I suppose they have plenty of corporate customers still, companies that are too small for their own proper servers (self managed or hosted) but who do want some central storage and more importantly the tech support that comes with it. But those would just as likely go to Dell for all their requirements.
A few months ago I realized I'd outgrown it so I looked into the next Synology solutions, and all I saw were overpriced, outdated hardware that weren't worth DSM's ease of use. Got Ubiquiti's UNAS with a couple of HDDs, a Beelink mini PC, and for a little time and roughly the same budget of a DS, got something far superior in specs and basically matching in ease of use.
Also, for all server needs I’m running a Raspberry Pi at a single digit fraction of the ongoing power use of my Synology, and it just no longer makes sense to have this weird rare platform as my base when I could just be running things on Debian and systemd.
More philosophically, life got busy, and I no longer have the mental capacity and willingness to maintain something like a Synology. The only large content I back up are my family’s photos and I just pay Apple for iCloud monthly, I consider that to be money well spent.
I use iCloud Photos for my photos, so I don’t have to manage storage on my phone, while always having access to everything. I quite like it.
I also have a Synology NAS for other things.
A little voice in the back of my mind is telling me to also backup my photos to the NAS, because I have no idea how Apple is backing things up. I might be willing to pay for 3 copies for just my photos, but is Apple going to do that for all users of iCloud without advertising it? Probably not.
I’m not sure the best way to go about doing an initial backup to the NAS, or the ongoing changes. I think it also gets a bit messy with Live Photos… which is another reason why iCloud Photos is so appealing, if it can be fully trusted.
That means, at least for Google and AWS, that your data is being stored with redundancy not only in a single data center, but in multiple data centers, so that if one data center completely vanishes, your data will still be available.
That being said, it's always good to make a local backup. I use a tool called Parachute Backup (https://parachuteapps.com) on my Mac to automatically export photos from Apple Photos to my NAS. It also works on "iCloud optimized storage", so it won't just backup size optimized photos.
I've tested it against Photosync (https://www.photosync-app.com/home) as well as a manual export of unmodified originals, and in a library consisting of 180k photos and videos, I had 300 compare errors, most of which were Live Photos, that are not exported identically.
Both Parachute and Photosync offers the ability to export unmodified originals along with AAE files, so that if you need to rebuild your Apple Photos library, everything including undo history is preserved (AAE files contains edits).
Tools like Synology Photos and Immich (and more) only exports the "latest" version, whatever that may be, meaning if you have edited the photo on your phone, that edited version is exported, and if you later restore from your NAS backup, there is no undo history. In other words, they apply the edits in a destructive way.
For backing up from the NAS to another location I use Arq Backup (https://www.arqbackup.com), which also supports backing up iCloud Drive files that are cloud only.
I do have my NAS backed up to Synology’s cloud backup service. I don’t love it, and it seems expensive, but it was easy to setup at the time and gave me some peace of mind for that data. The big issue I see is that I feel like I’d be stuck buying another Synology to restore of my current one fails.
Do you use iCloud optimized storage, or do you download originals to your machine ? Kopia only backs up what it can see, and in case of iCloud optimized storage, it only backs up size optimized miniatures and not the original files.
Second, I haven’t researched this, but iPhoto used resource forks and extended attributes quite extensively for its library, and if the same is true for Apple Photos, Kopia will not pick up those, but Arq will. That was the very feature that caused me to purchase Arq all those years ago.
Arq wins on system integration. It supports waking the machine from sleep at backup time, keeping it awake while backing up, materializing cloud only files, and many other "nice to have" things.
Kopia however wins on efficency and speed. The same ~3TB backup (incremental) done with Kopia and Arq here finishes in 3-5 minutes with Kopia, and 45 minutes with Arq, and Kopia supports deduplication across multiple clients, meaning if you backup your family photo library from multiple locations, Kopia will only store it once.
