DSM 7.1 DSM7.1 introduces new drive vendor-locking parameters

Currently reading
DSM 7.1 DSM7.1 introduces new drive vendor-locking parameters

2
0
NAS
DS1821+
Operating system
  1. Linux
  2. macOS
  3. Windows
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
"/var/lib/smartmontools/drivedb.db" was the file I modified.

Array is rebuilding as we speak.
 
589
317
NAS
RS1221+, DS1517+, RS819, RS217
Operating system
  1. macOS
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
I've just had an update from Synology and there will be a revision to the Synology drivedb.db sometime on Friday 17 Jun 2022 (ie don't try until the next day).

It is unclear to me if they have added my specific drives only or made efforts to update drivedb.db to the current standard.

Progress though, painful as it has been to get this far.

☕
 
537
102
NAS
RS820+, DS718+
Operating system
  1. Windows
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
I've just had an update from Synology and there will be a revision to the Synology drivedb.db sometime on Friday 17 Jun 2022 (ie don't try until the next day).

It is unclear to me if they have added my specific drives only or made efforts to update drivedb.db to the current standard.

Progress though, painful as it has been to get this far.

☕
That’s good news. If only level 1 support wouldn’t have added the speed humps in the process, this wasn’t too bad.
 
589
317
NAS
RS1221+, DS1517+, RS819, RS217
Operating system
  1. macOS
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
@Gerard - Indeed and you have to question their motives and the wisdom of viewing customers as 'the enemy within' and to be fought whenever possible.

I'd venture that normal consumers would not have fought so hard or have the knowledge required to root-around inside DSM and try to rectify the code.

☕
 

jeyare

Subscriber
2,424
806
NAS
Synology, TrueNAS
Operating system
  1. Linux
  2. Windows
Last edited:
It is unclear to me if they have added my specific drives only or made efforts to update drivedb.db to the current standard.
so the research was not unnecessary
-- post merged: --

@Gerard - Indeed and you have to question their motives and the wisdom of viewing customers as 'the enemy within' and to be fought whenever possible.

I'd venture that normal consumers would not have fought so hard or have the knowledge required to root-around inside DSM and try to rectify the code.

☕
However, either the creator of this type of support:
- counts hard, so he expects to dull the interest of certain users when they find that the 1st level is entirely out. But that is bad news.
- or does not count on what I have stated above and created the best he can make. And that's bad news, too for us.

For newcomers (80%) who have no idea what they are not doing and could run, who just obediently buy what the vendor recommends - it doesn't matter.


Then we need to look at such a problem in terms of customer care statistics:
- 80% of the installed base does not contact us at all for support
- 15% report with questions about how to insert a new HDD, change the password, ... and there is a success rate of 1st line support definitely 99%
- 4% of users may ask how to set up SMB. ... Even there is the success rate of 1st line support is definitely 99%
- and the last 1% of users ask about such nonsense as the subject of this thread, where the success rate can be 1%.

In the final:
6mil NAS base
out of 100ths tickets per year, the success rate is 99%
just from 1ths tickets is 1% success rate
after all, this is a fantastic success for the 1st level of support !! Everyone must be happy. Who cares about the 1% per cent share?
 

jeyare

Subscriber
2,424
806
NAS
Synology, TrueNAS
Operating system
  1. Linux
  2. Windows
I've just had an update from Synology and there will be a revision to the Synology drivedb.db sometime on Friday 17 Jun 2022 (ie don't try until the next day).
confirmed, same received from Syno
 
589
317
NAS
RS1221+, DS1517+, RS819, RS217
Operating system
  1. macOS
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
I've not had the opportunity to look into this in detail but Syno HQ has launched a revised drivedb.db file today, as they had promised.

Attribute 230 has been altered (removing my previous hack, so no need to revert that):

 20220617-Syno-RS1221-SMART data Attributes with revised drivedb.db update.png


All the previous 'Critical' SSDs are now showing as 'Healthy' (Hurrah!!):

 20220617-Syno-RS1221-SMART data Estimated lifespan with revised drivedb.db update.png


The only slight weirdness is when you mouse hover over 'Healthy' as this shows 100% when this drive is slightly below 99% life remaining.

Looking at one of my other NASes that has Samsung SSDs at 99% remaining they do reveal a hover-over Estimated lifespan result of 99% to the DSM GUI:

 2022-06-17 at 14.35.32.png



So apart from the anomaly above this looks like a solid fix, at least for my drives. It is unclear as to what, if any, changes have been made to the wider drivedb.db database.

