Synology DS420j 4-bay NAS

[bug]

They won't charge for the implementation in kernel. That's GPL.
But they can offer it with a paid license as well (with support or some extra perks).

Ok, that makes sense. But it won't work in the long run. I mean, they're not probably shipping with the latest kernel, but what are they going to do? Never update to a kernel with built-in exFAT support? Update, but gut that support? Both are possible, but neither is likely to be worth their trouble.

 

[notb]

Ok, that makes sense. But it won't work in the long run. I mean, they're not probably shipping with the latest kernel, but what are they going to do? Never update to a kernel with built-in exFAT support? Update, but gut that support? Both are possible, but neither is likely to be worth their trouble.

I meant support as in "Hello Microsoft, help us make a product".

 

[bug]

I meant support as in "Hello Microsoft, help us make a product".

Microsoft doesn't do that. But there are 3rd parties that provide support (see my link above about Paragon Software freaking out over losing business )

 

[notb]

Microsoft doesn't do that. But there are 3rd parties that provide support (see my link above about Paragon Software freaking out over losing business )

Of course it does.

Microsoft Industry Clouds

Reimagine your organization with Microsoft enterprise cloud solutions. Accelerate digital transformation with industry solutions built on the Microsoft Cloud.

www.microsoft.com

Locations

www.microsoft.com

Sure, there are certified partners that provide consulting as well. They often invite an MS consultant to help on a project.
I can assure you MS employs at least some of these people.

 

[newtekie1]

I'm going to need more than that, I've never seen GPL code needing a commercial license.

You're right about the code, but just because something is released under GPL because it has some GPL code in it, doesn't mean all the code is free. If they also use patented code along side the GPL, then the patent holder has right to sue and require royalties and special licensing for using their patented code.

Hell, there has been a "GPL" exFAT driver available for Linux since way back in 2013. Haven't you wondered why it hasn't just been included in the kernel a long time ago? Because just because it is GPL doesn't release anyone that uses it in a commercial product from the liability of using Microsoft patented code in their products.

Now, with the latest development that Microsoft has released all the patents to the OIN that issue goes away, but that just happened a few months ago. And it takes time to write software, test it with your products, re-write your product so it will use that new driver, etc. Plus you have to bring in a legal team to make sure that Microsoft is actually on the up and up and isn't setting up some way to come back after you later down the road.

Ok, that makes sense. But it won't work in the long run. I mean, they're not probably shipping with the latest kernel, but what are they going to do? Never update to a kernel with built-in exFAT support? Update, but gut that support? Both are possible, but neither is likely to be worth their trouble.

Once they do enough testing with a kernel that has it built in, they'll probably release it as an update and all will be well. But for right now, it's $4 because the kernel they are using doesn't have it built in for free, and they still have to pay for the commercially developed solution they are offering.

So you have a choice: carry around a USB drive around the house or pay a premium for something that exposes that data over the home network.

At the end of the day, I don't really see why not having exFAT support on a NAS is a big deal.

The benefit of exFAT is for large external drives, and that's it. Ok, so you have something on your flash drive that you want to transfer to your NAS quickly. You can either walk over to your NAS, plug the flash drive in, then go to your computer and do the file transfer, then walk back to the NAS and unplug the flash drive. That's stupid. Just plug it into your damn computer.

But then they'll say "but what if I want to just leave the drive plugged into the NAS?" Then format it to something else! There are 2 main reasons to use exFAT on removable media like a flash drive or external hard drive. The one is exFAT is actually really resilient when it comes to being unplugged during a write operation, it is possible to really screw up an NTFS drive if you do this, but less likely with exFAT(and FAT) and it uses slightly less resources on the computer/NAS during file operations. Ok, if you are leaving the drive plugged in, then the first reason goes out the window. The second doesn't really matter, because the difference is negligible on a NAS device. So if you are leaving it plugged into the NAS, format the drive to something else.

I mean, I can't really come up with a scenario where a NAS even needs exFAT really.

 

[notb]

Just plug it into your damn computer

Which is probably what most people do. With 2 3 significant exceptions:
1. Many NAS offer a backup-to-USB feature, which forces you to plug the drive directly. But it's totally worth it.
2. Moving a lot of data. Realistically, you have to accept transfers around 30-50 MB/s. Which means moving 100GB will take over 0.5h.
Not a big deal for most people. But if you're into photo/video, even casually, there's a good chance you'll bring 500GB+ from vacation. And if you're a pro, probably almost every day.
So you can move it over your PC for few hours. Or you can pay $4.
[edit]
3. Some people don't have PCs anymore. Seriously.

