Synology NAS - Binary or Docker Agent? #517
Replies: 3 comments 10 replies
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Sorry, I must have missed this when you first posted. Docker is very easy and a good choice if you're already running docker. The binary agent may have more capabilities in the future since it's not isolated in a container, but for now they should work the same on a Synology NAS. If either install method has issues specific to Synology, please let me know and I'll try to get it fixed. Both should work fine as far as I'm aware. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
So to summarize, what would be the preferred method for installing the Beszel agent on Synology NAS? Should we use Docker, or try to install the binary directly? (edit: for now, I chose the Docker method, seems to work fine on DSM 7.2.2 + DS1621+) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Description
I am running Bezel and looking to monitor a Synology NAS. For clarity, the Beszel Hub is not running on the Synology.
Is the binary install method or the docker method preferred for Synology? I am not sure if installing on Synology via the CLI will get removed after a reboot as sometimes this occurs when using appliance Linux operating systems.
I generally prefer using the binary install method - but has anyone tested this? Thanks in advance.
OS / Architecture
Docker container running on Ubuntu 22.04 LTS VM running on Proxmox host (hub), Synology DSM 7.2.x (agent)
Beszel version
0.9.1
Installation method
Other (please describe above)
Configuration
No response
Hub Logs
No response
Agent Logs
No response
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions