The Synology web UI lets you mount a remote SMB share and copy files directly in their file manager without making the round-trip via your PC, I imagine this would have been the fastest method without getting bogged down in command-line tools.

▲

amaccuish an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I tried that once but the cifs kernel mod was so old it didnt support modern auth methods.

▲

teekert 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I didn't read the whole thing, but couldn't you just rsync over ssh from either end?

Your suggestions is also very nice, you can just turn off your own PC and wait for it to finish.

▲

kalleboo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The situation in the article is one NAS is 10 Gbit and one NAS had 4x1Gbit. SMB will use MultiChannel to aggregate the 4x1GBit ports, but rsync will just pick one and be limited at 25% of the available bandwidth.

I don't even think rclone can split across multiple interfaces like SMB does.

▲

ZPrimed 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Synology actually supports the old (non-encrypted) rsync protocol, too. On a trusted LAN, it runs much quicker that way than with rsync-over-ssh...

I just finished slurping all of my files off an old Synology and onto a TrueNAS server. Unlike the article here, my Syno is 2x1Gb in a LAG, so I was really only getting ~1Gbps at max.

One disappointment with TrueNAS is that it doesn't support SMB-MC unless you put each interface on a separate subnet (which is a strange limitation because Samba itself doesn't seem to suffer from this, since synology handles it fine)

▲

spockz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What is the benefit of SMB-LC over managing the link speed at a lower level via link bonding or trunking?

	▲	kalleboo 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Most methods of link aggregation won't speed up a single TCP connection, and they can be messy-to-impossible to set up on non-Linux machines. With SMB you just plug in 2 NICs and you automatically get ~double the bandwidth.