I mean, I can't really come up with a scenario where a NAS even needs exFAT really.

If you want a flexible external drive that works with the NAS and Windows, Linux and MacOS systems, exFAT is your best bet.
I mean: you can try your luck with NTFS, but exFAT support is much better. IMO worth $4...

Some people like to move files from flash cards directly to NAS (e.g. from cameras). exFAT is the preferred FS - especially for video.

 

[newtekie1]

1. Many NAS offer a backup-to-USB feature, which forces you to plug the drive directly. But it's totally worth it.

Yes, but if you're using this feature on a Synology, you're leaving the drive plugged in. So use NTFS for free.

2. Moving a lot of data. Realistically, you have to accept transfers around 30-50 MB/s. Which means moving 100GB will take over 0.5h.
Not a big deal for most people. But if you're into photo/video, even casually, there's a good chance you'll bring 500GB+ from vacation. And if you're a pro, probably almost every day.
So you can move it over your PC for few hours. Or you can pay $4.

It doesn't matter how much data you're moving, plug the drive into your computer and transfer the data. I'm not really sure where you are getting the 30-50MB/s numbers from. Transferring data to a NAS on the network is going to go at ~100MB/s, if it goes slower than that, then your limited by the drives in the NAS and plugging something directly into the NAS isn't going to make the transfer any faster. And that's the case with this NAS anyway. So if you're offloading camera data to the NAS, it doesn't matter if you use your computer or plug it directly into the NAS, the transfer rate will be the same.

3. Some people don't have PCs anymore. Seriously.

Then they should be buying a computer before a NAS.

If you want a flexible external drive that works with the NAS and Windows, Linux and MacOS systems, exFAT is your best bet.
I mean: you can try your luck with NTFS, but exFAT support is much better. IMO worth $4...

Some people like to move files from flash cards directly to NAS (e.g. from cameras). exFAT is the preferred FS - especially for video.

Like I said, in those cases do it from your computer.

 

[crmaris]

Not really. You've created some custom test that I'm unable to replicate or understand. That's the point. It's good that you use DiskSpd as well.

I just move files to/from the NAS with my application recording the time and speeds. Nothing more, nothing less. And yes I also use DiskSpd to have another program in the equation. Game Folder is the F1 2011, ISO is a dummy 5 GB ISO, Program is the Visual Studio 2010, and Photo holder, 3.48 GB of Photos. As I explain I run the tests 10x times with reboots in between of the client PC, to clear the cache, and I take the average. You can use FastCopy to replicate my results if you want.

 

[notb]

Yes, but if you're using this feature on a Synology, you're leaving the drive plugged in. So use NTFS for free.

Free on Windows. MacOS can't write to NTFS. The recommended and popular driver (from Paragon) costs $20.

It doesn't matter how much data you're moving, plug the drive into your computer and transfer the data.

Effectively adding a huge "dongle" to the laptop for maybe 10h. Potentially every few days? Wouldn't you rather pay $4?

I'm not really sure where you are getting the 30-50MB/s numbers from. Transferring data to a NAS on the network is going to go at ~100MB/s, if it goes slower than that, then your limited by the drives in the NAS and plugging something directly into the NAS isn't going to make the transfer any faster.

Have you read the review that started this thread?

So if you're offloading camera data to the NAS, it doesn't matter if you use your computer or plug it directly into the NAS, the transfer rate will be the same.

But I can turn the PC off. NAS runs 24/7.

Then they should be buying a computer before a NAS.

They don't own a PC by choice. Not because they can't afford them.

 

[bug]

Now, with the latest development that Microsoft has released all the patents to the OIN that issue goes away, but that just happened a few months ago. And it takes time to write software, test it with your products, re-write your product so it will use that new driver, etc. Plus you have to bring in a legal team to make sure that Microsoft is actually on the up and up and isn't setting up some way to come back after you later down the road.

The driver has been written years ago, it just wasn't distributed by default. Now that it's been mainlined, you can be sure it's been vetted by both programmers and a legal team.
But yes, Synology will need some to kick the tires of the newer kernels.

For bonus points, I think after the driver was included, another one has been submitted to replace it.