Synology partially drops support for third-party drives in 2025 NAS range

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in General Discussion

Synology is pushing for consumers to buy its own brand of hard drives for its newest NAS appliances, with only certified drives getting the full suite of software support.

A black, four-bay network storage device next to a white decorative pot on books, with a green plant leaf extended over it.
Older Synology NAS devices won't be affected by the drive changes



The cost of a network-attached storage (NAS) device could be split into two components, with the NAS itself as one part, while the drives that fill it make up the second. At higher capacities, the drives can be the more costly element to acquire, and often leads to users shopping around for deals on hard disks.

It appears that Synology is keen to earn more from users by getting them to purchase its own line of hard drives to go with the NAS.

Spotted by Hardwareluxx.de and confirmed by a press release on Synology's German-language website, the NAS maker is making changes to the way its drives software operates. For some models of NAS released in 2025, it will have a considerable preference to the use of Synology-branded or Synology-certified drives.

Synology says that its Plus series models shipping in 2025 will behave differently for third-party drives that haven't got the Synology certification. Officially sanctioned and deemed compatible drives will work with all of the features and support functions the NAS will offer, but others will not.

The limits of uncertified drives will include restrictions on pool creation, with them also missing out on volume-wide deduplication, lifespan analysis, and automatic hard drive firmware update features. The loss of these features for third-party drives could cause problems, such as users being unaware of issues until it's too late and data has already been lost.

More warnings, more profits



While these features won't be available to uncertified third-party drives, the drives will still work with a NAS as storage. Warnings will be displayed about support, which could scare users into buying Synology's drives, but they should otherwise work fine.

The company adds that there won't be any changes to Plus models released in 2024 or in earlier years, with the exception of XS Plus models and rack-based editions.

The reason for the changes is put forward by Synology as a result of the success of its High-Performance series of drives. It's claimed that this will grant "the highest levels of security and performance, while also offering significantly more efficient support."

An alternative and fairly obvious reason for doing so is to earn more revenue from consumers kitting out the NAS. Rather than getting cheaper drives from another supplier, the changes will probably influence users into buying Synology's drives, so that they don't miss out on safety features.



Read on AppleInsider

ecarlseen

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    StrangeDaysstrangedays Posts: 13,172member
    oh hell no. no lame. I like mine but will not be locked into their brand storage, no technical reason for this 
    ecarlseenbbhdewmeentropysOferwilliamlondonNotSoMuch
     6Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 13
    maltzmaltz Posts: 537member
    I'm not clear, and the article seems contradictory - do they act differently for *all* third-party drives?  Or just "third-party drives that haven't got the Synology certification"?  Because those aren't the same thing.

    Because if it's just them trying to steer people away from SMR and other very poor-performing (in a RAID application) drives... that doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.
    edited April 16
    ecarlseenxyzzy01OferFileMakerFeller
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 13
    Having worked as a Synology reseller, I can guess as to what the problem is:

    Hard drives are no longer "general purpose" like they were in the old days. Mechanical design and firmware are now optimized for all kinds of use cases: NAS / SAN, NVR, desktop PC, workstation, various types of servers, etc. Don't get me started on SMR vs CMR. Way too many users buy a NAS and then throw in whatever drive is cheap, or whatever drive has the biggest capacity, without any understanding or consideration of fitness for purpose. And when the drive is slower than trash or fails early, who do people blame? Themselves? Ha ha ha ha ha, no.

    It looks like you can use any drive that Synology has tested / certified, and their tested / certified list generally contains virtually all of the makes and models that make sense to use. My only gripe is that it's often a few months behind what's released on the market. I don't have much trouble predicting what will and won't wind up on there, but that may be a hassle for people who want something that just came out. If you check the specs very, very, very carefully it's not exactly rocket science to figure out, but you have to be precise about it. Unless you have a lot of technical knowledge about hard drives and are excellent with details, just stick to their list.

    I wish Synology HDDs were more cost-competitive. The quality is solid, but the markup is a bit much in a market that's pretty tight. Their SSDs are better in this regards and I almost always use those.
    edited April 16
    22july2013XedentropysSigsgaardxyzzy01OferFileMakerFeller
     4Likes 0Dislikes 3Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 13
    Weren’t we always checking the list for compatibility though? I remember doing it before I bought my still in use DS916+. They’ve pushed their drives since they started making them and if they don’t get any cheaper, people are still going to use third party drives. Looking to hopefully upgrade soon, and cost is a huge factor when the drives are more than the unit. 
    entropysOfer
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 13
    I can understand why Synology did this.  I have been burnt (pretty bad) by buying four high volume drives that were marketed by Western Digital as "NAS" drives, and that totally failed hard in my Synology.  The compatibility requirements are really very fiddly and opaque for me as a very savvy prosumer.  Not an expert, but definitely in the weeds in detail.  The level of detail required to ensure that drives are compatible is crazy - many vendor sites for HDD don't have the level of precision necessary - don't show all of model specs or swap out as interchangeable minor differences without disclosing it.  I lost hundreds on those unreliable drives.

