Sorry-very basic question on file size limits

[slobdiddy]

I have a new 1019+ ordered and on the way and for now am still using my older DS 213+. Knowing that I will have more space soon, I tried to transfer a high quality 4.7 GB movie file to the 213+ and found it is above the file limit for transfer.

So my question is what do I need to do to the new DS 1019+ when I get it so that it can accept large high-quality video files? Also, I will eventually scrub my old 213+ and use it for critical data back-up. Can I do anything the disc format to allow it to hold larger files?

Some background. My NAS must work with Windows, Mac, Amazon Firestick (running Kodi), Plex, and QC.

Sorry if this is a basic question and thanks in advance.

 

[WST16]

Hi,

You shouldn’t have a problem.

Are you sure that the limit is coming from your 213+? It’s either using an ext3 or an ext4 file system. Both can have huge single file sizes.

The 1019+ can be either ext4 or Btrfs file system. No problem with the file size here too.

 

[WST16]

Just a thought. Are you copying the file to an encrypted folder on the 213+?

 

[slobdiddy]

I think I’m not using ext 3 or 4. I think years ago when I set this up I probably chose the wrong disc format. Does ext 4 work with Windows, Mac, Amazon Firestick (running Kodi), Plex, and QC? If so I probably just need to use this.

 

[WST16]

Does ext 4 work with Windows, Mac, Amazon Firestick (running Kodi), Plex, and QC?

Yes it works. But I suggest that you consider Btrfs for the 1019+ after you read about it and understanding if it’s suitable. For example, Synology recommends ext4 for surveillance station. You can use multiple file systems in separate storage pools if you wish.

Back to the 213+. You can check what file system it’s using by logging in and going to:

Control Panel > Info center > storage tab
Check what’s under the graph. It should state the RAID type (if any), file system and the capacity (used/total).

 

[WST16]

Should be ext4 for DSM.

Check the data sheet under general.

 

[slobdiddy]

Hi again. Can't see my file system from here. I have never been able to move files larger than about 4GB onto this NAS and I assumed this was a limitation of the file system. I think when I first bought this (2013) the shop may have copied my data across from my an older 209, and they set up the diskstation for me, perhaps they did something strange with the set-up at this stage.

I guess all that matters for now is that I chose the right file system for my new 1019+ and that once I have migrated my data (manually this time), that I reformat the 213 which will form part of my back up solution. The 213+ is now running DSM 6.2. I can see I have a choice of Ext 4 or btrfs as both are supported on DSM6 and above. I'm still a little confused which one to select, even having read Synology's guide. DiskStation Manager - Knowledge Base | Synology Inc.

I will have mixed business data and multimedia (which I will access using Plex). I also want to run QuickConnect. I won't use the surveillance station as I use Nest cams which store direct to a Nest cloud. Also, my website is hosted by an external provider.

 

[WST16]

That’s strange! You can try using the Storage Manager and check from there. See if it shows anything.

First, according to this, the 213+ doesn’t support Btrfs. You’ll have it in ext4.

As for the 1019+. Personally, I’d go with one of the following two:

• Single storage pool (all 5 disks). SHR-1, Btrfs file system. This will give you better utilization of disk space.
• Two storage pools. The one I’d choose.
  • 1st pool (2 disks) SHR-1 Btrfs (2 mirrored disks). I’d use this for business and personal files.
  • 2nd pool (3 disks) SHR-5 ext4. I’d use this for media files.

Some might argue that this is wasting space. True in a sense, but I like mirroring disks and array rebuilds scares me ​

Of course, there are many different configurations, not just the above. You can think of SHR-2 if you need it too.
Those are my thoughts. See if others here have better or different suggestions

Edit:
BTW, I think the reason you couldn’t copy the 4.7GB movie file is because you don’t have enough space on the 213+ (from your attached photo above).

 

[slobdiddy]

Hi again and thanks so much for all the help. As I am going to migrate from my 213+ I have decided not to bother to solve the problem and simply reformat this and start from scratch. Perhaps I should give some more info to get some guidance in choosing between ext 4 and btrfs.

New setup (having taken heaps of advice at online forums)
Main Diskstation 1019+ upgraded (Crucial) Ram, 2xSSID ironwolf 0.5TB, 5X 8TB ironwolf pro. Will use SHR 2, so will have 24 TB of storage.

I will have mixed business data and multimedia (which I will access using Plex). I also want to run QuickConnect for personal folders for 4 family members. I won't use the surveillance station as I use Nest cams which store direct to a Nest cloud. Also, I won't run my business website from here as this is hosted by an external provider.

1st Back-up
DS 219+ with 2 x 12 TB HDD Ironwlf Pro.

Additional critical data back-up my old (and reformatted DS213) running 2 x 4TB HDD.

