• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ed_co last won the day on December 2 2018

ed_co had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About ed_co

  • Rank
    Regular Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I am very sorry for the delay. Find here the command line result: As you can see is incorrect (8 processors are shown instead of 12). Find here the correct info for the i7 8700 processor: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/es/es/ark/products/126686/intel-core-i7-8700-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-60-ghz.html
  2. +1 Number of threads of the i7 8700 is incorrect!! I guess the calculation is wrong... If the owner of the script is about to support the 6.2.2-24922 version, could as well fix the bug... Even though it is really good to see your processor and not the crappy celeron one...
  3. Hello, This is mine: "activated_codec":["h264_dec","h264_enc","mpeg4part2_dec","aac_dec","aac_enc","vc1_dec","vc1_enc","hevc_dec","ac3_dec"] This is the original poster list: "activated_codec":["hevc_dec","h264_dec","h264_enc","mpeg4part2_dec","ac3_dec","vc1_dec","vc1_enc","aac_dec","aac_enc","mpeg4part2_enc"] mpeg4part2_enc is missing in mine... WEIRD!!
  4. I couldn't make plex work, but jellyfin... I don't know how... Could you please let me know briefly... I am doing something wrong, for sure... In the log it says: Critical: libusb_init failed Should be great a guide of good practices using docker, as I see potential issues, just for misconfiguring it... could you please point out to a good place?
  5. - Outcome of the update: SUCCESSFUL - DSM version prior update: DSM 6.2.1-23824 Update 2 - Loader version and model: Jun's Loader v1.04b - DS918+ - Using custom extra.lzma: NO - Installation type: BAREMETAL, Motherboard: Asrock H370M-ITX/ac, i3-8400, 32Gb
  6. @flyride, Is there any nice guide to install them with docker. I mean, to be able to use it the container correctly and all the configuration that needs to be done... Thanks!!
  7. @flyride sorry for my lack of knowledge, is it just virtualization method? does it have any disadvantages, like performance?
  8. As I said, I didn't configure the DSM in my 5x8tb disks. I was waiting to decide if getting or not the SSD cache, for the mess of moving the disks into both SATA controllers afterwards. But now, I think that I am pretty much convinced: I will start with the RAID5, and put all my stuff inside, and start taking a look how it performs, and if it is nice, I will just leave it as is. If not, will try to improve it in the future. Thanks for your explanations, they were really clear and helpful!!
  9. @flyrideI mean, just using one SSD for a read-only cache, not need of 2 in RAID...
  10. @flyride please take a look in my previous post!! Cheers EDIT: after seen in several threads in reddit about what you told me about SSD cache. It looks like the best options to speed up things is with just SSD read only..., it speeds that system up without data risk comprimisses... what do you think?
  11. Fair enough, I will take a look. I guess you are referring it is not just a problem with xpenology, but synology original NAS's they have that problem too (the ones with the possibility to add a SSD cache, I mean), right? Here, I am not agree, the adapter is a M.2 e-key (which is now the WIFI connector for motheboards, don't get confused to B+M key, which is used just for SSD). Both are very different even in speed. But even though, the only bandwidth you have to consider here is the one of mini PCIe (which is the SATA card, and you should remember there are 4 ports to share with) here... which is at least half (1x) of M.2 e-key (2x). Don't have SSD right now to try with... I didn't even configure the RAID in synology yet (I am using to test another spare drive to test with in which I have DSM 6.2.1 installed). This is what is all about, decide how to configure it, to don't mess anything up for now and the future... I talked with the guy, and he did, and all went fine. He didn't gave me any numbers though. Will try to talk with him. Which is HIGHLY appreciated buddy!! I just want to the things right, I don't want to realize in some months that I did the things wrong, and 1) get attached with something with limitations I can't change easily, 2) have a really hard time to improve it afterwards, because I chose wrong at the beginning. Thanks!!
  12. @flyride, first of all, thanks for your info. I will try to clarify some things first. First my rigs details (what I already HAVE): - i5 8400 6 core processor - H370M-ITX/ac with 6 SATA card - 32gb RAM DDR4 - Controller SYBA SI-MPE40125 4 SATA ports -with Marvell 88SE9215 controller- (removing the wifi card, and putting this instead, it works good). So no M.2 controller, or whatever you were talking... This wasn't what I said. This is the one I am using, and I will use in the future. It is already installed via M.2 e-key to mini pic-e adapter). This Marvell is known to have not the best performance for SSD, that's why I asked. - 3 x Seagate IronWolf 8Tb - 2 x WD 8Tb (WD80EZAZ) So your replies: 1) That's why I was planning to do RAID 1 (mirror) with 2 SATA SSD, to avoid corruption. 2) Not applicable... I am not planning get one of this. 3) There is no other way to expand. And 6 SATA ports now is enough, but not in the future. There are other possibilities with other controllers though. So, summarising you think doesn't worth it the SSD cache. Curious, I thought this will improve a lot the performance of the NAS. Here one example. Thanks!!
  13. @flyride, apart for the information of the previous post, I want to clarify what I am trying to do. I am about to do the setup (with 5x 8Tb HDD: 3 x Seagate and 2x WD), so I didn't yet, and just asked because I have planned (not now) to add a SSD cache (2 disk in RAID 0), and if I connect everything in the same controller (and not using the second one, meaning, I don't need even to connect this controller right now) then if I want to change, I was wondering if I could have any trouble afterwards... so what I am proposing is this: HDD1 TO SATA1_1 HDD2 TO SATA1_2 ... HDD5 TO SATA1_5 and not even connect the second SATA controller. The second option is, to connect: HDD1 TO SATA1_3 HDD2 TO SATA1_4 HDD3 TO SATA1_5 HDD4 TO SATA1_6 HDD5 TO SATA2_1 And save space directly to for SSD1 and SSD1 in SATA1_1, and SATA1_2, respectively. What do you think what is better? Thanks!!