DSM 7.4 hack for non-genuine Synology hard drives

[zombiephysicist]

This is as clear as mud.

Let me see if I understand this.

If you have an 1821+ or a 2423+RP and upgrade to 7.4.x, you CAN continue to use NON-synology drives, they will work, but show up with warnings, BUT, use of NON-synology drives will not allow you to use some new features of 7.4 (like the compression features), but you WILL still be able to see all your existing storage pools and volumes?

Is the above correct?

So If I dont care about the (near useless compression features, I dont), then upgrading to 7.4 will not change any of the behaviors I've grown used to on my 2 synologies, and will bring the benefit of some security updates, but other than that, it's an otherwise basically feature wise useless update.

Is the above correct?

Thanks for any sanity check!

 

[DSfuchs]

This is as clear as mud.

Let me see if I understand this.

If you have an 1821+ or a 2423+RP and upgrade to 7.4.x, you CAN continue to use NON-synology drives, they will work, but show up with warnings, BUT, use of NON-synology drives will not allow you to use some new features of 7.4 (like the compression features), but you WILL still be able to see all your existing storage pools and volumes?

Is the above correct?

So If I dont care about the (near useless compression features, I dont), then upgrading to 7.4 will not change any of the behaviors I've grown used to on my 2 synologies, and will bring the benefit of some security updates, but other than that, it's an otherwise basically feature wise useless update.

Is the above correct?

Thanks for any sanity check!

Without the adjustment, volume1 is completely disabled. After that, everything works again, including the new features, without any error messages or warnings. That’s how it was for me on the RS3621xs+. Since my RackStation is older than the X25 series, the issue was to be expected based on the information from Rusty.

However, I had also previously configured Synology_HDD_db on DSM 7.3:

GitHub - 007revad/Synology_HDD_db: Add your HDD, SSD and NVMe drives to your Synology's compatible drive database and a lot more

Add your HDD, SSD and NVMe drives to your Synology's compatible drive database and a lot more - 007revad/Synology_HDD_db

github.com

 

[DSfuchs]

SHR is native Linux MD/LVM2. You can mount such volumes on any recent Linux box.

I am not aware of any publicly documented case where things worked out that way and which we can reproduce. Why else is there only one piece of software capable of reading SHR, and why are people willing to pay such an exorbitant price for it? We are a long way off from a "mount" in the sense of making the data usable and remounting it to DSM.

In contrast, without SHR, I can easily use, edit, delete, and copy data to Btrfs-formatted volumes using the Windows driver for md/Btrfs. Naturally, they can subsequently continue to be used in DSM without any issues. Of course, a different DSM or Linux installation is always preferable for this purpose.

 

[Telos]

SHR is native Linux MD/LVM2. You can mount such volumes on any recent Linux box.

I am not aware of any publicly documented case where things worked out that way and which we can reproduce.

Synology instructions to read Synology content (including SHR) from Ubuntu (or other Linux).

 

[zombiephysicist]

Without the adjustment, volume1 is completely disabled. After that, everything works again, including the new features, without any error messages or warnings. That’s how it was for me on the RS3621xs+. Since my RackStation is older than the X25 series, the issue was to be expected based on the information from Rusty.

However, I had also previously configured Synology_HDD_db on DSM 7.3:

GitHub - 007revad/Synology_HDD_db: Add your HDD, SSD and NVMe drives to your Synology's compatible drive database and a lot more

Add your HDD, SSD and NVMe drives to your Synology's compatible drive database and a lot more - 007revad/Synology_HDD_db

github.com

Wow. So I have 1821+, I currently have 7.3.x and a bunch of EXOS drives that establish Pool1 and Volume 1. If I do the upgrade to 7.4.x, if I do nothing after the update, I will have an inaccessible Pool1 and Volume1.

THAT
IS
INSANITY

And if you do the hack, after that, you will be able to see your Pool1/Volume1 after the hack.

Ok, so will NOT be touching 7.4.

