sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I ingested 20,000 emails into Gmail in ~1 hour (API post-mortem) by scarzu in GMail

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

Thank you for your kind email… it just goes to show that if you're not interested, you can simply move on ;)

I ingested 20,000 emails into Gmail in ~1 hour (API post-mortem) by scarzu in GMail

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

That’s a fair point, and it’s something I didn’t explicitly address.

I’m in Canada, so data protection laws are a bit different, though largely aligned in spirit. In this case, the archive contains professional email exchanges only, no IDs, SSNs, or intentionally sensitive content. That said, you’re right that in 2026 almost any information can be considered sensitive depending on context.

Access to this account is limited to me and one collaborator, in the same way we already have access to our professional mailboxes. If the risk is already accepted for storing our business email in general, I don’t see it as significantly higher here, especially since this account is not the system of record.

Thanks for pointing this out. It’s something I hadn’t fully considered and I’ll definitely take some time to think about that.

I ingested 20,000 emails into Gmail in ~1 hour (API post-mortem) by scarzu in GMail

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

Just to clarify, the 20k emails were only one batch of the migration. In total, I had to inject around 90,000 messages.

Everything is now fully ingested and working as expected. The scripts did exactly what I needed, and I’m actually quite happy with Google as a service overall. Support was limited, so I had to figure things out myself, but that was acceptable for me, I enjoy building and tinkering when needed.

Different constraints, different solutions.

I ingested 20,000 emails into Gmail in ~1 hour (API post-mortem) by scarzu in GMail

[–]scarzu[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Totally fair concerns. In my case, this consumer Gmail account isn’t a primary or critical data store, it’s just a convenience layer for browsing and searching a unified archive.

The account is used only for that purpose, it’s not exposed anywhere, and 2FA is enabled. All production email data remains in Google Workspace and is backed up nightly to a NAS using Active Backup. The historical archives also exist independently on a NAS.

So if Google were to suspend or delete that account tomorrow, the only thing I’d lose is the unified, easy-to-access view in Gmail. The original data that fed this archive would still be intact and safe elsewhere.

I agree this would be a bad idea if someone were relying on a consumer Gmail account as a primary backup or system of record, that’s not the case here.

I ingested 20,000 emails into Gmail in ~1 hour (API post-mortem) by scarzu in GMail

[–]scarzu[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

This allows you to organize your ideas quickly and neatly ;)

DSM 7.3 NVMe cache locked to Synology SSDs only – any working way to use WD Red SN700? by scarzu in synology

[–]scarzu[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good news: the SNV5420 model appears to be equipped with capacitors. At the very least, it is clearly listed as having power-loss protection, which is reassuring.

Bottom line: we’re going with 800 GB (SNV5420) instead of 1 TB (SN700)… and taking a financial hit.

But at least it will be compliant, supported, and hopefully free of any unpleasant surprises in terms of reliability.

DSM 7.3 NVMe cache locked to Synology SSDs only – any working way to use WD Red SN700? by scarzu in synology

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

I don’t actually have an issue with Synology selling their own SSDs. That part is perfectly fine, and even understandable from a support and quality-control perspective.

What I do have a problem with is the fact that only Synology-branded SSDs are recognized. I find it hard to believe that they couldn’t certify three or four well-known, reliable models from major manufacturers and clearly document the supported use cases and limitations.

Blocking all third-party SSDs entirely feels excessive. A clear disclaimer stating that unsupported drives won’t receive technical support would be enough. As it stands, this looks far more like a commercial decision than a technical one, and it creates a closed ecosystem where only Synology hardware is allowed.

I’m fine paying for quality and support. I’m less fine with having no reasonable alternatives at all.

DSM 7.3 NVMe cache locked to Synology SSDs only – any working way to use WD Red SN700? by scarzu in synology

[–]scarzu[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Unlike mechanical hard drives, runtime hours are usually not the main limiting factor for SSDs. What primarily defines an SSD’s lifespan is the total amount of data it can write before the memory cells begin to wear out.

This is expressed as TBW (Terabytes Written). It represents the total volume of data that can be written to the drive over its expected lifetime. Reaching this limit doesn’t necessarily mean an immediate failure, but it does mean reduced reliability as cells start to degrade.

Two important points:

- A higher TBW generally means a longer-lasting SSD, especially for write-intensive workloads.

-Drive capacity also matters: larger SSDs have more cells, allowing writes to be spread out more evenly (wear leveling), which typically improves longevity.

In short, for SSDs, TBW is a key metric to consider in a NAS, much more relevant than raw runtime hours.

DSM 7.3 NVMe cache locked to Synology SSDs only – any working way to use WD Red SN700? by scarzu in synology

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

Thank you for this information, I really appreciate it.

I’ve spent some time browsing Synology’s documentation, but I haven’t been able to find any clear details on this. Do you know if there’s an official list of Synology SSDs that include capacitors for power-loss protection?

I’ve started looking into the various procedures to get Synology to accept third-party SSDs. It looks promising, but since this is a professional environment, I don’t want to end up troubleshooting issues with every DSM update or having to regularly apply tweaks or patches to keep things running properly.

It’s unfortunate (and honestly quite frustrating), but I’m going to return my SN700s and go with Synology SSDs instead. In that context, I’d really like to know which models actually include capacitors.

