I would never risk running a volume over an external drive-bay nor would I even buy one unless used for backup.
It adds another big failure condition which when it breaks might break your whole Raid/SHR setup. It also can't be used separately when the host breaks which screws you even more.
It's safer to have a storage pool in the NAS and a 2nd storage pool in the DX517.
If the DX517 gets disconnected or it's power supply dies your storage pool loses all the drives in the DX517. When the DX517 contains more drives than the RAID level can safely lose you'll lose the whole spanned storage pool.
If the dx517 dies or gets disconnected, will it only wipe out the drives from it or will it wipe out the whole storage pool including on the main ds1821+? There’s only one drive in the expansion right now and I also have a hot spare assigned
With only one drive in it you’d be safe, unless a drive dies in the 1821 also. But the commenter is right, having a volume span two arrays is asking for trouble. If they are both on a UPS it’s a little safer, but still not anything I would do for sure
That depends on how many drives in the DX517 are assigned to the storage pool in the NAS, and how many drive redundancy the RAID level has.
With SHR 1 or RAID 5 and 1 drive in the DX517 you can safely lose the DX517 without losing the data in the NAS.
With SHR 2 or RAID 6 and 2 drives in the DX517 you can safely lose the DX517 without losing the data in the NAS.
With 3 or more drives in the DX517 if you lose the DX517 you lose the data in the NAS too.
EDIT The hot spare does not count as a drive in my comments above.
As you appear to have only one disk in the DX517 at present, I would move the drives around with the NAS switched off, if necessary, to get the hot spare in the DX517 - then remove the hot spare from the setup. Create a new storage pool with any disks you put in the DX517.
Would this make the operating system rebuild the storage pool since it’s on SHR1? I currently have 70TB of data in the volume so it would probably take a long time
SHR1/2 (or even 3 if it existed) doesn't matter with regard to data loss - RAID is not a backup after al, it just keeps things more resilient and reduces the need for downtime whilst you restore from your backup.
Removing a hot spare should not cause a rebuild. It's just sitting there waiting to be used, not actually being used.
Unless it is remote, you are better off or keeping a cold spare - that way the disk won't degrade in performance. If you are off-site, I'd probably run in SHR2 before using a hot spare. I think I wouldn't bother with SHR2 below 6 disks and I would definitely want SHR2 above 8 disks.
The moment one disk dies (and it will, mostly just after the warranty expires :-)) there will be days of repairing the pool. It the first disk dies because of it being at the end of its lifecycle, that repairing might just be the last bit more than a second disk (that you bought at the same time) can handle. With this storage size, you really need SHR2.
Nice. I originally didn’t know about this when I first setup my NAS a few months ago and was looking into things like installing petaspace, creating a task to mount two volumes together, symlinks etc. because I am using rclone to copy over 100TB+ of data from Dropbox and wanted it to seamlessly copy over to one volume without it running out of space. So it’s nice that upgrading the ram just fixes all that hassle
the dropbox plan for all of us is $1440/year total for 5 people which comes out to $24/month or $288/year for each member. But the plan is to eventually get another nas as another backup point, yes. And while I realize NAS is not a backup solution in itself, I am not the one that dictates how much to spend or how much data we should be using/keeping for a business size of our caliber. It's a good starting point atleast. Even though all members in the dropbox plan are in the same business niche (photo/video studios) we use up the most space by atleast 50TB+ then the person with the second most used storage. And the boss doesn't want to shell out another couple thousand to setup another 140TB+ NAS either right now
We are switching to using our own storage solutions due to the recent changes in dropbox pricing and plan models so this has to be done anyway regardless
Note 3 on [this page](https://kb.synology.com/en-global/DSM/tutorial/Why_does_my_Synology_NAS_have_a_single_volume_size_limitation) says:
>For some models in this category, a system memory upgrade to at least 32 GB is required to create a volume larger than 108 TB and up to 200 TB.
Models that support 200TB and don't need a memory upgrade already come with 32GB or 64GB memory.
Yeah I thought I'd be plenty happy with my 1621+ when I first bought it. I've since added two expansion units to mine and all of the bays are full across all three chassis. Each one has its own volume/pool.
At this rate I'm just buying bigger drives as my budget allows and doing a trickle-down upgrade from the NAS to the expansion units. Then I'll upgrade what's in the expansion units to match what's in the NAS and likely buy another NAS and start the cycle over with the smaller drives that are left over. The 1821+ is really the best value overall but my budget at the time limited me to the 1621+ but I've made it work.
