![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8286e071-7449-4413-a084-1eb5242e2cf4.png)
The synology.com account, not the NAS account
The synology.com account, not the NAS account
Tailscale, cloudflared tunnels, nebula
I was surprised too. But a lot of the current NAS devices basically operate as hosting devices. It makes sense the hard drives are there the power is there the RAM is there the CPU is there. So for the low intensity containers and VMs you want to run like a Plex server, or DNS server, or tail scale it’s all right there
At this point, it might be easier just to buy a supported UPS. I’m glad the backups 850 is working. It’s a good data point
I followed your advice, and went through the settings, and try to enable the USB device. But it’s just not detected.
Oh the synology drive is a file system syncing utility, it provides local caching of a remote file system and then syncs the files back. It’s not the software that shuts down the computer
Right now when updates get applied to the NAS, if it gets powered off during the update window that would be really bad and inconvenient require manual intervention.
In memory caching, and the Amy cashing, well I think the file system would almost certainly be in a consistent state, you might lose data in flight if you’re not careful.
The real problem, that I need an nas for, is not the loss of some data, it’s when the storms hit and there’s flooding, the power can go up and down and cycle quite rapidly. And that’s really bad for sensitive hardware like hard disks. So I want the NAS to shut off when the power starts getting bad, and not turn on for a really long time but still turn on automatically when things stabilize
Because this device runs a bunch of VMs and containers as well closing down so that all of those rights get flushed is good practice
AND their Synology drive client requires administrative permission to install on Mac OS, and on Windows. Why? Why…
Well I’m ranting about this process, I have other complaints.
Synology.com - if you want to add a second factor to your account, requires a phone number to be the master factor, in case you lose your second factor. So if you’re worried about Sim jacking, or even just not having a consistent phone number for the lifetime of the deployment, it’s kind of a terrible practice. There’s no way to unlink all phone numbers from an account, you can only replace them with a new phone number.
Synology does actually support hardware USB keys, but only as a secondary factor behind SMS… Ai ya.
I’m not the OP, but you can get 8TiB SSDs, they are spendy, but doable, no spinning disks required, the benefit of using a nas based solution is you can put a bunch of cheap SSDs in
Not directly an answer, but the CRT guy has a series of industrial computers for different environments, which could provide inspiration.
Some of them have direct DC inputs, some have anti-vibration designs, some have massive passive cooling!
The little guys series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP3aKEG79DM&list=PLec1d3OBbZ8LGjvbb0GQwlQxWXmI2PA88
I think a Synology box would work for you, or a TrueNas design - you could just build out one of their motherboards in your own itx case. These are good, robust, anti-vibration, mobile low power cpus, hardware selected for robustness and minimum heat. Stick it in a cupboard and forget about it, they run containers, and vms.
Ipv6
Depending on your gateway, you may be able to override the DNS settings for a few domains that you use internally
Ipmi interface?
Wow. Where is all this hate coming from?
People like to experiment, and tinker, and try things in their home lab, that would scale up in a business. Just to prove they can do it. That’s innovation. We should celebrate it. Not quash people
Okay. Do you want to debug your situation?
What’s the operating system of the host? What’s the hardware in the host?
What’s the operating system in the client? What’s the hardware in the client?
What does the network look like between the two? Including every piece of cable, and switch?
Do you get sufficient experience if you’re just streaming a single monitor instead of multiple monitors?
Remember the original poster here, was talking about running their own self-hosted GPU VM. So they’re not paying anybody else for the privilege of using their hardware
I personally stream with moonlight on my own network. Have no issues it’s just like being on the computer from my perspective.
If it doesn’t work for you Fair enough, but it can work for other people, and I think the original posters idea makes sense. They should absolutely run a GPU VM cluster, and have fun with it and it would be totally usable
Fair enough. If you know it doesn’t work for your use case that’s fine.
As demonstrated elsewhere in this discussion, GPU HEVC encoding only requires 10ms of extra latency, then it can transit over fiber optic networking at very low latency.
Many GPUs have HEVC decoders on board., including cell phones. Most newer Intel and AMD CPUs actually have an HEVC decoder pipeline as well.
I don’t think anybody’s saying a self-hosted GPU VM is for everybody, but it does make sense for a lot of use cases. And that’s where I think our schism is coming from.
As far as the $2,000 transducer to fiber… it’s doing the same exact thing, just more specialized equipment maybe a little bit lower latency.
Can you define what acceptable latency would be?
local network ping (like corporate networks) 1-2ms
Encoding and decoding delay 10-15ms
So about ~20ms of latency
Real world example
Fiber isn’t some exotic never seen technology, its everywhere nowadays.
Moonlight literally does what you want, today! using hvec encoding straight in the gpu.
Try it out on your own network now.
Even after you get your ideal setup with all your traffic transversing your network to a single host, you have bottle necked the whole network to the speed of that single host.
Usually in networks devices are able to talk to each other directly across switch fabrics and not interdesr with other traffic.
Say you have four devices A B C D each pair trying to send 1GiB/S of traffic to each other over a GbE network connected to the same switch. A,B gets 1 GbE and C,D gets 1 GbE. For a total concurrent speed of 2GbE.
In your model since all traffic has to hit the central wireguard node W first you can only get 1GbE speed concurrently