.
I still use XFS for everything.
When will be the right time to switch to btrfs then? We know it's been stable for long enough that it's becoming the default in a number of distributions now, but has it really been battle tested well enough yet?
Also, should we maybe make another thread for the btrfs discussion?
The answer here is you do not switch. You install a distro letting it do its native thing by default and less you have an over arcing huge reason to override defaults. So you will get this when you install a new system that now has it as a default.
openSuse, for example, has had it as default for two years.
Really though, I prefer XFS for anything that isn't a storage machine. VMs need something mature, stable and light. XFS does that well.
But does your preference mean that you will override a default installs choice just because that is your preference?
Using anything but default should have very clear reasons because the first time somebody besides you have to troubleshoot it there will be big problems.
I would often, yes actually. XFS is not like an odd, unsupported option. It's just not the default. It's still completely core to openSuse's design. They simply had to pick which one they were going to use when someone did not choose one or the other and they opted for extra features over lean design for those that don't know which they want, which I think makes sense. Just like CentOS opts for the simplicity of using root for administration instead of sudo, but makes it super easy to enable sudo. It's not default, but it's fully supported. They just had to choose something as default.