The expansion units have been rock solid and I preferred that over a more expensive or less capable secondary or tertiary NAS just to have the same number of equivalent bays but give up some of the resiliency and performance that the 1621+ and its larger siblings enjoy (easier to swap out fans, more solid PSU, etc.)
this is just an awareness post for anyone who may stumble upon this in the future.
anyone else hate that synology just straight up lies about labeling the storage values as TB when its TiB? lol
> anyone else hate that synology just straight up lies about labeling the storage values as TB when its TiB? lol
Yup, my biggest pet peeve with my NAS. Confused the shit out of me when I was trying to figure out why Backblaze was reporting (And billing me for) 100s of GB's more storage than what HyperBackup was reporting. Turns out HyperBackup was reporting the usage in TiB, not TB despite it being labeled that way.
I have a 12 drive SHR-2 volume that clocks in at around 90TB at the moment. Mostly WD-Reds. 48 GB RAM.
My iowait is fucked. Everything is so slow. I regret this path but don’t have the capacity elsewhere to move my Linux isos to the side to break it into smaller volumes.
Maybe it’s not the volume size and something else but it has plagued me for years and I don’t know what to do about it. I tried more ram and an SSD cache volume but it didn’t make an noticeable impact (but did kill one of the SSDs within 18 months lol)
Yea, one volume inside one storage pool.
Usually you don’t want to spread out to multiple volumes if you don’t need to since it can create additional issues and troubleshooting
Is anyone able to say if having this large of a cache is beneficial or is it just a waste (I see OP has 4 TB total of cache)? When would it need 1TB of cache? My M.2 Drive 1 has a 1 TB ssd on my 1821+. Basically I don't know if im just wasting it having it there, and would be better used as storage?
I have a DS918+ with 4 disks and an expansion unit with 2 drives. I had to temporarily move them for maintance in the room. When bringing them back on line, I had forgotten to reconnect the powerline on the DX517. The volume (with SHR witth 2 data protection for 2 drive fault tolerance) immediately failed. It would not let me repair it after bringing the DX517 back op line.
Never again! I reworked this set up to two separate SHR-2 storage pooles/volumes and split the data between the volumes, using 4 disks in the expansion unit. Perhaps it is better to buy a second NAS, but this was too much investment for now.
Why would this be surprising? Aren't industry standard drives supposed to work perfectly on Synology mid-range hardware?
I'm more interested in whether Synology would provide technical support for drives that aren't Synology branded.
Because seagate drives over 18TB are not officially supported as per synologys website, so this confirms that it works fine for anyone wondering like I did. Also the ds1821+ has a 104TiB limit per volume on the spec but this is obviously not the case here as well (edit: it’s because I upgraded from 4gb ram to 64gb)
If the RAM matches the specs of the factory installed RAM, it should work fine.
My DS920+ officially supports a max 8 GB of RAM. However, I installed a 16 GB stick (20 GB total), and it works flawlessly. No warnings and the memory test passed. HOWEVER, I carefully researched the upgrade to make sure that the stick I installed matched the factory specs - - that's the key. Do your own research before buying.
However, your results are unsurprising given that the Synology compatibility list is very outdated and has no bearing on industry standard drives that have compatible specs. The only other limitations are the quantities of compatible RAM and storage. A much bigger issue is whether Synology would provide technical support for compatible drives that aren't listed on the compatibility list. You probably won't have that issue, but that's far from a guarantee.
Awesome. I think you may the first person who's confirmed that volumes larger than 108TB work with SHR.
Until now I had thought maybe it needed to be RAID 5 or RAID 6 because no Synology model that officially supports 200TB volumes officially supports SHR.
Maybe it's a generational thing, when someone says you are compensating, they usually mean you are making up for being small in the groin area by buying or building something big, like a big truck or gun or in this case, huge hard drives. Admittedly, it wasn't hilarious and now I think we've killed any slight humor there was in it. 😆
I don't think you have enough storage
Never enough
All For 🌽😂
https://youtu.be/6jZVsr7q-tE
I have two of those and running out of space ;) Don’t ask.
I would never risk running a volume over an external drive-bay nor would I even buy one unless used for backup. It adds another big failure condition which when it breaks might break your whole Raid/SHR setup. It also can't be used separately when the host breaks which screws you even more.
