PDA

View Full Version : SSODS and a failing DS-106



tommypeters
2006-09-11, 09:22
Got a Synology DS-106 a while ago and put in a HDD. Then updated the FW to the newest version, then installed SSODS and SlimServer. Added some music and all was working well. For two days.

I had had the DS-106 power off over the night, and when I powered it on again it didn't behave like it should and wasn't reachable on the local net. It couldn't be found by the Synology Assistant program either. I contacted Synology support who made me do a couple of tests and told me the unit was defective and should be replaced.

Getting it replaced was no problem and I got a new DS-106 and put the HDD inside. Everything there was intact and the unit is now connected to the local network and I'm adding more music.

I have yet to update the DS-106 FW or install SSODS/SlimServer, I wanted to check first that nothing is done in a wrong way. For instance, the SSODS docs write that to be on the safe side SSODS should be deinstalled before the Synology FW is updated, then reinstalled.

I guess that an install of SSODS both changes the FW and copies PERL and some other stuff to the HDD? I can see the SSODS and Slimserver stuff on the HDD, and since the DS-106 is replaced then the FW is still the original. Should I remove the SSODS/SlimServer stuff from the HDD before updating the FW and installing SSODS/SlimServer, or does that not matter? Anything else to think of?

mr_hyde
2006-09-11, 09:30
Got a Synology DS-106 a while ago and put in a HDD. Then updated the FW to the newest version, then installed SSODS and SlimServer. Added some music and all was working well. For two days.

I had had the DS-106 power off over the night, and when I powered it on again it didn't behave like it should and wasn't reachable on the local net. It couldn't be found by the Synology Assistant program either. I contacted Synology support who made me do a couple of tests and told me the unit was defective and should be replaced.

Getting it replaced was no problem and I got a new DS-106 and put the HDD inside. Everything there was intact and the unit is now connected to the local network and I'm adding more music.

I have yet to update the DS-106 FW or install SSODS/SlimServer, I wanted to check first that nothing is done in a wrong way. For instance, the SSODS docs write that to be on the safe side SSODS should be deinstalled before the Synology FW is updated, then reinstalled.

I guess that an install of SSODS both changes the FW and copies PERL and some other stuff to the HDD? I can see the SSODS and Slimserver stuff on the HDD, and since the DS-106 is replaced then the FW is still the original. Should I remove the SSODS/SlimServer stuff from the HDD before updating the FW and installing SSODS/SlimServer, or does that not matter? Anything else to think of?

Hello,

i've had a similar problem, but it was my fault. I tried to change something in the ss startupscript. Everything was fine till the next reboot. It was not possible to find the DS106..... . My problem was, that i had no PC with SATA. I went to my neighbour and he formatted the HDD. After that i was able to reinstall the firmware and got access to the diskstation again. Actually the SS/SSODS installation runs over a couple of weeks without any problems.

mr_hyde

tommypeters
2006-09-11, 12:18
Synology Support asked me to remove the HDD and start up the unit and tell them how it behaved, which it didn't. Well, I mean, it didn't behave well and how it was supposed to. So reformatting the drive wouldn't have helped here.

So it seems like the best course for me would be to remove the SSODS/SlimServer stuff on the HDD and then update the DS-106, but both folders are valid shares and I don't want to remove anything by brute force that is referred to from somewhere else. Might lead to a reformat...

Right now I'm doing a Local-USB2 backup of the contents of the HDD, I don't know how long time it will take. That's one thing that is fixed in the (sofar uninstalled) latest version of DS-106 FW: "Bug Fix #3: (2485) Progress timer of Local Backup is not properly shown, while the backup is acutely running."...