Thanks so much for confirming this info!

 

[White Bear]

I have 1821+, I currently have 7.3.x and a bunch of EXOS drives that establish Pool1 and Volume 1. If I do the upgrade to 7.4.x, if I do nothing after the update, I will have an inaccessible Pool1 and Volume1.

THAT
IS
INSANITY

There is good reason to be skeptical of this claim. A DSM update that renders existing storage pools inaccessible would be extraordinarily disruptive and would likely be widely documented by both Synology and by affected users. Has anyone asked Synology support for a sanity check? FWIW, we have a DS725+ with EXOS - 7.4 added a warning about drives not on compatibility list; but that was it...

Synology’s inconsistent messaging and subsequent policy changes left many of us uncertain about the future usability of third-party drives. This communication vacuum has created confusion; and misinformation on social media is an inevitable consequence.

 

[Telos]

There is good reason to be skeptical of this claim.

Agree. When the x25 drive lock initially appeared. Synology permitted 3rd-party drive migrations.

 

[Telos]

In a recent post, Rusty dispelled all fearmongering about v7.4 disabling “volume1”. No “drive hack” required.

 

[DSfuchs]

we have a DS725+ with EXOS - 7.4 added a warning about drives not on compatibility list; but that was it...

Your DiskStation DS725+ was unblocked by Synology, so it is not affected.

 

[DSfuchs]

Wow. So I have 1821+, I currently have 7.3.x and a bunch of EXOS drives that establish Pool1 and Volume 1. If I do the upgrade to 7.4.x, if I do nothing after the update, I will have an inaccessible Pool1 and Volume1.

THAT
IS
INSANITY

And if you do the hack, after that, you will be able to see your Pool1/Volume1 after the hack.

Ok, so will NOT be touching 7.4.

Thanks so much for confirming this info!

(As of 2021) The exclusion affecting Enterprise and high-end series began with the x21 model generation (e.g., RS3621xs+, RS4021xs+, or SA3600). For these devices, Synology mandated the use of its own hard drives (HAT5300 series) or SSDs (SAT5200 series).

Since the 1821+ is presumably not included, there shouldn't be any problems.
The Synology DiskStation DS1821+ is a powerful 8-bay desktop NAS positioned in the business and prosumer class (specifically for SMEs and home offices).
So, at this point, I can give you the all-clear.

With reference to the 2021 marketing statement, the following models should be the ones affected.
Enterprise and High-End models from the '21 to '24 generations:

Series	Model Generation	Model Name	Form Factor / Slots	Key Focus / Features
XS/XS+ Series (Enterprise Core)	'21 '22 '23 '24	RS4021xs+ RS3621xs+ RS3621RPxs DS1621xs+ DS3622xs+ RS2423+ / RS2423RP+ RS3624xs+	3U Rackmount (16 Bays) 2U Rackmount (12 Bays) 2U Rackmount (12 Bays) Desktop Tower (6 Bays) Desktop Tower (12 Bays) 2U Rackmount (12 Bays) 2U Rackmount (12 Bays)	8-Core Intel Xeon, built-in dual 10GbE Intel Xeon, built-in dual 10GbE Redundant power, Intel Xeon processor Compact high-end desktop, built-in 10GbE High-end desktop refresh, Intel Xeon Enterprise branches, optional redundant power Modern flagship, 8-Core Xeon, dual 10GbE
HD Series (High-Density)	'22	HD6500	4U Rackmount (60 Bays)	Multi-petabyte central storage, SAS multipathing
SA Series (Scalable Architecture)	'23 '24	SA6400 SA3610 / SA3410 SA3400D	2U Rackmount (12 Bays) 2U Rackmount (12 Bays) 2U Rackmount (12 Bays)	Scales to 108 drives, high-perf AMD EPYC Enterprise classics, Intel Xeon refresh Dual-controller (Active-Passive) in one chassis
FS Series (FlashStation)	'22	FS6400 FS3410 FS2500	2U Rackmount (24 Bays) 2U Rackmount (24 Bays) 1U Rackmount (12 Bays)	All-Flash, maximum IOPS for databases All-Flash entry point for virtualization All-Flash with short-depth chassis
UC Series (Unified Controller)	'24	UC3400	2U Rackmount (12 Bays)	Pure SAN storage, Dual-Active controllers (FC/iSCSI)

 

[DSfuchs]

It would be nice if the manufacturer itself listed the affected units, but they don't even seem to be aware that DSM 7.4 is on the market.
So, we have to turn on our AI.