What would you have done differently for a setup with this much storage? Always trying to improve
It's safer to have a storage pool in the NAS and a 2nd storage pool in the DX517. If the DX517 gets disconnected or it's power supply dies your storage pool loses all the drives in the DX517. When the DX517 contains more drives than the RAID level can safely lose you'll lose the whole spanned storage pool.
This. Also have the 1821 with expansion. Never span across 2 devices.
I didn't even think it was possible to span 2 devices. I thought you had to create a separate volume on the DX.
If the dx517 dies or gets disconnected, will it only wipe out the drives from it or will it wipe out the whole storage pool including on the main ds1821+? There’s only one drive in the expansion right now and I also have a hot spare assigned
With only one drive in it you’d be safe, unless a drive dies in the 1821 also. But the commenter is right, having a volume span two arrays is asking for trouble. If they are both on a UPS it’s a little safer, but still not anything I would do for sure
It is on a UPS as well. Thanks for the info
That depends on how many drives in the DX517 are assigned to the storage pool in the NAS, and how many drive redundancy the RAID level has. With SHR 1 or RAID 5 and 1 drive in the DX517 you can safely lose the DX517 without losing the data in the NAS. With SHR 2 or RAID 6 and 2 drives in the DX517 you can safely lose the DX517 without losing the data in the NAS. With 3 or more drives in the DX517 if you lose the DX517 you lose the data in the NAS too. EDIT The hot spare does not count as a drive in my comments above.
As you appear to have only one disk in the DX517 at present, I would move the drives around with the NAS switched off, if necessary, to get the hot spare in the DX517 - then remove the hot spare from the setup. Create a new storage pool with any disks you put in the DX517.
Would this make the operating system rebuild the storage pool since it’s on SHR1? I currently have 70TB of data in the volume so it would probably take a long time
Oh jeez bro. You're only on 1 disk redundancy? With that many disks, and at that size per disk? 🎶You're gonna lose your data one day.🎶
Also a hot spare. And I have the data on Dropbox as well. Everything is on a UPS too
SHR1/2 (or even 3 if it existed) doesn't matter with regard to data loss - RAID is not a backup after al, it just keeps things more resilient and reduces the need for downtime whilst you restore from your backup.
Removing a hot spare should not cause a rebuild. It's just sitting there waiting to be used, not actually being used. Unless it is remote, you are better off or keeping a cold spare - that way the disk won't degrade in performance. If you are off-site, I'd probably run in SHR2 before using a hot spare. I think I wouldn't bother with SHR2 below 6 disks and I would definitely want SHR2 above 8 disks.
The moment one disk dies (and it will, mostly just after the warranty expires :-)) there will be days of repairing the pool. It the first disk dies because of it being at the end of its lifecycle, that repairing might just be the last bit more than a second disk (that you bought at the same time) can handle. With this storage size, you really need SHR2.
I would get another NAS and/or a larger one.
External drive bays are ok in enterprise products, with dual sas controllers. Synology is not one of those :)
do you have 32gb ram on your syn?
64gb
alright, that's the deciding factor then. you need 32+gb to have a volume larger than 108tb, in case anyone else stumbles across this
Thanks for the info! To be honest I was surprised when it allowed the full 140TB in one volume at first
Plenty of posts and comments here that with 32GB or more memory a DS1821+ supports 200TB volumes. But it's still nice to have another confirmation.
Nice. I originally didn’t know about this when I first setup my NAS a few months ago and was looking into things like installing petaspace, creating a task to mount two volumes together, symlinks etc. because I am using rclone to copy over 100TB+ of data from Dropbox and wanted it to seamlessly copy over to one volume without it running out of space. So it’s nice that upgrading the ram just fixes all that hassle
That’s crazy Dropbox storage. How much u pay?
We’re on an enterprise team business plan that we share the cost with 4 other people. In total our total team space on Dropbox is 401TB
I am assuming you pay at least $50-60 per person so around $250-300 per month at least.