    Personally, have been bitten by Western Digital cutting corners, I view this as potentially similar to the "Apple tax" on memory but more understandable.  People may kvetch about it, but it's hard for Synology to not lose their brand reputation if Western Digital can't be trusted.
    ecarlseenwilliamlondonAngmohFileMakerFeller
     3Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 13
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 8,242member
    paulk91 said:
    I can understand why Synology did this.  I have been burnt (pretty bad) by buying four high volume drives that were marketed by Western Digital as "NAS" drives, and that totally failed hard in my Synology.  The compatibility requirements are really very fiddly and opaque for me as a very savvy prosumer.  Not an expert, but definitely in the weeds in detail.  The level of detail required to ensure that drives are compatible is crazy - many vendor sites for HDD don't have the level of precision necessary - don't show all of model specs or swap out as interchangeable minor differences without disclosing it.  I lost hundreds on those unreliable drives.

    Personally, have been bitten by Western Digital cutting corners, I view this as potentially similar to the "Apple tax" on memory but more understandable.  People may kvetch about it, but it's hard for Synology to not lose their brand reputation if Western Digital can't be trusted.
    As long as you stick to certified drives and pay attention to firmware requirements (compatibility listings sometimes also provide firmware versions too) you should be OK with just checking which drives are good for you (from a price/capacity standpoint) on the NAS vendors compatibility list. 

    Another key consideration IMO is to purchase drives from authorised resellers or trusted vendors. There is a lot of fraud in the market with re-badged, refurbished or outright different hardware under the label. 

    I use Toshiba N300 drives (RAID1) which some consider noisy but they have been ultra reliable for me. 
    ecarlseenFileMakerFeller
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 13
    mknelsonmknelson Posts: 1,163member
    oh hell no. no lame. I like mine but will not be locked into their brand storage, no technical reason for this 
    Read the restrictions list - most of the features dropped for unsupported (non-branded or non-supported) drives aren't things most people use.

    The supported drive list tends to be pretty extensive. Best not to panic until the new models drop and we can see that list.
    ecarlseenwilliamlondon
     0Likes 1Dislike 1Informative
  • Reply 8 of 13
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,162member
    avon b7 said:
    paulk91 said:
    I can understand why Synology did this.  I have been burnt (pretty bad) by buying four high volume drives that were marketed by Western Digital as "NAS" drives, and that totally failed hard in my Synology.  The compatibility requirements are really very fiddly and opaque for me as a very savvy prosumer.  Not an expert, but definitely in the weeds in detail.  The level of detail required to ensure that drives are compatible is crazy - many vendor sites for HDD don't have the level of precision necessary - don't show all of model specs or swap out as interchangeable minor differences without disclosing it.  I lost hundreds on those unreliable drives.

    Personally, have been bitten by Western Digital cutting corners, I view this as potentially similar to the "Apple tax" on memory but more understandable.  People may kvetch about it, but it's hard for Synology to not lose their brand reputation if Western Digital can't be trusted.
    As long as you stick to certified drives and pay attention to firmware requirements (compatibility listings sometimes also provide firmware versions too) you should be OK with just checking which drives are good for you (from a price/capacity standpoint) on the NAS vendors compatibility list. 

    Another key consideration IMO is to purchase drives from authorised resellers or trusted vendors. There is a lot of fraud in the market with re-badged, refurbished or outright different hardware under the label. 

    I use Toshiba N300 drives (RAID1) which some consider noisy but they have been ultra reliable for me. 
    "As long as you do this, then that, and especially this, then no problem."

    Actually, that is the problem.  I can understand why they're doing it.  Just go to the Synology / NAS forums.  There are countless people that focus on nothing more than the cheapest, questionable hard drives, stick them in a Synology NAS, and then go online to gripe and complain as to why it's not working right.  Why should companies like Synology deal with trying to provide support to users that - given the option - don't adhere to best practices?  

    And yes, that CMR and SMR debacle.  The hard drive market is convoluted with various type of hard drive technologies that don't play well with NAS systems.  NAS manufacturers have to take the reins since it's obvious the users don't care.
    ecarlseenFileMakerFeller
     1Like 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 9 of 13
    DAalsethdaalseth Posts: 3,284member
    This is one of those cases where the article was interesting, but the comments really clarify what it really means. 
    maltzFileMakerFeller
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 13
    I use enterprise level western digital helium filled 24/7 365 drives

    That’s hard… my 8 bay synology is still working great from 2016
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 13
    MplsPmplsp Posts: 4,108member
    DAalseth said:
    This is one of those cases where the article was interesting, but the comments really clarify what it really means. 
    Agreed - AI really should have done more reporting beyond simply jumping to the 'profit grab' conclusion.
    maltz
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 13
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,162member
    MplsP said:
    DAalseth said:
    This is one of those cases where the article was interesting, but the comments really clarify what it really means. 
    Agreed - AI really should have done more reporting beyond simply jumping to the 'profit grab' conclusion.
    I think it's because faux outrage always gets the views, clicks, and responses to drive web-revenue.  I think Synology saw the writing on the wall and ran the numbers.  I bet the numbers showed that they were spending too much of their revenue supporting users that buy sketchy, incompatible drives and decided that for support you got to use drives that Synology approves of.  Makes sense to me.
    MplsPmaltz
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 13
    Interesting, I am interested in purchasing some higher tier models, but we will see... on the contrary 2 moths back I purchased 1823xs+ model a put there 3x ironwolf pro HDD and also 1TB WD red NVME  for caching and even thou SW support is nearly dead (no SMART etc - just info about unsupported HDD) everything works just fine and even those warning are not persistent (If I remember I got those when I installed HDD and after that there was option to turn them off and no nothing appears). Now I am preparing for RAM upgrade for Kingstone Premier series
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.