I really want to keep things quite simple. Sounds like btrfs is best for business and ext 4 best for multimedia. But if I designate one 8tb disc for business (and use btrfs) and two for multimedia (and use ext 4), then would I have problems backing up to my 219+? Would it be easier to simply use Ext. 4 throughout?

 

[WST16]

So you’ve already decided on SHR-2 for all 5 bays (5 disks in one storage pool)? That’s ok too. But you can only choose one file system.

As far as for backup to those old Synology DiskStations, you shouldn’t have any problems.

Here’s a drawing I found in my Synology folder. I didn’t create this and I wish I can remember where I found it to give credit where credit is due, but I can’t.
It might clarify things.

I really want to keep things quite simple. Sounds like btrfs is best for business and ext 4 best for multimedia. But if I designate one 8tb disc for business (and use btrfs) and two for multimedia (and use ext 4), then would I have problems backing up to my 219+

Dedicating one disk only for business is risky. I wouldn’t do that at all. At least have two identical disks in SHR-1 (mirrored) so you have protection in case you have problems with one. If you need more space you can upgrade (you’ll need to upgrade both to see any increase in space). It’s easy to upgrade and you’ll have protection.

As for the media 2 disks, it’s going to be ext4 but what RAID/SHR type? It’s expensive to mirror them (for media use) and if you go with RAID 0 (to combine the two disks capacity as one), if one fails, all is gone (no protection).

That’s why I suggested to have three disks in a storage pool (SHR-1) so you have some protection while maximizing the use of the storage capacity for that pool (the media pool). So we’re back to my initial suggestion

Or as you said. All 5 in Btrfs SHR-2. Don’t worry about backing up. It’s very flexible with both file systems. So even if you go all disks in one storage pool, one file system. No problems.

Play with the RAID calculator. Simulate 3 disks (for the media pool) of various sizes and see what looks practical for your use. Or see how it goes if you use all 5 bays in one storage pool SHR-2 (by adding 5 disks to the simulator). However, you won’t be able to mix file systems as one poll can be either Btrfs or ext4.

 

[slobdiddy]

OK so it sounds like one file system, one storage pool and make things easy. Given my planned usage would it generally be better to go for ext 4? I'm guessing so as this is going to be quicker for multi-media. Also, as I will be backing up this probably means the restore points which come with btrfs are less necessary.

Does this sound sensible?

 

[WST16]

The classical IT answer: it depends on your use case and expectations. There is no right or wrong.

I’m sorry that I’m not making this easier.

Let me try to clarify something. Both file systems (ext4 and Btrfs) are suitable, useable and can be backed up easily. However, Btrfs is the newer file system, has better “healing” capabilities and can guard against “bit rot” and more.

Btrfs disadvantages are that it’s a tiny bit slower than ext4 (because it’s doing all that magic) and has about 4 to 5 percent storage overhead. But if I have some critical files, I’ll gladly trade that for more protection.

The case now is whether to go all 5 bays (single pool) Btrfs or ext4. I’ll choose Btrfs rather than ext4. But (for me) if I have a choice I’ll have both. You have a choice

 

[vwgtiturbo]

I think I’m not using ext 3 or 4. I think years ago when I set this up I probably chose the wrong disc format. Does ext 4 work with Windows, Mac, Amazon Firestick (running Kodi), Plex, and QC? If so I probably just need to use this.

Just to clarify the "Yes it works" from the other user... Disc format on your Synology DOESN'T matter, as far as client system support. Windows, Mac, Linux, Pi, [any other operating system in existence] is NOT GOING TO CARE what the filesystem on the server is. All client devices are going to be connecting to the server via network protocols (whether it be SMB, AFP, CIFS, NFS, etc.). These protocols essentially shield the filesystem from the clients, translating the raw filesystem to the network protocol, where the client system receives the network protocol and translates it into its own filesystem.

Secondly, the bit about free space potentially not being available... Unless my math is wonky, the attached screenshot shows that 3.2TB of 3.6TB is consumed. That leaves 400GB free. You have PLENTY of space to transfer a 4.7GB file.

Coincidentally, the file size limit for the FAT32 file system is 4GB. I didn't see it above, but is the filesystem of your Synology FAT (or are you trying to copy to an external drive attached to the Synology and that drive is formatted as FAT)? (I am not even sure that it's possible, frankly, but...). As a second option, it's possible that SMB on the Synology (or the client device) is misbehaving/misconfigured.

 

[WST16]

Unless my math is wonky, the attached screenshot shows that 3.2TB of 3.6TB is consumed. That leaves 400GB free. You have PLENTY of space to transfer a 4.7GB file.

You’re absolutely right. I’m the one with the wonky math, reading TB and thinking GB

 

[vwgtiturbo]

You’re absolutely right. I’m the one with the wonky math, reading TB and thinking GB

I thought maybe i was missing something, viewing this on mobile; couldn't zoom the image quite enough to make it clear LOLOLOL.