 

[zombiephysicist]

Without the adjustment, volume1 is completely disabled. After that, everything works again, including the new features, without any error messages or warnings. That’s how it was for me on the RS3621xs+. Since my RackStation is older than the X25 series, the issue was to be expected based on the information from Rusty.

However, I had also previously configured Synology_HDD_db on DSM 7.3:

GitHub - 007revad/Synology_HDD_db: Add your HDD, SSD and NVMe drives to your Synology's compatible drive database and a lot more

Add your HDD, SSD and NVMe drives to your Synology's compatible drive database and a lot more - 007revad/Synology_HDD_db

github.com

Thank you all. The confusion comes from the above and one other post where people here REPORTED it disabled a volume on their 2021 era synology device. And then I see a post that said @Rusty debunked this. But I'm not sure I understand what/how it was debunked.

It seems that the "list" is not based on year, so it's not like all 2021 models WILL or WILL NOT work, but just if it's on the NOT WORKING list, then well, it wont work, and for some reason the RS3621xs+ wont work, while, apparently, the 1821+ will (despite the 3621xs+ being a far more capable bit of kit)?!?!?

What is weird is my RS2423RP+ IS listed there, so does that mean my RS2423RP+ will NOT work with 7.4 without a hack!?! That's kind of madness!

Am I understanding that correctly, finally? BLESS YOU ALL and apologies for my not understanding this better/quicker. Super appreciate all the sanity checks before step off the plank on any upgrades.

 

[DSfuchs]

Thank you all. The confusion comes from the above and one other post where people here REPORTED it disabled a volume on their 2021 era synology device. And then I see a post that said @Rusty debunked this. But I'm not sure I understand what/how it was debunked.

It seems that the "list" is not based on year, so it's not like all 2021 models WILL or WILL NOT work, but just if it's on the NOT WORKING list, then well, it wont work, and for some reason the RS3621xs+ wont work, while, apparently, the 1821+ will (despite the 3621xs+ being a far more capable bit of kit)?!?!?

What is weird is my RS2423RP+ IS listed there, so does that mean my RS2423RP+ will NOT work with 7.4 without a hack!?! That's kind of madness!

Am I understanding that correctly, finally? BLESS YOU ALL and apologies for my not understanding this better/quicker. Super appreciate all the sanity checks before step off the plank on any upgrades.

That’s right; the RS3621xs+ and RS2423RP+ are listed in that table and have an issue, one that I was actually able to confirm and report regarding my own RS3621xs+. That was me.
Since I remembered the restrictions placed on my RS3621xs+ years ago, I had to use AI to get to the bottom of the details.

According to Rusty's exact wording, "Plus" models from the '25 series onwards would be unblocked again, among others. That was my understanding of it, too. However, he hasn't confirmed it that way recently. Others interpret it differently for themselves and assume that all Plus models are unaffected. Which is clearly not true. As I already wrote, I consider your 1821+ to be in the safe zone.

 

[Rusty]

Lets get something clear, the HCL 5.0 policy (the one that was introduced with 7.3 after all the crying about Syno drives), applies only to x25 and newer DS models.

The RS/SA/FS/UC/HD segments have the same HCL 4.0 policy, meaning that depending on the age some might accept certain 3rd party models others (more modern) won't, without the DB modifications.

Special attention will be for the XS and XS+ submodels for the said lineup. Those, again depending on the age, will have a much more strict policy regarding using non-Syno drives.

