Synology DSM 6.1

I now have updated my DS213+. Everything is ok. minimserver and bubbleupnpserver are running. They only reported that the java installation was corrupted and I had to reinstall java again.

After minimserver did state this, I did so. The restart of minimserver after reinstalling java was fine. But when starting bubbleupnpserver after this for the first time, it did tell me the same java-corrupted-warning. So I just stopped and restarted bubbleupnpserver again. The second run did work ok without any warning. I do not know what this problem might be. Seems not to be a real problem.

CPU usage of the NAS currently is at 4%. (the most recent version of the mediaserver is installed. But the powerpc is a dual core processor anyway.)

Greetings
Gert

gert posted:

Alan,

see
http://forum.minimserver.com/s...p;pid=24927#pid24927

"The post from Alan says that he has MinimServer 0.8.3.4 installed. If he updates to the current version 0.8.4.2, there will be no problem."

Thanks a million for this Gert. I think I must have had dyslexia reading MikeB's reports earlier,..but anyway SUCCESS at my end with the 213+ and DSM6.1 and MinimServer.

Apologies for the fuss over a false alarm!

Please also extend my thanks to Simon on the forum for his support and quick recommendation.

(EDIT: Thanks again Gert...I just sent Simon a "thank you" Donation...long overdue, but a great program and a great community.)

Regards, 

alan

Hello, 

I have a Synology DS212 and upgraded to DSM 6.1 last Weekend. Unfortunately before I read this thread

Same problems with media streaming like member "Huge" described. Many thanks for the really good advise to downgrade the Media Server app to 1.6.2. That worked for me and streaming is now possible without interrupts. Just created a support ticket at Synology and asked them for a solution concerning the Media Server, also I asked whether DSM 6.1 is fully compatible to Single-Core CPUs in Synology Diskstation or not. 

Best regards,

Olaf

DS413J here.  MARVEL Kirkwood 88F6282, 1.6 GHz, single core, 512 MB RAM; 4/8 TB free.  DSM 6.1-15047 installed last night and left to run.  This morning, Disk Station Media Server was up, MinimServer was down as expected.  Uninstalled and reinstalled Java SE Embedded 8, then restarted MinimServer 0.8.4.2.  All looks OK.  CPU is bouncing a little, between 7-82%, RAM is steady at 30%.  Looking OK to me.

I did set up Search indexes manually, as recommended in release notes.  That has pushed CPU up to 99%, RAM at 75%,  as I kicked it off.  

Nick

Nick,

Did you install Synology Media Server 1.7, and have you tested it (rather than just using MinimServer)?  If so did it work without dropouts and lost connection issues?

For those of you with single core CPU's who had install problems with 6.1,  a new DSM release has just gone in the hopper for regional auto-updates (& that includes DS115j  Huge).      Release notes say  Version: 6.1-15047-1  (2017/02/25)      Fixed a security vulnerability with the Auto Block function that could allow remote attackers to bypass the current IP blocking mechanism.

Nothings changed with Media Server yet.   

Up to you,  I'm leaving mine to auto-update as & when UK gets scheduled.   If you don't want it, suggest you turn off auto-update.  

I'll also leave it to get scheduled, I've no open ports or NAT rules in my router's external firewall that allow external access anyway.

Huge posted:

Nick,

Did you install Synology Media Server 1.7, and have you tested it (rather than just using MinimServer)?  If so did it work without dropouts and lost connection issues?

Hi, Huge.

Affirmative.  Synology Media Server is set to auto-update, and is currently at v 1.7.0-2810.  I find the first try playing a series of tracks always stops mid-song, after about a minute; then a second try is completely successful.  First try failures appear to be consistent.  MinimServer is a better performer, at some cost to fiddling with Java updates etc.  Also, the metadata and general operation under MinimServer seem slightly better -- I cannot recall precisely why that was my impression.  

MinimServer has never been perfect either, though.  The most noticeable annoyance is that when shifting from e.g. NDX-FM to UPnP > MinimServer, the first load of an album series usually fail utterly (and this was the case before and after the move from DSM 6.0 to 6.1) -- I am in the habit of loading the transition album twice; subsequent album picks are fine.  Just when I got this routine down, I showed it to my wife and the transition-album failed to fail!  Of course, She had forgotten the NDX played anything other than Spotify, so was only confused at my surprise.

I only had the NAS for a while before I decided MinimServer was a worthwhile upgrade over Media Server, so the latter is may fallback.  I will say that, initially, getting MinimServer installed was difficult.  Once I documented the installation and update routines (including that installing Java 8 form a Mac REQUIRES Firefox!), all has gone very smoothly.

I hope this is helpful.

