6 ms·

NOT true. They have NOT fully reversed on this. Please read: https://kb.synology.com/en-global/DSM/tutorial/Drive_compatibility_policies https://kb.synology.co

NOT true. They have NOT fully reversed on this. Please read: https://kb.synology.com/en-global/DSM/tutorial/Drive_compatibility_policies https://kb.synology.com/en-global/DSM/tutorial/Drive_compati...

Fischgericht 1y ago
Exec summary for those who think their time is not worth this evil madness: The only change is that they now allow you to use any 2.5" SATA SSD. Everything else, meaning: 2.5" SATA HDDs (the by far most common thing you would want to use) and NVME SSDs: Still a no-no. No, there was no lesson learned here by them at all. The liked article specifically is wrong here: "Third-party hard drives and 2.5-inch SATA SSDs" No, not hard drives. 2.5" SSDs only. Very sorry to spoil the party, but sadly Synology STILL hasn't learned the lesson. :( Let's check again after they have lost 95% of their customers...
- avianlyric 1y ago
  What are you talking about. This is a quote directly from the page you’ve linked to: > At the same time, with the introduction of DSM 7.3, 2025 DiskStation Plus series models offer more flexibility for installing third-party HDDs and 2.5" SATA SSDs when creating storage pools.
  - Fischgericht 1y ago
    I do not know if we are getting served different content for the same URL. Content I can see, with server-side timestamp of 2 seconds ago: Hard disk drives (HDD) & M.2 NVMe solid-state drive (SSD) Series: FS, HD, SA, UC, XS+, XS, Plus, DVA/NVR, and DP Only drives listed in the compatibility list are supported.
    - WmWsjA6B29B4nfk 1y ago
      Looks like you are indeed getting an older page. Try https://archive.is/8aUdC https://archive.is/8aUdC
      - Fischgericht 1y ago
        As German IT news media has retracted the "Synology reverses" story based on the content they are reading in the press release link, I suspect there is some Geo-stuff involved here (I tested this from multiple German IPs now and always get "the other version").
- WmWsjA6B29B4nfk 1y ago
  > DS Plus series (DSM 7.3): > HDD > Not Listed > Supported for: > New installation and storage pool creation This is the main change. Other series (not Plus) are still locked down.
- vunuxodo 1y ago
  Regardless, the fact that this is even a question or has ambiguity/uncertainty in any way is enough to get me to never use a Synology NAS.
Fischgericht 1y ago
Last self-reply on this, I promise: If I would have to GUESS here is the explanation to this incorrect story: AFAIK there is not SATA SSD vendor left on the market besides some left-over stock put into enclosures by some chinese companies. This means Synology will no longer have the option to force you to buy "compatible" SSDs, because they themselves can not source them. So my GUESS (not backed up by proper research) is: They had to lift this requirement in hiding because they made it impossible to follow their extortion instructions.
layer8 1y ago
The article is about the changed actual policy deployed with DSM 7.3, that only just started rolling out. Your link hasn’t been updated in over two months, so doesn’t reflect that yet. Edit: Updated KB article is here: https://kb.synology.com/en-us/DSM/tutorial/Drive_compatibility_policies https://kb.synology.com/en-us/DSM/tutorial/Drive_compatibili...
- Fischgericht 1y ago
  This is not "my" link. That link is part of their press release.
- Fischgericht 1y ago
  Because I am no longer sure people are all getting shown the same content for that URL, here is what is shown to me (no local caches or proxies): Hard disk drives (HDD) & M.2 NVMe solid-state drive (SSD) Series Details FS, HD, SA, UC, XS+, XS, Plus, DVA/NVR, and DP Only drives listed in the compatibility list are supported.
  - layer8 1y ago
    Here is the updated KB article (note “en-us” vs. “en-global”): https://kb.synology.com/en-us/DSM/tutorial/Drive_compatibility_policies https://kb.synology.com/en-us/DSM/tutorial/Drive_compatibili... In particular: “At the same time, with the introduction of DSM 7.3, 2025 DiskStation Plus series models offer more flexibility for installing third-party HDDs and 2.5" SATA SSDs when creating storage pools. While Synology recommends using drives from the compatibility list for optimal performance and reliability, users retain the flexibility to install other drives at their own discretion.” NASCompares confirms that no warnings are shown: https://www.reddit.com/r/synology/comments/1o1a32m/testing_synology_dsm_73_hdd_and_ssd_compatibility/ https://www.reddit.com/r/synology/comments/1o1a32m/testing_s... I agree that the information is still a bit muddled right now.
    - Fischgericht 1y ago
      Ahahaha. I can confirm that if I change my Accept-Language headers in my browser from "en" to "en-US" I get the other version of that page. Actually, for everything else I tried other than "en-US" I get the evil version. Synology press team Achievement unlocked: Confuse all global IT press outside of the United States.
j45 1y ago
Thanks for sharing. It seems like they want to make sure NAS' are running NAS grade drives, instead of consumer grade (SMR) drives which can have serious issues when rebuilding an array after a drive failure. Customers buying inappropriate drives for NAS and then eventually blowing back on Synology, if a driver of this could be handled differently.
- Fischgericht 1y ago
  Just commented here to point out that this news story spreading is wrong (and that other IT news outlets have since corrected/retracted it), don't have any eggs in that basket, but: Discussions on their reasoning happened back when they introduced the extortion fees. No, it's not about NAS grade drives. They are just re-labelling existing NAS drive models, putting their own sticker onto it. The original manufacturers identical NAS drive model is then listed as incompatible. There is nothing remotely connected to actual technology involved in this story at all. This is a sales-strategy-only subject.
  - j45 1y ago
    I'm not a customer of Synology. I don't agree with justifying forced purchase of a relabeled product. They deserve the result of their decision and not understanding their customers - they could just start a separate enterprise line if they didn't have one already for whatever they wanted to force. Enterprise brands like HP, etc, to my last experience, do sell white-labelled drives, but don't bar you from using those same drives yourself. My lack of trust remains with the parts that will fail the most - hard drives. Hard Drive manufacturers don't have the best history, whether it was Western Digital lying to their customers about CMR when it was actually SMR. That would be my reason for never accepting a forced labelling of a drive.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  Nah, not really. They already have a compatibility page of known-good drives and they recommend people stick to it. They could also have an incompatibility list showing known-bad drives, and alerting if you install one of them. If I put junk tires on my Toyota, I don’t blame Toyota. But if Toyota used that as an excuse to make it impossible to use third party tires, I guarantee you my next car purchase wouldn’t have that same limitation.
metaphor 1y ago
> Last updated:Jul 30, 2025 Appears to be stale documentation.
- ncr100 1y ago
  Incompetency. Good to get this fact about the Synology organization.

Fischgericht 1y ago

Exec summary for those who think their time is not worth this evil madness: The only change is that they now allow you to use any 2.5" SATA SSD. Everything else, meaning: 2.5" SATA HDDs (the by far most common thing you would want to use) and NVME SSDs: Still a no-no. No, there was no lesson learned here by them at all. The liked article specifically is wrong here: "Third-party hard drives and 2.5-inch SATA SSDs" No, not hard drives. 2.5" SSDs only. Very sorry to spoil the party, but sadly Synology STILL hasn't learned the lesson. :( Let's check again after they have lost 95% of their customers...

avianlyric 1y ago
What are you talking about. This is a quote directly from the page you’ve linked to: > At the same time, with the introduction of DSM 7.3, 2025 DiskStation Plus series models offer more flexibility for installing third-party HDDs and 2.5" SATA SSDs when creating storage pools.
- Fischgericht 1y ago
  I do not know if we are getting served different content for the same URL. Content I can see, with server-side timestamp of 2 seconds ago: Hard disk drives (HDD) & M.2 NVMe solid-state drive (SSD) Series: FS, HD, SA, UC, XS+, XS, Plus, DVA/NVR, and DP Only drives listed in the compatibility list are supported.
  - WmWsjA6B29B4nfk 1y ago
    Looks like you are indeed getting an older page. Try https://archive.is/8aUdC https://archive.is/8aUdC
    - Fischgericht 1y ago
      As German IT news media has retracted the "Synology reverses" story based on the content they are reading in the press release link, I suspect there is some Geo-stuff involved here (I tested this from multiple German IPs now and always get "the other version").
WmWsjA6B29B4nfk 1y ago
> DS Plus series (DSM 7.3): > HDD > Not Listed > Supported for: > New installation and storage pool creation This is the main change. Other series (not Plus) are still locked down.
vunuxodo 1y ago
Regardless, the fact that this is even a question or has ambiguity/uncertainty in any way is enough to get me to never use a Synology NAS.