In any case, even Apple doesn't recommend backing up Apple Photos libraries, and instead recommend exporting the photos, which is what i do with Parachute.
https://www.arqbackup.com/documentation/arq7/English.lproj/s...
Luckily, Apple also provides a pretty easy backup path that lets you have a local copy, if you have a Mac and a NAS:
- setup your Mac’s photos app and iCloud to download everything locally
- setup Time Machine backups from your Mac to a NAS
That’s it. You get 3-2-1 (your Mac, iCloud, and your NAS) and can get a copy of your data even if your Apple ID gets locked out.
Standard disclaimer, only the Time Machine copy is a true backup (ex if you delete a file by mistake, only Time Machine can help you restore it; iCloud is a sync, not a backup). That said, for me personally, this scheme (local copy + cloud copy + NAS backup via Time Machine) takes basically 0 work to maintain once setup and gives me peace of mind.
While not the biggest library, it’s approaching the point where I’d need to start buying upgraded storage on any new Mac I buy, or use external storage for my Photos library. One of the things I like about iCloud Photos is my computer doesn’t need much local storage, Photos will manage it, downloading full res images on demand and purging them as needed.
I’d want a backup solution that is optimized for this, to allow for backups of the originals, without having to have them all downloaded all the time.
The family one is somewhere around 759gb. Having this stored locally fills a decent size drive so it needs to be on network storage. Macs don’t love doing this, and somehow it’s difficult to keep a file share mounted 100% of the time on macOS (though it’s 100% reliable on an Ubuntu vm hosted on that same mac).
I concocted a vile script to download iCloud Photos and then save them to a Synology.
I’m looking hard at UGreen or Ubiquiti do my next NAS. The Synology thing where you can put same or larger drives in the array is probably the only bit I’d miss at this point.
It works on my LAN, but also over my site to site VPN from my summerhouse, as well as my road warrior wireguard VPN.
For a long time, I had a Mac mini running 24/7, where each user was logged in (via Remote Desktop), and that would synchronize photos to an external drive, and the Mac would then make backups (via Arq) to my NAS as well as a remote location.
I don’t count the Mac copy in my 3-2-1 as it is basically sync (each side, iCloud and Mac, are sync), and without versioning, ie APFS snapshots, if one side goes bad, so does the other.
I’ve since switched to using Parachute for day to day backups, and every ~6 months I make a manual full export of the photo library in case Parachute missed something.
So maybe don't fully trust it.
The second top level comment also suggests that this the cameras manual suggests the camera itself might be corrupting things.
Looking at it further though, you're right, this probably wasn't apple's fault.
I'm more or less in the same situation.
I no longer use a NAS for my "daily driver", and as such it made sense to skip Synology and instead go for the cheaper option, which in my case was the UNAS Pro (only model available at the time).
Next to it sits an "old" Mac Mini M1, which hosts my Plex server, with storage provided by the UNAS over 10Gbps ethernet.
Everything else i might at some point in time have used the Synology for, has instead been delegated to iCloud. Documents, photos, and everything in between is stored there, and each laptop makes a backup with Arq backup to the NAS as well as another cloud provider.
My NAS today is literally just an advanced USB drive attached to a server, and that was also part of my considerations at the time, just getting a DAS and plugging that into the Mac Mini M1, but ultimately the UNAS Pro (with 10Gbps networking) was cheaper than a Thunderbolt DAS, and i already had a switch capable of 10Gbps.
I made a similar "journey" some years back, where i removed pretty much everything cabled from the network, and instead moved everything to WiFi, and instead doubling down on providing "the best" wifi experience i could, which today means WiFi 7 with 2.5Gbps uplinks, hence the 10Gbps switch.
My network is 100% private. I don't expose ports to the internet, meaning maintenance is no longer a "must do" task. The only access is via Wireguard, which can be done with an always on profile that routes traffic for that specific subnet, but more realistically is mostly never used. The most remote streaming is done via a site to site VPN from my summerhouse to my house, where i can stream Plex over.
