Migration form DS212J to DS220+

Currently reading
Migration form DS212J to DS220+

11
2
NAS
DS212J, DS218+, DS220+
Operating system
  1. Windows
Mobile operating system
  1. Android
First post here, so I wasn't sure whether to add to this thread as it's similar, or start a new one...

I've been running a DS212J at home for a few years (2 x 2TB) and fairly recently added a DS218+ in my office (remote) with 2 x WD 6TB. Using HB between the two in both directions. This has lead to the (obvious) conclusion that the DS212J is getting long in the tooth, so:
Just bought a DS220+ and 2 x RED 6TB to replace the DS212J - apart from the initial problem that one of the REDs died within 20 minutes :oops:, I'm about to start moving everything across from the DS212J to the DS220+ along the lines in this thread. So, my questions are:

I've established that there's no assisted migration, as confirmed above, so planning to use HB. As the DS220+ will replace the DS212J, I want to give it the same name and use the same synology account, same quickconnect ID etc. so that it's a drop-in replacement. Are there no issues with both devices having all these the same whilst they are both on the network for the data transfer? Seems unlikely, but great if so!

When I set up HB, the target is (I assume) a remote NAS - so far I've then used the ddns hostname of the remote NAS for this, but if they are both the same, as mentioned above, surely this must be an issue?

I'm probably overthinking this, and perhaps it will become clear, but I like to have a degree of confidence when I start!

Oh, and a final note - as I currently only have one working HD, I guess there's no problem creating a volume on this and transferring everything across. Once I receive a replacement for the dead one, I can just slot it in and let the NAS do its stuff, right?

Apologies, that seems to have turned in to a long first post!
 
Are there no issues with both devices having all these the same whilst they are both on the network for the data transfer? Seems unlikely, but great if so!
Would recommend NOT pushing the exiting name on the 220+ until you are ready to decommission the J model and unregister the name (Quickconnect) in order to register it with the new unit. Keep 220+ local (if both devices are in the same LAN atm), transfer the data, unregister QC name, turn off 212j, and then reregister the QC name on the 220+

When I set up HB, the target is (I assume) a remote NAS - so far I've then used the ddns hostname of the remote NAS for this, but if they are both the same, as mentioned above, surely this must be an issue?
This will be an issue, yes and you will not be able to register the same name on a separate device with a new serial number. If this is indeed the case (that 212 and 220 are on a remote location) then disregard my previous comment and atm treat them as 2 separate units with 2 separate QC names. Once you turn off and unregister 212j you can then start the process of registering 220+ with the "old" QC name.

Oh, and a final note - as I currently only have one working HD, I guess there's no problem creating a volume on this and transferring everything across. Once I receive a replacement for the dead one, I can just slot it in and let the NAS do its stuff, right?
If your initial setup was with 2 drives (let's say in SHR) configuration, then your array is currently in a degraded mode but yes, you will be able to just put in a replacement drive and DSM will start to rebuild the array.
 
I'll direct you to my experience of migrating using a restore from HB (this was DS218+ to DS1520+ but it would be the same if from my old DS215j to newer).


There are some configuration settings that HB does not include, so it is useful to have both old and new NAS running with side-by-side browser windows. Things like device names and QC ID can be changed without reboot, but to re-use a QC ID you have to release it from the old NAS and then request it on the new NAS.

Things like using static LAN IP are best done at the start as this will stop other devices updating the old NAS's data: reassign the old NAS's IP to a new one and then assign that IP to the new NAS once the migration has finished.

You won't be constrained by any of the DS212j's volume limitation and file systems when migrating using HB. Doing the bare minimum setup on the DS220+ will allow you to setup a Btrfs system and that isn't limited to 16TB volumes. Should you later desire to, you can now use Active Backup, Snapshots, and Virtual Machine Manager, which require Btrfs.
 
Thanks for the quick response Rusty. I haven't worked out how to quote parts yet, but short answers:

For the first part - so I should give the 220+ a temporary name and rename it when ready to drop it in place. I guess this is straightforward 🤞

Second part, no the 220+ and the 212J are, and will be at the same location (sorry may have muddied the waters by mentioning the remote 218+). Is there an easier way as they are (temporarily) on the same LAN? Or do I need to create a temporary ddns QC account?
 
I haven't worked out how to quote parts yet, but short answers
1617381495370.png

You can do this multiple times in the same reply. The new quote will be added at the current insertion point.
 
Or do I need to create a temporary ddns QC account?
No need for Qc name then. As both @fredbert and i said, use that case to transfer the data and then when you are done, register it with the old name when 212 is no longer needed.
 
If they're both on the same LAN, I would consider starting fresh without all the config kruff from the j-series. Once the 220+ has a volume, use Shared Folder Sync to transfer your content to the new unit. #differentstrokesfordifferentfolks
 
Last edited:
If your initial setup was with 2 drives (let's say in SHR) configuration, then your array is currently in a degraded mode but yes, you will be able to just put in a replacement drive and DSM will start to rebuild the array.
Well, I didn't even get as far as an initial setup! "...the initial problem that one of the REDs died within 20 minutes" so I haven't even created a volume. So it's not a question of having an SHR and one disk dying. This is why I was unsure - I would have to start by creating a volume on a single disk, then adding a second when I receive the replacement. I'm not sure if this is a good idea - perhaps I would be safer to wait until I have 2 disks and then start from scratch. At least that gives me plenty of time to read and digest all the helpful suggestions on here!
-- post merged: --

Thanks to everyone for all the replies - although I've been using the 212J for a few years, I've never really done much with it. It's not until I started reading and interacting on here that I realised how little I seem to know!
use that case to transfer the data
Not sure what "that case" refers to - I've got a bit lost here.
I've had another look at HB, and it looks like I can enter an IP address for the target, so as the 212J and 220+ are on the same network, this should be the easiest way, no?