Fischgericht 1y ago

Last self-reply on this, I promise: If I would have to GUESS here is the explanation to this incorrect story: AFAIK there is not SATA SSD vendor left on the market besides some left-over stock put into enclosures by some chinese companies. This means Synology will no longer have the option to force you to buy "compatible" SSDs, because they themselves can not source them. So my GUESS (not backed up by proper research) is: They had to lift this requirement in hiding because they made it impossible to follow their extortion instructions.

layer8 1y ago

The article is about the changed actual policy deployed with DSM 7.3, that only just started rolling out. Your link hasn’t been updated in over two months, so doesn’t reflect that yet. Edit: Updated KB article is here: https://kb.synology.com/en-us/DSM/tutorial/Drive_compatibility_policies https://kb.synology.com/en-us/DSM/tutorial/Drive_compatibili...

Fischgericht 1y ago
This is not "my" link. That link is part of their press release.
Fischgericht 1y ago
Because I am no longer sure people are all getting shown the same content for that URL, here is what is shown to me (no local caches or proxies): Hard disk drives (HDD) & M.2 NVMe solid-state drive (SSD) Series Details FS, HD, SA, UC, XS+, XS, Plus, DVA/NVR, and DP Only drives listed in the compatibility list are supported.
- layer8 1y ago
  Here is the updated KB article (note “en-us” vs. “en-global”): https://kb.synology.com/en-us/DSM/tutorial/Drive_compatibility_policies https://kb.synology.com/en-us/DSM/tutorial/Drive_compatibili... In particular: “At the same time, with the introduction of DSM 7.3, 2025 DiskStation Plus series models offer more flexibility for installing third-party HDDs and 2.5" SATA SSDs when creating storage pools. While Synology recommends using drives from the compatibility list for optimal performance and reliability, users retain the flexibility to install other drives at their own discretion.” NASCompares confirms that no warnings are shown: https://www.reddit.com/r/synology/comments/1o1a32m/testing_synology_dsm_73_hdd_and_ssd_compatibility/ https://www.reddit.com/r/synology/comments/1o1a32m/testing_s... I agree that the information is still a bit muddled right now.
  - Fischgericht 1y ago
    Ahahaha. I can confirm that if I change my Accept-Language headers in my browser from "en" to "en-US" I get the other version of that page. Actually, for everything else I tried other than "en-US" I get the evil version. Synology press team Achievement unlocked: Confuse all global IT press outside of the United States.

j45 1y ago

Thanks for sharing. It seems like they want to make sure NAS' are running NAS grade drives, instead of consumer grade (SMR) drives which can have serious issues when rebuilding an array after a drive failure. Customers buying inappropriate drives for NAS and then eventually blowing back on Synology, if a driver of this could be handled differently.

Fischgericht 1y ago
Just commented here to point out that this news story spreading is wrong (and that other IT news outlets have since corrected/retracted it), don't have any eggs in that basket, but: Discussions on their reasoning happened back when they introduced the extortion fees. No, it's not about NAS grade drives. They are just re-labelling existing NAS drive models, putting their own sticker onto it. The original manufacturers identical NAS drive model is then listed as incompatible. There is nothing remotely connected to actual technology involved in this story at all. This is a sales-strategy-only subject.
- j45 1y ago
  I'm not a customer of Synology. I don't agree with justifying forced purchase of a relabeled product. They deserve the result of their decision and not understanding their customers - they could just start a separate enterprise line if they didn't have one already for whatever they wanted to force. Enterprise brands like HP, etc, to my last experience, do sell white-labelled drives, but don't bar you from using those same drives yourself. My lack of trust remains with the parts that will fail the most - hard drives. Hard Drive manufacturers don't have the best history, whether it was Western Digital lying to their customers about CMR when it was actually SMR. That would be my reason for never accepting a forced labelling of a drive.
kstrauser 1y ago
Nah, not really. They already have a compatibility page of known-good drives and they recommend people stick to it. They could also have an incompatibility list showing known-bad drives, and alerting if you install one of them. If I put junk tires on my Toyota, I don’t blame Toyota. But if Toyota used that as an excuse to make it impossible to use third party tires, I guarantee you my next car purchase wouldn’t have that same limitation.

metaphor 1y ago

> Last updated:Jul 30, 2025 Appears to be stale documentation.

ncr100 1y ago
Incompetency. Good to get this fact about the Synology organization.