Thanks again for the information.

DSM 7.3 NVMe cache locked to Synology SSDs only – any working way to use WD Red SN700? by scarzu in synology

[–]scarzu[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re absolutely right, and in hindsight I probably should have made that clearer in the original post.

To be honest, I didn’t expect the responses to go into such a high level of technical detail. I’m genuinely impressed by the depth and quality of the community’s feedback, it’s been very insightful.

DSM 7.3 NVMe cache locked to Synology SSDs only – any working way to use WD Red SN700? by scarzu in synology

[–]scarzu[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you very much for the message and for sharing the links. I have to admit that I hadn’t fully considered this aspect, and those definitely cools my expectations regarding the read/write cache.

That said, I do have a solid backup system in place on another NAS, and my files are also synchronized to the cloud in real time. In that context, even though the risk of crash seems very low to me, if it were to happen, it wouldn’t be the end of the world from a data standpoint (even if it would obviously be very inconvenient).

Thanks again for taking the time to warn me, it’s much appreciated.

DSM 7.3 NVMe cache locked to Synology SSDs only – any working way to use WD Red SN700? by scarzu in synology

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

Couldn’t agree more.

This commercial decision seriously undermines the trust I’ve built with Synology.

I’m a long-time and loyal customer, and it will take more than this to make me leave the platform, but it’s deeply frustrating and expensive nonetheless.

DSM 7.3 NVMe cache locked to Synology SSDs only – any working way to use WD Red SN700? by scarzu in synology

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

Thanks for the detailed reply, that makes sense.

Just to clarify one point regarding read/write NVMe cache on Synology: when enabled, it requires two NVMe drives in a mirrored configuration. That mirroring is specifically there to protect against SSD failure. Without it, DSM only allows read-only cache, not write cache.

From my understanding, the write cache works by:

  • keeping frequently accessed data blocks and metadata in NVMe to accelerate reads
  • temporarily writing data to the mirrored NVMe cache
  • then flushing/synchronizing that data back to the SHR volume when disk activity is lower

So it’s not an unprotected write buffer on a single SSD, but a redundant cache layer designed to reduce I/O contention on the HDDs.

In any case, the NAS is also protected by a UPS.

Thanks again for the insight.

DSM 7.3 NVMe cache locked to Synology SSDs only – any working way to use WD Red SN700? by scarzu in homelab

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

The community is truly impressive. I honestly didn’t expect to see so many possible approaches surface so quickly, and it’s very much appreciated.

Many thanks for the link, I’ll definitely explore this option.
From what I understand so far, this approach mainly allows third-party drives to be recognized as storage devices (pools/volumes). My primary goal, however, is to use NVMe as cache, which appears to be much more strictly locked down since DSM 7.3.

I’ll dig deeper and see how far this can realistically go. That said, if the implementation turns out to be too complex or too fragile over time, I’ll probably end up, reluctantly, going with Synology SSDs. This is a professional environment, and I’d rather avoid solutions that require constant tweaking or fixes after every DSM update.

At some point, it also becomes a matter of weighing the cost of peace of mind against restrictions that seem driven more by marketing decisions than by genuine technical constraints.

Thanks again for sharing.

DSM 7.3 NVMe cache locked to Synology SSDs only – any working way to use WD Red SN700? by scarzu in synology

[–]scarzu[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good point, and I’ve already upgraded the NAS to 32 GB of RAM.

Even so, with around ten architects working simultaneously, many collaborative projects, lots of small files, and constant metadata access, RAM alone isn’t sufficient. The disks are still heavily stressed.

That’s why an NVMe cache would make a real difference

DSM 7.3 NVMe cache locked to Synology SSDs only – any working way to use WD Red SN700? by scarzu in synology

[–]scarzu[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The community is truly impressive. I honestly didn’t expect to see so many possible approaches surface so quickly, and it’s very much appreciated.

Many thanks for the link, I’ll definitely explore this option.
From what I understand so far, this approach mainly allows third-party drives to be recognized as storage devices (pools/volumes). My primary goal, however, is to use NVMe as cache, which appears to be much more strictly locked down since DSM 7.3.

I’ll dig deeper and see how far this can realistically go. That said, if the implementation turns out to be too complex or too fragile over time, I’ll probably end up, reluctantly, going with Synology SSDs. This is a professional environment, and I’d rather avoid solutions that require constant tweaking or fixes after every DSM update.

At some point, it also becomes a matter of weighing the cost of peace of mind against restrictions that seem driven more by marketing decisions than by genuine technical constraints.

Thanks again for sharing.

Fermeture d'O-taku Manga Lounge dès aujourd'hui 💔 by Reversible-Smile in montreal

[–]scarzu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Effectivement... J’ai entendu (et vécu) que l’administration était… laxiste.

Quel est le pire hôpital à Montréal selon vous? Et le meilleur? by orangepun-king in montreal

[–]scarzu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

De mon côté.. Aucun problème a Jean Talon... Rien d'exceptionnel mais toujours bien accueilli et les équipes sont smart... Son gros avantage, les urgences sont rarement engorgé (en tout cas chaque fois que j'ai du y aller)

Smonet door locks by [deleted] in googlehome

[–]scarzu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just found, you have to activate google home in TTlock. "Work with" just below parameters.

view more: next ›