I don’t trust specific resilience system such as SHR. I prefer to run over RAID (or Storage Spaces in case of Windows Server :p)

Also, while I am at it… I am seeing chatter around possibly using my Synology as a replica target (as a form of redundancy). But that doesn’t seem good to me either. What I am after is the “proper” way of running all my VMs (I do not run a domain) and have backups of them in case something catastrophic occurs.

Unless I am missing something here. It would seem to me that I should use my local disks for my VHDXs and then back them up on a nightly basis with a scheduled backup on my root host machine (which also has the Windows Server Backup role), correct?

Lots to learn here. My head is swimming. 🙂

The first issue regards Synology is the number of controller. In standard enterprise SAN, you have two controllers. If one fails, the other can process. In Synology hardware, you have one controller. So in a Hyper-V/Vmware cluster, Synology is a single point of failure. There is no system to replicate synology AND failover automatically to the other Synology in case of the first fails.

Synology is not a SAN. Its primary purpose concerns file sharing. Synology has added some iSCSI for small environment. The OS is not made for enterprise. You have lot of process that can be taken for other thing than storage. For exemple, for a pure NAS iSCSI, I’d like to remove share processing, user management (except for iSCSI admin), the packet repository and so on.

To finish, Synology NAS are often limited by CPU and RAM. For small environment (10-15VMs) it is good, but beyond I think Synology is not a good option

Regards,

Romain

“Hello

What is the value of creating a LUN by VM?
I explain, when creating VM, you select a “physical hard disk” rather than a “Virtual Hard Disk”, is it better to use an entire LUN for a vhdx or you can To put several VHDX by LUN without problem?

What do you think of a Synology high performance (like 2416+) as a SAN? (For a Hyper-V cluster for example)

Thank you in advance for your answer”

Ok do you now what’s the first bottleneck of a synology’s storage? CPU ? RAM ? network ?

It was an example to show that we can pass-through the LUN to the VM. This is not the best practices but it is possible. However, you can create a LUN for several VHDX and this is the recommended way.

Synology is poor in term of performance. If you want only dozen of VMs it is ok but for more, I don’t recommend it. You can now check solution as Storage Spaces Direct, VMware vSAN or Starwind for free which increase performance when two Synology NAS are used.

Please could you translate your comment in English? This blog is in English and I want everyone can understand conversation.

Regards,

Romain

Quel est l’intérêt de créer un LUN par VM ?
Je m’explique, à la création de VM, tu sélectionnes un “physical hard disk” plutôt qu’un “Virtual Hard Disk”, est-ce qu’il est plus judicieux d’utiliser un LUN entier pour un vhdx ou on peut mettre plusieurs VHDX par LUN sans problème ?

Que penses tu d’un Synology haute performance (du genre 2416+) en guise de SAN ? (pour un cluster Hyper-V par exemple)

Merci d’avance pour ta réponse

I have Synology DS415+ and I was stuck with SMB shares and Windows 10.
With iSCSI all works seamlessly.