Nick

Also, IMHO, MinimServer slightly beats Synology Media Server for SQ; but in my system, both are bettered by thumb drive into the NDX Naim DAC 555ps.

Nick

Both 214play devices updates without issue. Both Media Server and Minimserver working flawlessly.

Mike-B posted:

For those of you with single core CPU's who had install problems with 6.1,  a new DSM release has just gone in the hopper for regional auto-updates (& that includes DS115j  Huge).      Release notes say  Version: 6.1-15047-1  (2017/02/25)      Fixed a security vulnerability with the Auto Block function that could allow remote attackers to bypass the current IP blocking mechanism.

Mine auto-updated with DSM 6.1-15047-1 this morning per its scheduled event prog.     The only difference was it requested a manual restart,  never done that before.  

That is because it is a very minor update

Hi, 

Fyi : ugrade my syno 1815 with last version dsm 6.1-15047 and 15047-1 without pblms,

minim server work perfect

vinibus

Hi Huge,  what is your state of play at the mo,  I understand you went back to a previous Media Server,  but what DMS are you at now & how is it all working. ?   Have you heard anything from Synology ? 

Play is fine, all working: no dropouts, no lost connections.

DSM 6.1.15047 - update 1
Media Server 1.6.2.2770

Interestingly Media Server 1.6.2.2770 is now shown as the latest version for my device - so they've realised the problem and which machines are affected.

Huge posted:

..............  Interestingly Media Server 1.6.2.2770 is now shown as the latest version for my device - so they've realised the problem and which machines are affected.

Ah ha,   maybe we can expect more developments to bring MS software back to a common stnd for all.    (thks) 

Hello,

I received an answer from the german synology support board today. The problem with media server 1.7.0-2810 is known to their developers and it will be fixed with an future update. Unfortunately, they are not able to tell me at which date this update will be released. For the meantime, they recommend to install media server 1.6.2-2770, just the same version "huge" tried. On my Syno DS212 this combination works fine, at the moment. Streaming of 720p video material and of FLACs in 16/44 works fine, HD Flacs not tried yet.

They also recommended me to switch off the automatic update for media server as well, unless the future release update is not yet available.

Best regards,

Olaf

Note to self:

Check with the forum before uninstalling newest Media Server and reinstalling version 1.6.2.2770 to see if there was any method of doing it and still retaining settings, index etc.

Ah well, a complete re-index will only take a day or so.

Grrr. D'oh.

Nope, uninstalling Media Server removes the media indices (or renders then inaccessible), so after reversion to an earlier version it needs to reindex (it's good practice anyway, even if it wasn't absolutely necessary).

If it's taking a day or so to re-index, then it sounds as through you should be using a 4 bay NAS and a stripe set (i.e. RAID 0).

Ah, ok: minor sigh or relief/resignation.

Was thinking it might be time to upgrade the NAS.

Please could you explain stripe set/ raid 0 formulation (in noddy terms...) and I'll start the investigation process.

Huge - is the frisson of angst I feel on reading that in Raid 0 the failure of one drive leads to failure of all unfounded?

Nick, that's true, however...

1 Failure of the disk controller leads to failure of the whole array even in RAID 1 (mirror set), so you still need proper backups in any event.

2 If you're worried about that use a 5 bay NAS and use RAID 5 - that's both faster AND more secure.

3 'Proper' NAS drives (WD Red, Segate NAS etc) are very reliable, very often the people who have problems are using 'desktop' drives in NAS enclosures.

OK stripe sets...

Distribute the data over multiple HDDs (say 4), and use a hardware controller that can read and write from all the disks at the same time (i.e. in parallel).

To create the index it needs to read all the files on the disk(s) and look at the tags then write the index back onto the disk.  With a single disc, shuttling the heads around all the time makes re indexing very slow, with 4 drives 3 of them are just continuously reading files for most of the time.  Same applies to RAID 5.

Thanks Huge. My drives are seagate barracudas (two drives in Raid 1).  Same vintage as my Synology 212+ (reminds me I must run health check). I back up to a portable drive.

Ok, will think on this.

Nick, Barracudas are desktop drives, really not ideal for NAS use.

Don't forget that if disks are bought at the same time from the same place they are likely to be from the same batch, and that increases the chance of them failing at around the same time (but you'd be extremely unlucky for them to fail at exactly the same time unless there was an external reason for it).

If the drives are >3 years old, then with desktop drives in a NAS, I'd be getting very concerned about failures.

Note that running (cheaper) desktop drives in a NAS, running as RAID 1 and accepting the more frequent failures that results from this (i.e. always have a spare drive available), is also a perfectly valid approach.