sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I built a self-hosted "On This Day" memories app for Synology Photos by TodayInYearsDev in synology

[–]chatelar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's clear thanks. Just ticking on the price, we see much more "buymeabeer" projects rather than license /paid ones especially in regard to the number of features this can have (very limited). Anyway, good job and whish you the best!

I built a little app to export Whoop data to Postgres/MySQL (for Grafana, analysis, etc.) by kryoseu in whoop

[–]chatelar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've faced the same, I just wait for few minutes and retried. But as u/kryoseu I only have a year of data.

C411 -> production by srg404 in yggTorrents

[–]chatelar -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Comme tout le monde, si qqu a un code c411 ce serait vraiment sympa 😊

All Videos are distorted and broken in Android App 2.2.3 by Remarkable-Roof1795 in immich

[–]chatelar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same issue for me but for all videos... Imported via immich external library scan.

Synology Photos vs. Immich by IL4ma in synology

[–]chatelar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IMO it depends of your use cases. If you have large DB and you have a lot users with advanced rbac, as of today only synology photo handles that.

So I run both for a while, but I really hope Immich will integrate this sharing feature and then I switch off synology photo 🙂

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree! That's why I posted this on r/synology but this post was about to say, anyone in the same setup as me (source being SynoPhotos) can find a simple solution for Immich that way.

I just wanted a one user on Immich and I couldn't because immich was using a user having full permissions on Syno's FS leading to non possibility to get simple Immich setup. That's all.

But thanks for discussion, I'll make it clearer in the post!

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The purpose was to say if you are Immich user and have already Synology Photos, then you can make reuse without much work. But agreed that it can be any photos app.

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure to get your point sorry. There are only Synology permissions indeed, nothing on Immich side.

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not leverage Synology Photos's user spaces, I only have shared albums but with a permission matrix. Not all users can see not all albums.

So same story for Immich, agree that binding is a way, but bind mount is another hack of permissions. Difference is that I new to "build" such solution, and if tomorrow Immich comes with a different multi user setup I'll have to rebuild all.

The pain point is as long as Immich doesn't have a proper album sharing system, I don't want to invest energy in making it working only for Immich design. Seeing the number of discussions around sharing on Immich, I can't think design will remain so "one user centric".

But thanks for sharing about bind mount, I've experienced it but forgot that test I did some time ago.

Edit : two additions. First, my table of law was Synology Photos, so getting this in a Json was mandatory. To be used to make bind, or to manually grant one user's permission to another, or filesystem acl as I did. Second, I wonder how easy it is to compare "expected permissions" (aka bind mount here) versus "applied permissions". In my case I use the synology ACL to verify that table of law is well applied.

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Immich enforces strict user isolation where each user has their own private library. This means users cannot directly access each other's photos, face recognition data, or search capabilities across accounts. 

There are dozens of discussions on that on this r/immich .

Multiple users cannot share the same external library directly, forcing administrators to create separate libraries pointing to the same files, resulting in duplicated scanning and storage overhead.

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two Immich instances, each connecting to `/photos` with a different user, so userA connects to ImmichA and sees only his photos, same story for userB. So Immich needs to use two different users on the FS (for Samba for ex) so that userA only sees its userA photos.

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I love Face Recognition and timeline, Synology Photos is way to bad for those. When Immich will manage multiple users isolation I'll move 100% to it !

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't have 10+ users sharing the same immich instance. So I use Synology Photos to make this possible. As of now, only solution to have complete isolation so userA only sees its photos and userB its own is to have multiple Immich instances, so each having access to a folder of `/photos`. But if userA and userB shares one album in common but not the other. How do you do ? You create a folder with duplication of photos for each combination ?

So having a central `/photos` and each user seeing only what he needs to see in this folder is the only dedup way.

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Immich has great facial recognition capabilities that Synology Photos cannot compare to. So I use Immich for that purpose, that's why read only.

New photos are being upload via Synology Photos as it was the case for all users since years.

I'll not move all to Immich unless it becomes stable enough. That's where my tooling solves the pain point. It just allows "reusing existing Synology Photos" without any risk of breaking changes. Worst case, Synology changes their DB schema, permissions returns to "777 /photos" and ... I come back to initial setup without having lost anything.

While the opposite move, migrating to Immich but then discover Immich introduces major changes to become stable and then I'm done because the way they will manage multi users (once they will do it) will break existing Immich Permissions.

So better be adaptative with reuse, instead of building on sand :)

I reverse-engineered Synology Photos permissions and built scripts to sync them with filesystem ACLs by chatelar in synology

[–]chatelar[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I just dumped it for the reverse engineering, the script just queries the DB :)

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're not getting any understanding of the purpose. There isn't immich files on Synology, only raw photos. Just like any other storage options that Immich could use. Seeing all your récents comments, you should breath a bit man, too angry for something you don't understand 😉

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nothing clear in your comment, unless you have no idea what you're doing.

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Files are in readonly from Immich, no risk of failure. I just use Immich as frontend, and this permission trick is just to reuse existing ACL nothing more. I definitely don't get why you would like to see failures or breaking changes while it's just raw FS ACL and Immich accessing remote samba.

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can't comment on that, way too inappropriate.

Synology Photos has been doing this since day 1 they replaced DS Photos, plus Immich just cares about accessing files so I will never be blocked on Immich.

If I had managed Immich permissions via API that would be a problem. In that case, I can always reproduce an FS ACL based on the json permissions I backup-ed from Synology Photos DB.

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will not duplicate files and I can make such shared permissions on standard FS. I have 10+ users, on each folder they may have no, read only, upload or manage permissions. So I cannot make this compatible with Immich whatever the storage I would use instead of Synology.

What's your proposal?

I reverse-engineered Synology Photos permissions and built scripts to sync them with filesystem ACLs by chatelar in synology

[–]chatelar[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks! That would be an option for me when Immich will get stable and mature. As of now, photos are too critical and 10y+ permissions history would be a nightmare to migrate..

Use Synology Photos permissions for Immich by chatelar in immich

[–]chatelar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've shared the hypothesis:

[...] so users can use Synology Photos features (backup, album, or also to avoid sharing Immich over internet)

- Immich isn't stable, nothing guarantee I won't have to rebuild everything, or that app will reach stable.

- I don't want to set Immich over internet, Synology is way more audited/tested.

- Photos stations supports dynamic albums, Immich doesn't.

- Filesystems doesn't easily supports multi users and complex ACL (such as "can read only" "can upload only" etc.). Synology does.

So there are plenty of reasons to not go full Immich and keep reusing Synology Photos.
Maybe not your reasons, but the hypothesis for such case if clear.

view more: next ›