GaryM

- Outcome of the update: SUCCESSFUL - DSM version prior update: DSM 6.1.6 15266 - Loader version and model: JUN'S LOADER v1.02b - DS3615xs - Using custom extra.lzma: NO - Installation type: ESXi 6.0.0 AMD Opteron 4284 - Additional comments: Clean update and 2 min for the reboot

Outcome of the update: UNSUCCESSFUL - DSM version prior update: DSM 6.1.5-15254 Update 1 - Loader version and model: JUN'S LOADER v1.02b - DS3617xs - Using custom extra.lzma: NO - Installation type: VM (ESXi 6.0) AMD CPU 4284 - Additional comments: DSM not found on lan after auto update, manual update, or a clean install of 6.1.6. Reinstalled 6.1.5 DS3671xs, all is now Good. Wanted to see if DS3615 had the same problem so I did a fresh install of DSM 6.1.5-15254 with the above loader for DS3615xs, works well, then did a manual update to DSM 6.1.6 with no problems. For me this shows I now have to use DS3615xs going forward.

You read my findings, have your test results been the same as mine?

AMD Opteron ESXi 6.0 M1015 HBA Synoboot 1.02b DS3617 from DSM 6.1.3-15152 Update 3 to Update 4 Updated very well via Synology Control Panel menu. Took 2 minutes of the 10. Rebooted itself back to a running system only needing a regular log in.

well super member, if you were to read the threads you would have found your answer without making a new thread. This is the biggest problem with this forum, people want to get quick answers without reading. As a result there are thousands of threads that are useless and a waste of time for people who do read to wade through. It!s time the moderators delete all but a dozen threads of value, so the information people want can be found. I do see why you don!t want to waste your time reading this mostly outdated garbage. sorry.

Set the motherboard nic up for access to DSM as a maintenance only IP. Use all other ports for play or data. If you mess us the data config you can fix things by access via your normal DSM IP.

You are right on this one. I have a cisco SG200-08 and I won't bother using it for this because with a simple 2 nic bond in DSM3617xs I upload at 105 Mbytes/s and download at 115 Mbytes/s, fast enough for what I want to do. But, if time is money, then one has to spend money in the right place.

You must have one of these HP cards to know it's an 82571EB chipset. Thanks for taking the time to tell me. I use the Intel version of this 4 port board in my Sophos firewall and have no problems with throughput at all. Looks like someone should verify that the nic card works in another system, unless you know he's done that too.

So you really are at 100 mega bits/s and not just careless with your upper case? sorry. I have learned long ago that if you have a choice, only use Intel or Intel chipset network cards.

Yes 100 mb (mega bits) is very slow. You should be getting about 100 MB/s (mega bytes) write and higher reads. You should try a GB nic. and get about 8 times better throughput.

Something else to think about, a lagg from the xpenology box to cisco is great, but have you thought about the lagg from your computer to the cisco switch? If you want throughput all lanes need to be fast and wide or your NAS will have throughput capacity from multiple machines but not from only one.

Make sure you have a backup of your data. Then anything is fine, even a full install.

Are you willing to learn to use ESXi, does your CPU and motherboard support Vt-d, will your SAS/SATA controller pass through to a VM the way you expect. Google is your friend, see if what you have will work. Intel, AMD, VMware and your hardware makers all have what you need to know. Remember to do it right, unlike many who are to lazy.

Why, because that is the proper way of doing it, pass it through so the software has full control. If you are going to use ESXi, learn about it as well. When you have to replace a HD you will be happy you did it right. Your motherboard and cpu both have to support Vt-d. Check at ark.intel.com for your cpu and check your BIOS for a Vt-d switch or support.

This method worked for me with ESXi 6.0. Upgrading in ESXi doesn't work as has been said. This is the easiest way to get a running DSM 6.1.2 xpenology system in ESXi and move your data over safely.

Update to U4 is safe. Works for me!

Why not do both, Xpenology with BTRFS+ SHR for the various sizes of odd disks and Freenas for the top security of data via ZFS. That is the benefit of using ESXi and VMs. Run any number of apps well and safely.

Why not do both, Xpenology with BTRFS+ SHR for the various sizes of odd disks and Freenas for the top security of data via ZFS. That is the benefit of using ESXi and VMs. Run any number of apps well and safely.

The key part of using a NAS, remember what a Synology box is?, is storing your data & without putting your box or data in danger. All the other software or garbage attached can be accomplished in any number of other ways. Secure your data first! The problem is Synology wants profits to grow so they have to dream up the next thing that a user might want and they just keep adding to the pile. If you run Xpenology in an ESXi VM, keep it as a NAS, then run all the other stuff in VMs safely.

First try ESXi, ver 5.5, 6.0, or I won't 6.x, and find out if you can run "it". Google is your friend.

If one is using server grade hardware, has more than what's needed for DSM in ram and CPU, has a HBA to connect to hard drives, then all that would be a waste just to run DSM. By using ESXi which is Vmware, one can make full use of all the hardware one has. ESXi gives one full control of the resources that a Virtual Machine has. For DSM, it makes it very easy to create and install a running session of DSM. Or even multiple sessions of DSM. I find that in many cases software runs better in a VM than bare metal.

If you are going to use ESXI you should be passing the controller through to the VM and let DSM handle the drives directly. If you use an expander, it might work for sata drives but is not recomended unless you, use SAS drives. What is your data worth to you?

If you do some system testing you will probably find that your current use of a cache ssd is also a waste. DSM Doesn't even use large amounts of memory the way you might expect, so there can be another waste. Test your system remove the ssd cache and test again. I have found no value is a ssd cache and any memory greater than 8 Gb.

I believe he is asking about running Xpenology in an ESXi VM vs bare metal. One would be insane to use the built in virtualization built into Xpenology vs VMware or other well developed methods, unless it's, just to try it. Who would use Xpenology for production? I would fire you for even suggesting that! Now that said, I run Xpenology in an ESXi 6.0 VM, and it runs very well and I will not run it bare metal, but for my Sophos firewall I run it bare metal, save lots of problems when you play with servers and VM's. The only reason I use Xpenology is for hobby use and because of SHR. It makes the best use of old odd sized hard drives. For any other important storage I use ZFS, whether it is freenas, nas4free or omnios & napp-it.

Did a control panel update from DSM6.1.1-15101-1 to update 2, on an ESXi6.0 VM. Working well after a day and a half running the update.