Does appear that 215J should stay at V6

Currently reading
Does appear that 215J should stay at V6

1,347
265
NAS
DS 718+, 2x-DS 720+
Router
  1. RT2600ac
Operating system
  1. Windows
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
Finally got around to looking at latest Notes info on the latest V7.... Notes indicate memory resources are reduced in this update (over prior 7), and some more features lost on J models, in specific to: my 215J... in the latest V7 version. I saw this occur on 6.2.3 to 6.2.4... on my 215J... (Presently 800 miles away "on loan"!) This 215J will remain at 6, as it only has 512M Ram and can't accept a ram upgrade.

My other NAS's: 718+ & 720+ (both with ram expansion) probably have horsepower for V7... At Present, those 2 are working flawlessly now with the tasks assigned to them, at 6....

Once the 215J returns, (If it does) I'll have to determine if the tasks assigned to it before, (once brought back here), will still work if the other 2 NAS's are at 7 and this 215J remains at 6....

If 215J never returns (gift or such)... The 2 + series NAS's should be fine for 7 then.... My $.02
 
I would say that it all depends on what you want to do with the DS215j.

Yes the DSM 7 release notes say "Make sure your NAS has at least 1 GB of memory before updating"... but why then include any < 1GB RAM devices in the supported devices list? The answer is that Synology are still selling their latest j-series NAS with < 1GB.

I'm running DSM 7* on the DS215j but its only job is running SMB for Mac Time Machine. The issues always were running Web heavy packages, even in DSM 6. Now I would avoid using web interfaces and limit them to management tasks. Though some plain media streaming is still doable.


*it was the first/sacrificial hardware upgrade of my three NAS, following initially testing with vDSM 7.
 
I would say that it all depends on what you want to do with the DS215j.
Or what exactly does DSM7 offer that is not available with DSM6.
Yes the DSM 7 release notes say "Make sure your NAS has at least 1 GB of memory before updating"... but why then include any < 1GB RAM devices in the supported devices list? The answer is that Synology are still selling their latest j-series NAS with < 1GB.
This borders on scamming. Let's sell units to unsuspecting buyers, touting DSM7 “benefits”. Since many new users will see DSM7 as their initial OS, they won't experience first-hand the loss of performance coming from DSM6. However, they will find their j-unit sluggish beyond belief when they incorporate packages designed for their unit.

The j-series should be removed from the marketplace.
 
Last edited:
Now (6.2.4) does only one -1080/12fps camera (6.2.3=2x30 fps 1080 cameras) 1080 — SS motion detect video: creating video out of IP stream, (6.2.4=1, 6.2.3=2) 1080 ftp pix transfer from same camera(s), based upon camera mot detect settings, (and when in NC, forwarding copies of folders elsewhere, to other NNAS’s. A few Firewall rules, and a couple custom timed script files to limit age and quantity of files in certain directories. That, and normal file storage on 215J. I saw something about video transcoding not being supported by 215J on this release, along with reduced Ram after this update, and this update would not automatically apear: manual update only.
 
This borders on scamming.
I think that was pretty much what I was implying. Or at best there is a complete disconnect between Synology's hardware marketing and software marketing.

Personally, I think there is a place for a j-series for those that purely need basic NAS functionality, mostly for home backup. The problems comes with how to limit features, and do it transparently and honestly. The big mistake was to release DSx20j devices with <1 GB RAM.

The older NAS with <1GB RAM should have been managed with upfront information, no automated updates, and highlighting when performance impacts will occur... so a decision could be made will all the facts.


Going back to my DS215j: I'm ok with DSM 7 and I wanted to try it on NAS hardware before updating the DS218+ and later the DS1520+. Since even in DSM 6 there were performance limits, the only real reason to update to DSM 7 is that there will be longer ongoing fixes for security vulnerabilities.
 
Exactly why my 215J received 6.2.4 first.
And When we encountered a lessening of workload in 6.2.4, a knee-jerk reaction to that loss, made me stay at 6.2.3 on 718+ & 720+ 215J continued to receive 6.2.4 updates in valiant attempt to recover workload. Didn’t, but that showed I was trying at my end! I complained about it and was banned.
 
Last edited:
The main reason for my concern over loss of 1 camera on 6.2.4:
We live halfway up a mountain on narrow winding roads. In the winter, black ice is a very real concern. There are times we are in town in the valley and it can be sunny & warm, yet at house it can be snowing heavily. Miles and 3500’ above town.
I have two cameras: that I share with friends and neighbors, so they can see weather conditions at our elevation from anywhere. That feature made The 215J a fantastic device! It used to do this fine, until 6.2.4, when I had to reduce workload to 1 camera, & reduce both frame rate 30=12fps, and bandwidth from high level 5Mc to Less than 1 at low level.
The 215J was doing fine until 6.2.4
The whole development was using this as a safety tool, and suddenly it failed in many ways.

Once I determined what the problem was, I quickly moved the login and cameras from 215J and onto the 718+ to continue this safety service. Though it then resided on our NAS with personal data. Most of that was moved to 720+, and a removable USB drive.

The 215J was sub-sequentially moved to Illinois for simple duties there. If it never comes back it’s ok by me.
 
I have two cameras: that I share with friends and neighbors, so they can see weather conditions at our elevation from anywhere.
Wow! That’s so nice and admirable. We (at least me) always think of surveillance as mainly an anti-theft technology, but you found a different use for it and shared it with others. Very nice.

And yes. Synology should remove the Junk series from their products line, especially now with 7. Shame on them. No wonder @jeyare is pissed. I’m pissed too.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

I think I’ve been here before…. No thanks. But thanks for the answer I feared: no one place for all...
Replies
2
Views
709
There is no problem seeing photo thumbnails. There is a issue to see thumbnails in android browser dialog...
Replies
3
Views
784

Welcome to SynoForum.com!

SynoForum.com is an unofficial Synology forum for NAS owners and enthusiasts.

Registration is free, easy and fast!

Back
Top