If they're both on the same LAN, I would consider starting fresh without all the config kruff from the j-series. Once the 220+ has a volume, use Shared Folder Sync to transfer your content to the new unit. #differentstrokesfordifferentfolks
I have to say that this does have some appeal. I've always been an advocate of having a fresh start with things, and a rebuild of my micro-business network based on a 218+ instead of an overgrown server was an example. I haven't tried Shared Folder Sync before, but there's a first time for everything :)
 
While you can create a SHR storage pool on a single disk "without protection", and then add a second disk so it becomes "with one disk protection", it's quicker to create a two disk SHR storage pool and volume than it will be to add the second disk at a later time.

But there's nothing to stop you starting from a single disk and getting the NAS up and running (except if the disk gets a problem). Either you wait now for two disks or later sit through a progress meter saying how long it's taking to add the second disk. The NAS is still usable during the disk addition, but the more it's used for normal tasks the longer the upgrade will take.
 
While you can create a SHR storage pool on a single disk "without protection", and then add a second disk so it becomes "with one disk protection", it's quicker to create a two disk SHR storage pool and volume than it will be to add the second disk at a later time.

But there's nothing to stop you starting from a single disk and getting the NAS up and running (except if the disk gets a problem). Either you wait now for two disks or later sit through a progress meter saying how long it's taking to add the second disk. The NAS is still usable during the disk addition, but the more it's used for normal tasks the longer the upgrade will take.
Thanks fredbert - I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that I'd be better to wait until I get a replacement disk, I'm not in a hurry. This is the first time I've used Ironwolf, 50% failure rate! Although it is a statistically small sample...
 
I was using WD Red (EFRX) until recently. The debacle that resulted in old Red becoming Red Plus made me opt to avoid them while supply was patchy. I’m using 8TB Ironwolf in my DS1520+: five disks and no issues but similarly an insignificantly small sample size.


Now compare that to my new camera (Nikon A1000) and brands of SD cards. It’s likely the camera being finicky but: two SanDisk SDXC cards (Extreme Pro and Ultra) both couldn’t be used by the camera after it formatted them or after photos were deleted (by camera or Mac). Formatting by Mac and running Disk Utility first aid would get them working. Thus completely against the advice to use the device to format the card. Ok it’s best to erase photos en mass and reformat but using the Mac isn’t reliable enough esp. when away from home.

Now compare to two Lexar SDXC cards (Professional 90MB/s and 250MB/s) and they work a charm. Lexar isn’t on the A1000 approved list but is for the old A900.

A bug in the camera? A duff batch by SanDisk? I saw another forum where a user had this issue, hence trying Lexar. I like the camera and it works now. Support options were to replace via retailer (unlikely that will fix it) or send it in (risking replacement by graded stock item).

Upshot of this: very hesitant to buy SanDisk SD cards.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, genuinely being curious. Why buy a camera with 1/2.3" sensor? It's not far from what you have on your phone.
[This is going way off-topic, but...]

I agree with you and I did try to use my iPhone XR (12mp, no optical zoom) and an old Coolpix 5400 (5mp, 4x optical zoom). Since getting 'camera phones' I don't think we've used a standalone camera, hence having such old and low MP cameras.

I was wanting to capture some wildlife photos and they aren’t close: from home and during walks. Using the phone or old Nikon wasn’t getting anything but a few smudgy pixels. But what I did find was that the phone was never ready to use: I’d been using it for other things and I don’t find the app icon jumps out at me, nor the other three I’ve got (Pure , ProCam, Camera+). But the pocket camera, even if it’s gone to sleep, is much quicker to start being used.

Plus, this one met my needs:
  • It’s got a x35 optical zoom: can't beat an optical lens to get you closer and in focus
  • Has a view finder: not just a screen
  • Fits in a [my jacket] pocket: unlike bridge and dSLR... can’t use it if not carrying it (a la phones) but don’t want to look like a pack horse
  • Not flimsy construction
  • iPhones cost significantly more than a pocket camera
  • It stays on camera mode!
Getting a view finder really limits choice but I’m a bit old school in this and like to see what I’m taking when the sun is bright.

I read a quote “it’s the 12 inches behind the camera that is most important”. Unfortunately this is the bit that all cameras [for me] lack :)
 

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.

Old thread notice: There have been no replies in this thread for quite some time. The last reply was on .
The content in this thread may no longer be relevant. It might be better to open a new thread instead.

Similar threads

Hi Just an observation that I wished Synology included in their video (see link below): I recently...
Replies
0
Views
448
  • Question
I received the 1522+ today. It requires at least one disk to be formatted before any operation is...
Replies
6
Views
805
  • Question
I may be wrong on this, but I believe you need to have the source NAS updated to DSM 7.2 to migrate....
Replies
2
Views
745
Welcome to the forum imho, I would use Hyper Hackup tool running as a single file rsync task. I have...
Replies
1
Views
399
All worked seamlessly placing the HDDs into the new unit. The first HDD was indeed degraded so that has...
Replies
8
Views
1,167
Replies
10
Views
1,403
  • Question
I would go to my synology account via the synology website, and disconnect that device an essentially...
Replies
7
Views
1,780

Welcome to SynoForum.com!

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

Registration is free, easy and fast!

Back
Top