Then it stopped booting and the light just blinked -> it happened to be close to Black Friday and I had been thinking about moving to a bespoke build with Unraid for a while. Pulled the trigger and dropped some cash on the problem.
Finally I found out the issue was a bad PSU: it kinda-sorta fails, a common problem, just enough to start booting the system but it fails when all the drives start up.
Bought a 3rd party PSU from Amazon and now it's my offsite backup.
Sure I can't run apps on it, but how much do people really run apps on their synology vs just use it as a basic NAS to begin with? I never found any of the apps really all that great to begin with. The only one I kinda liked was synology sync but really don't need something like that with freesync.
You can get basic network storage more or less anywhere, for much cheaper, so in my mind apps and the polished GUI + integration are the only reason you would even consider Synology unless you're already locked in. Maybe technical support contracts at the higher end, but you can get that, done better, from other vendors too.
The base software is modified Debian Bookworm and it's been stable and pleasant to use.
They need to do something about it urgently.
Totally. Whenever a company runs out of ideas they pull BS like this to increase profits.
It's a NAS. It just needs to be reliable.
Synology has marketed their NAS boxes as “application servers”, replacing Google Drive/Dropbox/Whatever, as well as various photo management solutions, office suite, instant messaging, mail server, virtual machine host, docker host, and much more.
In theory they’re able to do all that, but out of the box they’re barely able to run Synology Drive (Google Drive replacement) and Synology Photos at the same time, and requires a RAM upgrade to perform.
Even with upgraded RAM, you’re still looking at a low powered processor that’s a decade old. Yes, it will run home assistant and Pihole / Adguard home just fine, and probably also Vaultwarden and others. It also runs the entire *arr stack with Plex/Emby/Jellyfin on top (though they’ve removed transcoding and hardware acceleration despite the CPU being capable).
And I guess that keeps a lot of users happy. It does “what they want” in a fire & forget solution. Set it up, toss it in a closet, and stop worrying.
If only their apps weren’t half baked. Photos runs well, rarely stops working, but doesn’t backup photos as much as it intends to replace whatever photo management solution you’re using today. Sadly their solution doesn’t backup originals but only edited versions, and their own software doesn’t support editing. Their “AI” features are extremely limited (probably due to lack of CPU/GPU).
Drive works, but it’s oh so slow. I can synchronize my entire iCloud contents locally faster than Synology Drive can upload it over LAN.
The list goes on. Their apps do the absolute minimum needed to be usable, and once they’ve reached that stage they rarely update them except to fix bugs.
They have things with two slots, which I guess is good enough for raid 1, but those models also have HDD bays, which wastes space in network closets.
I’d expect them to have something with 4-8 incredibly well-cooled m.2 slots by now. The nic is only 2.5G, so the slots wouldn’t need to be full speed.
I’m happy with my ancient 2TB synology NAS, but it’s bigger, slower, noisier and hotter than my mini-pc, which also has two (toasty) nvme slots.
Well, Jellyfin. Plex pulled a Slymology long ago.
Synology has been resting on the laurels for years. They had a "hit" with DSM 6, then did mostly nothing for a decade, released DSM 7, and again, nothing but minor things since. On the hardware side of things, they're mostly still using decade old hardware, but i guess that matches the Linux kernel they're using, which was also EOL close to a decade ago.
Meanwhile the NAS market has been flooded by viable alternatives with better hardware, equal or better software, and usually cheaper. UGREEN and others have released more or less drop in replacements, and Ubiquiti released the UNAS line, and while it doesn't work as an application server, will run around circles any similarly specced (drive wise) Synology in raw file transfer performance, for half the price.
I'm guessing the 3rd party drive removal was simply just the final push that caused many people to switch to something else. Transcoding removal was likely also a big driver, as many people also use their Synology NAS as a Plex server.