One example is the RS2423+ (I also use it). This model will not work with 3rd party drives without help, as its officially (since day one) compatible only with Syno Plus or ENT drives.

Saying this, there is a possibility that moving with 7.4 will cause an issue but I can't confirm it as mine is populated with Syno drives only.

Looking at the HCL table for 7.3 (same applies for 7.4) the DS policy looks like this:

This means that any HDD drives can be installed both Syno and 3rd party and all is well (unless its on the incompatibility list)

The FS, HD, SA, UC, XS+, XS, DP, and DVA/NVR series policy is the following:

Meaning, using 3rd party drives (without any hacks) you are screwed

Finally, the RS+ segment (like the RS2423+):

We can see the 3rd party drives fall under the same rule as for the FS,HD,SA, etc models including the XS and XS+ sub-segment.

In short, be prepared to apply the hack for the RS+ models using 3rd party unlisted drives.

My post regarding the DS x18 models, was again just as a promise and proof for anyone that need it, regarding if there are complications upon moving with 7.4, nothing more.

 

[Jan Janowski]

Where I see nothing inherently wrong with Synology developing features that only their drives take advantage of………. That will show the benefits using ‘their’ drives…. THAT IS A GOOD THING - AND PROMOTES COMPETITION - Between Manufactures - & OVERALL IMPROVEMENT! WHO KNOWS HOW THIS WILL AFFECT OTHER DRIVE MANUFACTURERS - With regards to future drive firmware?????

BUT: A “lockout” where only Synology Drives work, will result in “hacks” no different than ones developed for ‘Mercury Playback Engine’ years ago when NVidia and Adobe joined forces to create ‘Mercury Playback Engine’ where using only specific NVIDIA CARDS would work - when NEARLY ALL had the same code……and only changing a command line was the fix…… among other hacks.

In another life - I was an Adobe Authorized Beta Tester for over 10 years….. using NVidia supplied display Cards, And though I participated in many betas that were never released. I also participated, as other Beta Testers did, in under the table hacks, that not only improved my ‘secondary system’, (Only my secondary system had the hacks, so I could directly test Adobe.NVidia Beta code in Primary system, compared to ADOBE/NVIDIA Beta + Hacks code) on a secondary system: where those hacks were installed over beta code. It prodded Adobe to improve their code as well, as we openly discussed those hacks in the beta email site when it became evident that hacks were as beneficial as release code itself! Adobe understood, as they had competitors - NVIDIA Not so much. (That’s also where I learned: having a separate ‘Experimental’ system - where things could be tested and experimented with - and eventually be reformatted and reloaded from ground up - if necessary, came about - something I Use to this day! Also had an Adobe supplied: “Scorched Earth” code set - to clean computer systems - that is worth a separate thread to Itself! It was Frighteningly successful!

Everyone eventually benefited
From those hacks. Adobe & NVIDIA Realized their error and it’s now called CUDA CORES, and I bet You All use that code un-knowingly today!!!
For that reason, I see NO PROBLEM with hacks that improve the code’s overall health of our community!

Who knows…. It may eventually result in extension of useability if the company should abandon us! As recent posts have indicated!
If we are abandoned, the final firmware version will remain, as a ‘fallback’, and hacks will continue onward, as a source of forward motion!

GO FOR IT!

If it directly affects me - I have an “Experimental System 720+” with 3rd party Ram, SSD’s, power supply and external 3rd party eSATA enclosure & SSD! and a spare 2600 router, with 3rd party external SSD(TP) & modified power supply… Available: to test ‘Things’ on!

 

[oRBIT]

Personally I'm a little bit tired that we have to hack our purchased units to get the features we'd like to have. I've been a Synology fan since DSM 4 but my next NAS will most likely have some other brand.

 

[Jan Janowski]

That was part of Adobe/NVidia’s final decision to release the hack as a CUDA CORE ‘feature’, years ago! And it has benefited them both: as well as us end users to this day!