☕
 

jeyare

Subscriber
2,424
806
NAS
Synology, TrueNAS
Operating system
  1. Linux
  2. Windows
1. Changes (DSM6):

1655477201500.png

just synodrivedb.* files

2. Detailed check

2.A: Difference between synodrivedb.db vs. synodrivedb.db.bak
New entry (expected):

"WD Blue",
"WDC\\s+WDS(250G|500G|100T|200T|400T)2B0A-00SM50",
-v 230,raw48,Media_Wearout_Indicator

the same entry contains also "synodrivedb.db.new"

3. Date/Time modified check

Related files were modified by DSM at the time of the smart synodrivedb.db Update:
Bash:
find <path> -mmin -2 -ls
"except mentioned above" and related logic:

check them before UPDATE
/usr/syno/etc/ssd-bundle/days-left-result.json


/run/ssd-bundle/days-left-result.json
/run/ssd-bundle/days-left.lock

/run/synostorage/disks/<each of them>/smart_damage_weight
with zero value


/usr/syno/etc/.disk_db_update_time
value=1655476307
converted = to the time of SMART DB update Fri Jun 17 2022 14:31:47

/var/log/synolog/.SYNODISKTESTDB-wal
/var/log/synolog/.SYNODISKTESTDB-shm

So,
This only confirms that Syno uses the custom drivedb.h from smarmontools, which will logically cause problems in the future as described in this thread.
It was worth what would happen if there was a "typo" in SMART ID Attribute NAME.
 

jeyare

Subscriber
2,424
806
NAS
Synology, TrueNAS
Operating system
  1. Linux
  2. Windows
exactly

so, for the same problem, they will use the same approach that will generate support responses, such as:
- this drive is broken, you need to use RMA
- this drive is not supported
- this drive is not on the Synology compatibility list
- you need to generate the meaningless debug.dat from the DSM

... and don't bother us with your DSM enhancement requests.

This is the cause of one support channel for all. Logically, they will not employ skilled people there. It's about costs after all. Even with this ticket, I copied my request for paid 2nd level support (subscription). But I'm afraid there is a lack of cognitive perception. They can't see the forest for the trees.

1655968801994.png
 
589
317
NAS
RS1221+, DS1517+, RS819, RS217
Operating system
  1. macOS
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
Last edited:
@jeyare - I just watched the internal Synology video for their resellers in Singapore where they were all given the 'lines-to-take' when dealing with support requests with non-Synology drives fitted = no support at all. They included a table of what warnings & messages that DSM will issue to the end-user should they try to install a non-Synology drive.
They also showed a rolling plan of year-by-year restrictions down the Synology NAS product ranges. The MY23 units will all be vendor-locked except for some of the DS range, where the vendor-lock will be for DS units with more than 6 drives. The trend for MY24 and beyond will be to have the remaining DS models vendor-locked to Syno drives.
Synology even pushed the comment that even though DSM7 updates are not mandatory the effect of requiring them for all security updates will ensure the roll-out of the vendor locking programme - effectively the customer will have no choice.

All a bit rubbish really.

☕
 

Rusty

Moderator
NAS Support
5,397
1,589
www.blackvoid.club
NAS
DS718+, DS918+, 2x RS3614RPxs+
Router
  1. RT1900ac
  2. RT2600ac
  3. MR2200ac
Operating system
  1. macOS
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
Called it :D!

Another bit of info that is in sync with said is that Syno will roll out non-ENT drive as well (3.5"), and there will be devices that will be preloaded with drives and DSM. As much as this will be user-friendly, it is more and more clear that as HDD models will roll out, the lock will effectively include all models down the line.
 
589
317
NAS
RS1221+, DS1517+, RS819, RS217
Operating system
  1. macOS
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
Last edited:
@Rusty - I should have mentioned that they did briefly cover a new smaller 3.5" drive with 4TB of storage (HAT5300). It is available for Synology resellers to pre-order now and will be marketed to customers sometime after.

 2022-06-23 at 10.48.29.png


No mention of the premium price of Synology-branded drives or why they are frequently impossible to buy at any price.

...and yes, you did call it.

☕
 

Rusty

Moderator
NAS Support
5,397
1,589
www.blackvoid.club
NAS
DS718+, DS918+, 2x RS3614RPxs+
Router
  1. RT1900ac
  2. RT2600ac
  3. MR2200ac
Operating system
  1. macOS
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
they did briefly cover a new smaller 3.5" drive with 4TB of storage (HAT5300)
Yep I had the datasheet for a while now that included the 4TB one.

The non-ENT should be from 1-8TB capacity, but we will see the price range on those when they arrive.

Tbh this does not shock me. This is not something that will happen over night, and people will have more then enough time to jump ship. However it is wrong what happened to you but I guess that these kind of transitions are expected to have some marginal cases that will be in the "blast radius".

As long as their stock and price range for all the drive models will be "reasonable" I'm sure that majority of users will not care what drives are inside, but time will tell. Years in IT can bring a lot of changes, so let's wait and see.
 
589
317
NAS
RS1221+, DS1517+, RS819, RS217
Operating system
  1. macOS
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
Yep, I'm just SOHO user now with only 3 Syno NASes in production use, so I am no real loss to Synology.