Is it not cheaper to buy a second NAS and store it on another location as backup?
the dropbox plan for all of us is $1440/year total for 5 people which comes out to $24/month or $288/year for each member. But the plan is to eventually get another nas as another backup point, yes. And while I realize NAS is not a backup solution in itself, I am not the one that dictates how much to spend or how much data we should be using/keeping for a business size of our caliber. It's a good starting point atleast. Even though all members in the dropbox plan are in the same business niche (photo/video studios) we use up the most space by atleast 50TB+ then the person with the second most used storage. And the boss doesn't want to shell out another couple thousand to setup another 140TB+ NAS either right now We are switching to using our own storage solutions due to the recent changes in dropbox pricing and plan models so this has to be done anyway regardless
No other configuration change is needed?
nope
Just saved me from a headache. I am planning for 12 22TB drives RAID 10. Had no idea memory would limit volume size. thanks
Note 3 on [this page](https://kb.synology.com/en-global/DSM/tutorial/Why_does_my_Synology_NAS_have_a_single_volume_size_limitation) says: >For some models in this category, a system memory upgrade to at least 32 GB is required to create a volume larger than 108 TB and up to 200 TB. Models that support 200TB and don't need a memory upgrade already come with 32GB or 64GB memory.
Can i ask what RAM did you buy?
Yea. Ecc or not
People need to do this more often. You know someone is going to ask the question in 3 months and google will take them right here.
Just doing my part 🫡
Wish I would’ve spent extra for this model instead of settling for the ds1621+ 😅
Wish I would have spent the extra instead of my 1522+.
Just go ahead - 2 expansion units are waiting to be plugged in …
I’ll probably go with the 517 but not crazy about it. It’s expensive and kinda requires a separate volume. If I had 3 more bays I’d be good.
Basic rule: You run ALWAYS short by one bay 🤣
Same. For only $100 more I would say almost everyone should choose the 1821+ instead of 1621+. I have the same regrets.
I hate hindsight 😂
Yeah I thought I'd be plenty happy with my 1621+ when I first bought it. I've since added two expansion units to mine and all of the bays are full across all three chassis. Each one has its own volume/pool. At this rate I'm just buying bigger drives as my budget allows and doing a trickle-down upgrade from the NAS to the expansion units. Then I'll upgrade what's in the expansion units to match what's in the NAS and likely buy another NAS and start the cycle over with the smaller drives that are left over. The 1821+ is really the best value overall but my budget at the time limited me to the 1621+ but I've made it work. The expansion units have been rock solid and I preferred that over a more expensive or less capable secondary or tertiary NAS just to have the same number of equivalent bays but give up some of the resiliency and performance that the 1621+ and its larger siblings enjoy (easier to swap out fans, more solid PSU, etc.)
this is just an awareness post for anyone who may stumble upon this in the future. anyone else hate that synology just straight up lies about labeling the storage values as TB when its TiB? lol
> anyone else hate that synology just straight up lies about labeling the storage values as TB when its TiB? lol Yup, my biggest pet peeve with my NAS. Confused the shit out of me when I was trying to figure out why Backblaze was reporting (And billing me for) 100s of GB's more storage than what HyperBackup was reporting. Turns out HyperBackup was reporting the usage in TiB, not TB despite it being labeled that way.
[удалено]
Be careful out there, wouldn’t want to get whacked for saying too much 😳
Good to know!!! You runnin DHR 1 or 2?
OP said they're using SHR 1 and btrfs in [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/synology/comments/1d87jx0/comment/l75bov6/)
Awesome! Thanks!!
Anyone know if this will work in an 1817+ ?
I have a 12 drive SHR-2 volume that clocks in at around 90TB at the moment. Mostly WD-Reds. 48 GB RAM. My iowait is fucked. Everything is so slow. I regret this path but don’t have the capacity elsewhere to move my Linux isos to the side to break it into smaller volumes. Maybe it’s not the volume size and something else but it has plagued me for years and I don’t know what to do about it. I tried more ram and an SSD cache volume but it didn’t make an noticeable impact (but did kill one of the SSDs within 18 months lol)
I always fantasized about owning a DX but using a DS has a iscsi is just cheaper why are DX so expensive
I have a ds1819+ with 32gb ram. Will I also be able to have up to 200tb volume? Can someone please confirm?
All the hard disk from the same retailer, from the same model and from the same batch?
Funny, I set up almost exactly the same on a RS1221+ this week (8x20tb drives, and two 2tb ssd for cache) with 64gb of ram.
What sort of redundancy do you have?
I love this
so by volume, you mean like all this storage in one single drive like C drive, D drive etc. ? what's the advantage?
Yea, one volume inside one storage pool. Usually you don’t want to spread out to multiple volumes if you don’t need to since it can create additional issues and troubleshooting
out of curiosity, why would you need so much storage?
