OS6 now works on x86 Legacy WARNING: NO NTGR SUPPORT!

mangrove wrote:
In different words: if I can only use 6.3TB of my 12TB disks (RAID5-array so 9TB x 0.7) for "performance reasons" or whatnot, why shouldn't I buy a competing product without the 70% "limitation" and throw the additional storage waste on a higher/faster RAID level?

As tony539 points out, It is just a notification that the disk is filling - not a limitation. You can fill it to 90% or higher if you want. You might run into problems, but folks have run into issues with ext when they exceed 90% also.

Though I think your real concern is Netgear's decision to use btrfs in OS6 instead of ext.

It was an unexpected choice. Though despite the caveats in the wiki, I'd say it seems to be working out reasonably well.

Yes, there have been some performance issues and lockups. However, there also were performance issues and lockups with various OS4 and OS5 NAS firmware releases, so that does not appear to be unique to btrfs.

And there was the recommendation to do the factory reset to improve performance. Annoying, but it was not without precedent. OS4 also reccommended a factory reset (to get 4K alignment).

AFAIK there are no cases reported here that show that bugs in btrfs itself caused data corruption or loss. Certainly I haven't seen any instance of that with my RN102. I have had my share of OS6 growing pains, but nothing that definitively points to btrfs.


The main drawbacks seem to be (a) small-block writes are slower than ext and (b) moves between shares turn into copy/delete, which is much slower.

Though I find the snapshots to be useful (unlike the older NAS), and the elimination of the xraid2 ext expansion limits is a significant plus.