It isn't much better for those Synology are now targeting. My ex-colleagues run 2017/18 FS-models with a 4-year TCO which, at the time, was sold with 'no vendor lock' as a major feature. They are now passing their nominal technical refresh point but with no way to use their current enterprise SSDs. This will hit them in both downtime (with whatever option they choose) and, if they stay with Synology, a massive bill for new Synology-only SSDs. For them the 'enterprise' bit for the drives is a joke as they cannot buy them and they come with no support package - not even a basic 24-hour replacement plan.

At the moment their SSD support contract covers both their Synology machines and their other brand. They have multiple spare drives to hand and a support package that sees them with a drive replacement by the next day (typically the same day in the working week). I think they have less than 30 FS-models now, so not exactly major, but these smaller enterprise customers have been shot in the foot and have little remaining warmth towards Synology. It was once seen as a cheap and cheerful offshoot of their main systems; now it is dead in the water.

☕
 

Rusty

Moderator
NAS Support
5,397
1,589
www.blackvoid.club
NAS
DS718+, DS918+, 2x RS3614RPxs+
Router
  1. RT1900ac
  2. RT2600ac
  3. MR2200ac
Operating system
  1. macOS
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
no support package - not even a basic 24-hour replacement plan.
Reason why Syno activated the "Extended warranty plus", but I hear you

now it is dead in the water
Like I said casualties in these transition periods. Again, the stock atm is low, and I'm sure they have to be aware this will have to change if they want to push Apple-like mind set regarding their devices, services and customer support.
 

jeyare

Subscriber
2,424
806
NAS
Synology, TrueNAS
Operating system
  1. Linux
  2. Windows
The fact that Syno locks the use of disks widely does not mean that it will improve the quality of DSM or their support.
This is just profit-driven activity. It has nothing to do with a better customer experience. Let's name things the way they really are.
 
589
317
NAS
RS1221+, DS1517+, RS819, RS217
Operating system
  1. macOS
Mobile operating system
  1. iOS
The fact that Syno locks the use of disks widely does not mean that it will improve the quality of DSM or their support.
This is just profit-driven activity. It has nothing to do with a better customer experience. Let's name things the way they really are.

Synology are claiming the following improvements to their resellers to justify the move to Synology-branded drives only:

 2022-06-23 at 12.16.37.png


For the technical support cases the 19% reduction is presumably due to cutting so many customer's adrift, albeit in the interim there will be quite a few calls as to why their NAS doesn't work.

The claimed 'Enhanced Performance' of +36% for sequential reads looks highly suspect, to say the least. Even ignoring Synology clinging on to SATA rather than SAS, their (rebranded Toshiba) drives do not spin or seek any faster and Synology does not claim anything in their data sheets above and beyond that claimed by Toshiba. In equal regard, Toshiba does not claim anything remarkable with sequential reads over their 2 major competitors. Of course, the Synology range cannot match the highest speeds on the market today as they do not cover the higher capacity / faster end of the market. My current OEM Toshiba drives beat the Synology-branded Toshiba range as they are more recent and faster models than those that lie under the Syno stickers. Of course, many are bound by interface limitations so the higher reads are irrelevant to many.

Online firmware updates via DSM is disingenuous, especially for those who opted for the drives Synology pushed before the rebranded Toshibas (Seagate Iron Wolf). Their claim suggesting a RAID rebuild is required for other drive manufacturers is simply not true. I have simply shutdown my NAS and updated drive firmware before returning them to the NAS and powering on again - no RAID rebuild required or needed and everything works as before. Nobody should ever do this without backups though and Synology would be unwise to suggest that doing it via DSM is somehow 'safe'.

Finally, even if all Synology's justifications were true (and clearly I suggest otherwise) does any of it justify the massive price premium for Synology HDDs, their shaky logistics and that they are designed not to work in any other manufacturers' drive bays?

[I wonder what Toshiba thinks about the claims that HDDs supplied by Synology are superior to those that they sell direct...?]

☕
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

UPS's with AVR (Automatic Voltage Regulation) are worth the added expense... They'll take care of voltage...
Replies
13
Views
1,121
  • Question
So just in case anyone else gets this problem I thought I'd do an update. It turned out I was having this...
Replies
8
Views
929
I haven’t bothered trying to mate any of our 5UPS’s to any of 3 NAS’s, or IT Gear, or TV or Sat gear...
Replies
91
Views
12,344
I can confirm that this worked for me with DSM 7.1 Enable SSH on `Control Panel/Terminal & SNMP` Boot up...
Replies
10
Views
318
I think there’s a link on the bottom that would have said sign in using another method. From there you...
Replies
4
Views
417
RESOLVED: Synology Support applied a hot patch to my NAS that corrected the R/W cache issue causing the...
Replies
2
Views
1,588
Hi. If I share a folder in my Drive with another user, who uses Windows (3.0.1) or macOS (3.0.1) Drive...
Replies
0
Views
618

Welcome to SynoForum.com!

SynoForum.com is an unofficial Synology forum for NAS owners and enthusiasts.

Registration is free, easy and fast!

Trending threads

Top