History has an interesting way - of repeating itself!

 

[zombiephysicist]

That’s right; the RS3621xs+ and RS2423RP+ are listed in that table and have an issue, one that I was actually able to confirm and report regarding my own RS3621xs+. That was me.
Since I remembered the restrictions placed on my RS3621xs+ years ago, I had to use AI to get to the bottom of the details.

According to Rusty's exact wording, "Plus" models from the '25 series onwards would be unblocked again, among others. That was my understanding of it, too. However, he hasn't confirmed it that way recently. Others interpret it differently for themselves and assume that all Plus models are unaffected. Which is clearly not true. As I already wrote, I consider your 1821+ to be in the safe zone.

Right, but my newer 2423 is not safe and is just a normal plus model. And newer. This really is massive dysfunction on display by Synology. I’m not touching their upgrade THAT WILL COMPLETELY DISABLE MY STORAGE POOL THATS BEEN WORKING FINE WITH 3RD PARTY DRIVES FOR YEARS BUT NOW THEIR LITERALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL “UPGRADE” WILL RENDER MY SYSTEM DISABLED and have more of an incentive than ever to get off this hostile dysfunctional platform.

Absolute insanity.

 

[DSfuchs]

Right, but my newer 2423 is not safe and is just a normal plus model. And newer. This really is massive dysfunction on display by Synology. I’m not touching their upgrade THAT WILL COMPLETELY DISABLE MY STORAGE POOL THATS BEEN WORKING FINE WITH 3RD PARTY DRIVES FOR YEARS BUT NOW THEIR LITERALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL “UPGRADE” WILL RENDER MY SYSTEM DISABLED and have more of an incentive than ever to get off this hostile dysfunctional platform.

Absolute insanity.

You're right; as a customer, I’m also dissatisfied with Synology’s approach:
policy => marketing => product development => solution => disappointed customers => mainstream => profit optimization => policy

That, in turn, leads to the idea of simply running DMS in Docker without specialized hardware, and doing so on ZFS, which is even better.

Nevertheless, both of us have to come to terms with our specific X21/X23 models. We were informed about pending issues before we bought them!

 

[zombiephysicist]

You're right; as a customer, I’m also dissatisfied with Synology’s approach:
policy => marketing => product development => solution => disappointed customers => mainstream => profit optimization => policy

That, in turn, leads to the idea of simply running DMS in Docker without specialized hardware, and doing so on ZFS, which is even better.

Nevertheless, both of us have to come to terms with our specific X21/X23 models. We were informed about pending issues before we bought them!

I agree about most of that. However I was not informed that in the future by having 3rd party drives, that a software update would literally nuke a storage pool from access!

Moreover, look at this above thread. It’s a disaster of unclear messaging and we are enthusiasts “into” the subject matter and it’s barely communicable. Considering the above to be a “we gave you the memo, it’s on YOU” is complete bs imo. When I got the 2423 I signed up for the “warning” that you have a 3rd party drives. Not for an effective data nuking at some indeterminate time in the future. Non of that was reasonably foreseeable; again, it’s barely communicable via an entire thread of enthusiasts and experts.

This is wrong. I can easily cope with that reality. Not upgrading. But I’m done with Synology. I’ve never even heard of something as psychopathic as what they’ve done. They are nuking entire storage pool access of user data if they make a mistake, an easy one to make, of just upgrading their software. I don’t think the egregiousness of that offense can be overstated. It’s gone beyond hostile to pure evil imo. This absolutely violates the “do no harm” obligations any company has to its customers, but particularly a NAS provider has with data fidelity to its users.

And I don’t think the vast public is aware of it. Every tech person I show this to is in actual disbelief over it.

Anyway, it’s been clarifying in only one way for me. Synology has lost my trust completely. And forced my hand to move away from them.

As always YMMV.

I’m suuuuuper grateful for all of you helping clarify this situation as I was genuinely befuddled that this was real. Thank you!