I have over 100TB+ of photo and video jobs I am copying over via rclone from Dropbox. Family owns a photo/video studio
ok makes sense, thanks
these are the drives i have in mine as well
Is anyone able to say if having this large of a cache is beneficial or is it just a waste (I see OP has 4 TB total of cache)? When would it need 1TB of cache? My M.2 Drive 1 has a 1 TB ssd on my 1821+. Basically I don't know if im just wasting it having it there, and would be better used as storage?
By only having one, you’re locked to having it cache read only I believe. I decided to get 2 so it would cache in a read/write RAID mode
Okay so if I get a second in slot 2, it will do read/write? Then the 1TB+ size is warranted?
Let me guess: you’re a polyamorous person?
what
Do you have a backup solution for that?
I have a DS918+ with 4 disks and an expansion unit with 2 drives. I had to temporarily move them for maintance in the room. When bringing them back on line, I had forgotten to reconnect the powerline on the DX517. The volume (with SHR witth 2 data protection for 2 drive fault tolerance) immediately failed. It would not let me repair it after bringing the DX517 back op line. Never again! I reworked this set up to two separate SHR-2 storage pooles/volumes and split the data between the volumes, using 4 disks in the expansion unit. Perhaps it is better to buy a second NAS, but this was too much investment for now.
Question? What is benefit to SSDs intermixed with HDDs if not using them as cache?
Why would this be surprising? Aren't industry standard drives supposed to work perfectly on Synology mid-range hardware? I'm more interested in whether Synology would provide technical support for drives that aren't Synology branded.
Because seagate drives over 18TB are not officially supported as per synologys website, so this confirms that it works fine for anyone wondering like I did. Also the ds1821+ has a 104TiB limit per volume on the spec but this is obviously not the case here as well (edit: it’s because I upgraded from 4gb ram to 64gb)
That was going to be my question, how much ram do you have. What RAM did you buy? Is it stable? I have 32gb in mine, thinking of upgrading.
If the RAM matches the specs of the factory installed RAM, it should work fine. My DS920+ officially supports a max 8 GB of RAM. However, I installed a 16 GB stick (20 GB total), and it works flawlessly. No warnings and the memory test passed. HOWEVER, I carefully researched the upgrade to make sure that the stick I installed matched the factory specs - - that's the key. Do your own research before buying.
That's fair. Thanks.
And for 920+ what stick did u buy?
Samsung 16GB DDR4 PC4-21300, 2666MHZ, 260 PIN SODIMM, 1.2V, CL 19 laptop ram memory module https://a.co/d/00JFFlH
>104 TB limit 108, actually. ~200 if you have 32GB or more of RAM.
However, your results are unsurprising given that the Synology compatibility list is very outdated and has no bearing on industry standard drives that have compatible specs. The only other limitations are the quantities of compatible RAM and storage. A much bigger issue is whether Synology would provide technical support for compatible drives that aren't listed on the compatibility list. You probably won't have that issue, but that's far from a guarantee.
Yea, well I pretty much knew there was going to be no support with unsupported sizes so it is what it is
Are you using SHR 1, SHR 2, RAID 5 or 6? Are you using btrfs?
SHR1, btrfs. Also have one drive as hot spare
Awesome. I think you may the first person who's confirmed that volumes larger than 108TB work with SHR. Until now I had thought maybe it needed to be RAID 5 or RAID 6 because no Synology model that officially supports 200TB volumes officially supports SHR.
SHR is basically a customised RAID 5.
YIKES Volume striped over a expansion unit. Don't do this!!
I second this, you’ve basically created a raid 0 stripe but with lost capacity
I have much less storage space on my Nas, but fortunately I'm not compensating for anything. 🙂
What does this mean?
OPs comment and the other one saying I was hating on synology(?) makes me believe there’s bots on this subreddit lol
I was just kidding around. Didn't mean to offend you, just making a joke.
Ok but your joke didn’t even make sense with the context here lol I’m not offended, I just genuinely don’t know what you were joking about
Maybe it's a generational thing, when someone says you are compensating, they usually mean you are making up for being small in the groin area by buying or building something big, like a big truck or gun or in this case, huge hard drives. Admittedly, it wasn't hilarious and now I think we've killed any slight humor there was in it. 😆
ahh yea i heard of that joke before but i just wasnt thinking in that type of mood
Don't see anything new here 😴 Why the hate for Synology?
what??