• 0
GaryM

Why use DSM 6 & up?

Question

I have set up a number of XPEnology NAS unit recently. I've done this with ESXi 6.0, LSI HBA in pass-through mode with one 2TB and 2 1TB HDs for testing.

I've found that DSM 5.2-5967 works a treat. The file transfer through the network average: write 104 Mbytes/s and the reads 114 Mbytes/s. These are slightly better than the throughput I get with my FreeNAS and OmniOS based NAS units. The beauty of XPEnology 5.2 aside from great speed, is being able to add drives of any size to the array as more space is needed and unused older, smaller or larger drives turn up.

I've been using ZFS for about 5 years now. I've done things to my disks that a raid 5 or 6 would not have tolerated, so for that data, ZFS all the way. For the less important stuff DSM 5.2 looks really good, and I like the simplicity of using it, but there is something better on the block, DSM 6! Or so we are told.

I've just been playing with DSM 6.0.2-8451. Got it set up in VM just like, identical to, 5.2 as far as the VM components. This is one of the joys of using ESXi, multiple computers in one physical box and very fine control over all the parts, hardware and software. The good parts: btrfs, next best to ZFS right now? only time will tell. We can add HDs to the array, we'll see, should be able to. SHR? well it seems we are Sh** out of luck if you want to set up a fresh DSM 6* NAS. So we now have one less reason to use Ver 6's of DSM. My trials also show that the network throughput in DSM 6.0.2 is 69% of what 5.2 provides. Write at 71 Mbytes/s, reads at 74 Mbytes/s. Remember same hardware and software other than the DSM versions and btrfs vs SHR both single redundancy.

 

The questions: If anyone wants to setup a simple noncritical data NAS, why would they use DSM 6 and up or would one use DSM 5.2 until it fails? or would one use FreeNAS, NAS4Free or OmniOS with napp-it as GUI, as these are better alternatives than DSM 6.

I enjoyed playing with DSM in all it's flavours, so for NAS #3 I'll give DSM 5.2 a chance to prove it's worth, at least until I can test run FreeNAS 10, correction that's now FreeNAS Corral.

If nothing else, have fun doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

For me DSM6 was a must have because of the enhanced Docker support. The management UI for Docker is kind of crippled compared to other management solutions, but is sufficient for most use cases. As a matter of fact it throws away some of the container options, like --device or --hostname. Though, It convers most use cases with a very comfortable ui.

 

I am using two ESXi Hosts with DSM 6.0.2 in vms with lsi-controllers in path thru mode with 4disks each in shr1.

Speed between both boxes is somewhere between 75-100MB/s. Wired clients can get up to 110MB/s.

 

By default shr is disabled in the settings, but the feature can be re-enabled easily.

 

Other than the docker stuff, there is (at least for me) no other reason to use DSM6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@haydibe, you can manage docker fully through CLI and use all options. However, if you do that, don't touch the GUI again or it will mess things up.

 

 

I haven't upgraded to DSM6 yet, but I will because of already mentioned updated Docker and official packages that are only being updated for the last DSM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Actually, I do most things using docker-compose. The UI does not mess up containers, unless you use parameters that are not supported by the UI (like --device). The configuration gets "normalized" from the UI at latest during the next reboot anyway!

 

The DSM6 Docker-Package includes docker-compose, which it does not for DSM5.2.

It can be installed manually. Though, an environment variable is required to set the docker host version to permit compatibility.

 

Actualy the usp for me to update to DSM6 was the support for Docker networks, including network=host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
For me DSM6 was a must have because of the enhanced Docker support. The management UI for Docker is kind of crippled compared to other management solutions, but is sufficient for most use cases. As a matter of fact it throws away some of the container options, like --device or --hostname. Though, It convers most use cases with a very comfortable ui.

 

I am using two ESXi Hosts with DSM 6.0.2 in vms with lsi-controllers in path thru mode with 4disks each in shr1.

Speed between both boxes is somewhere between 75-100MB/s. Wired clients can get up to 110MB/s.

 

By default shr is disabled in the settings, but the feature can be re-enabled easily.

 

Other than the docker stuff, there is (at least for me) no other reason to use DSM6.

 

I have no idea what docker is, so I guess I don't need it? I like having files of all sizes move at least around the 90 Mbyte/s rate, if only to save time and because they can and should. I really like being able to expand a volume or a dataset, losing that would be a deal breaker for me. I will have to ask my friend google about re-enabling SHR on a fresh install with newly cleaned disks. Good thing I didn't spend my "first born" on a new Synology box only to find good things went missing. Standard raid is no carrot on a stick for me.

I would like DSM 6 to work, if only because its updated software and hopefully they didn't break something.

I just tried FreeNAS Corral and I'm inclined to use DSM 5.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Batch copying smaller files will result in an avagerage speed far below 90MB/s. For each file the block position on the harddisk needs to be determined and the head needs to be positioned on that block before any data can be read. Naturaly this will be slower than reading a large file sequentialy where this operation happens only once.

 

Regarding SHR in DSM6, you might want to take a look at this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29246

 

Using the forum search is more usefull than involving "google-consulting" when it comes to "DSM with bootloader" related topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

"The beauty of XPEnology 5.2 aside from great speed, is being able to add drives of any size to the array as more space is needed and unused older, smaller or larger drives turn up."

 

Not completely correct. You can never add a disk that is smaller than the smallest original member of the SHR. If you create an SHR volume with 3 drives (3TB, 4TB, 5TB), you can never add anything smaller than a 3TB drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now