similar to: gluster + synology

In theory, you can run GlusterFS on a Synology box, as it is "just a Linux box". In practice, you might be the first person to ever try it. On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Ben Mabey <ben.mabey at recursionpharma.com> wrote: > Hi, > Does anyone have any experience of using Synology NAS servers as bricks in > a gluster setup? The ops team at my work prefers Synology

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Alex Chekholko <alex at calicolabs.com> wrote: > In theory, you can run GlusterFS on a Synology box, as it is "just a Linux > box". In practice, you might be the first person to ever try it. > Not sure if this would be the first attempt. Synology seems to bundle glusterfs in some form [1]. Regards, Vijay [1]

Hi everyone, My PC don't have an integrated WLAN card, so I bought an USB WIFI device which use the MediaTek MT7601U chip(image 'dongle.jpg'). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My PC specification- OS = CentOS 7.8.2003. Processor = AMD Ryzen 5 1600. Mother-Board = GA-Gigabyte A320M-S2H

Hi all, On the gluster website it links to a page of consultants that 404s: https://www.gluster.org/consultants/ <https://www.gluster.org/consultants/> Does anyone know of an actual list of consultants that offer gluster support? Or are there any on this mailing list? Thanks, Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi all, I?m trying out gluster by following the Quick Start guide on two fresh installs of Ubuntu 16.04. One one node I was able to install and start gluster just fine. One the other node I am running into the following: $ sudo service glusterd start Job for glusterd.service failed because the control process exited with error code. See "systemctl status glusterd.service" and

Hi, to all of you which are using Synology NAS systems. With SMB-Service 4.15.9-0631 no longer shares are accessible via domain group rights from a Samba 4.17.7 domain. It seems the same error described in the following mail trails: "No longer access to shares after upgrade to 4.17.3" "File server joined to a samba domain accessed by windows 10-11 clients, works via ip no via

I have had many discussions with Synology about this and other attitudes they have been displaying in the last few years. Also if you log into their NAS, using ssh and take a look at some of the comments that have been added into the "ETC" configs, it makes it very clear. They have also been removing any posts relating to methods or help given in the forums that relate to SAMBA ,

So I finally got a test in after I changed my RPi to the master and everything else (including my Synology) to slaves.  Before I did that though, I timed the shutdown of my Synology since it is the slowest slave to shutdown.  It took 40 seconds to shutdown, so I changed HOSTSYNC in upsmon.conf on the master (“Proton”) to 60.  I then did a test ("sudo upsmon -c fsd”). The slaves shutdown, then

Larry, I have not edited a single file, including anything to do with NUT, on the Synology via ssh.... ever. How is yours configured in the UI? Do you have it set to go into safe mode after a certain number minutes? Earlier, I was just copying and pasting the contents of some files to Roger but did not change anything. -- Todd Benivegna // todd at benivegna.com On Aug 14, 2020, 8:16 AM -0400,

Hi Rowland, to be clear, I'm completely your opinion. They had a running 4.15.9(-0619, their own build number), which was a Beta, and the released version (-0632) didn't worked. So for me it's obvious, too. I can bring the released version to run with a library from their beta version: libidmap-samba4.so. The reason for this as they wrote: "A key difference between SMB

Hi Travis, I know, but this is now the released version (4.15.9-0919 beta > 4.15.9-0631), see the history page for SMB-Service: https://www.synology.com/en-us/releaseNote/SMBService?model=DS918%2B#7_x_series With the beta version it still works. But we can't stay on the beta forever I think. Regards Ingo https://github.com/WAdama Travis Wenks via samba schrieb am 13.04.2023 um 21:29:

On 20/06/2023 18:30, Ingo Asche via samba wrote: > Hi Rowland, > > to be clear, I'm completely your opinion. > > They had a running 4.15.9(-0619, their own build number), which was a > Beta, and the released version (-0632) didn't worked. So for me it's > obvious, too. > > I can bring the released version to run with a library from their beta >

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Todd Benivegna wrote: > https://forum.synology.com/enu/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=73960&hilit=ups+slave  > > I have the latest version of the Windows port of NUT (A UPS management package) installed on my Windows 7 machine. The UPS I am using is a > very old APC BK650M which is controlled and sends its status via a special serial cable to the Windows

The only way I have found to fix that is to enable the beta updates in plugins and install the beta version of samba on the Synology. Thank you, Travis Wenks Rose City Solutions Owner [image: Rose City Skyline Logo] * Phone *503.821.7000 <3464881845> * Website *rosecitysolutions.com <https://rosecitysolutions.com> * Email * travis at rosecitysolutions.com On Thu, Apr 13, 2023

Hi! I tried these two Dockers on Synology nas: https://github.com/JensErat/docker-tinc/ https://github.com/bys-control/docker-tinc For testing i set up a master Windows machine and a client one with also Windows. Connection between of them Works. So no i try to add a Synology NAS, so i can do remote backup. But i cannot set up any connection between the Docker container and master Windows

On 20/06/2023 14:11, Ingo Asche via samba wrote: > Hi All, > > the Synology support is claiming this bug is the reason for the access > problems via hostname (Kerberos): > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14213 > > These log entries in log.wb-ADNAME are given as evidence: > > ../../source3/winbindd/winbindd_msrpc.c:307: [2023/06/14 > 22:13:42.913399,

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020, Todd Benivegna wrote: > synoups: https://hastebin.com/xexafofiha.bash Wow! What a mess. It looks as if Synology wanted to write their own "NUT", but decided it would be easier to put their ideas in a script when they saw they could use upssched.conf to call it. NUT intends such a script for timer management. Synology use it for general system management.

Hi All, the Synology support is claiming this bug is the reason for the access problems via hostname (Kerberos): https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14213 These log entries in log.wb-ADNAME are given as evidence: ../../source3/winbindd/winbindd_msrpc.c:307: [2023/06/14 22:13:42.913399, winbind 3, pid=10150] msrpc_sid_to_name msrpc_sid_to_name: S-1-18-1 f?r Dom?ne ADNAME

Rowland Penny via samba schrieb am 20.06.2023 um 21:01: > Try adding to the bug report. Would that be ok even it's happening on a Synology? Just don't want to mess around. > I don't think that it is their fault, but we will never know, I don't > think we will ever see what modifications they have made to the Samba > code. However, you do not seem to get the problem

Roger, I just ran a manual test, killing power and see what happens.  I set the Synology “Time before DiskStation goes into Safe mode” to 5 minutes so I didn’t have to wait like an hour until it powered down.  Here is the log: https://hastebin.com/ovuwilufeb.sql Everything appeared to be normal; the servers powered off and the Synology went into safe mode.  Power was then cut to the Synology