blackvoid Synology DSM 7.4 and AI future

It has been eight months since Synology released a new version of DSM, not including incremental updates that came after October 2025.

Now, following the Computex 2026 expo, we have info on the upcoming new DSM 7.4 that should arrive starting mid June all the way till mid August, as well as some updates on the productivity packages.


Continue reading...

 

[DSfuchs]

Today, I managed to get DSM 7.4 running on my RS3621xs+ using non-Synology drives, a process that required a lot of effort. To cut to the chase: there is absolutely no new function here that didn't already work in version 7.3!

After updating to 7.4, DSM no longer accepted my existing Volume 1. Since I don't own any genuine Synology drives, I had to manuel recreate volume1 without an LVM scheme. In the end, however, I went ahead and performed a complete fresh installation with DSM 7.3.2

The provision of a hack for non-genuine Synology hard drives is greatly appreciated.

As far as I'm concerned, DSM 7.4 is completely useless. Its only purpose is to force users into the Synology ecosystem. I would have at least expected my Nvidia GPU to be properly integrated for AI usage.

I will now follow the modern DSM approach and run DSM 7.x in Docker on ZFS. For this, I am using OMV7 on Debian 12 with the Proxmox kernel.

 

[zombiephysicist]

Well for the same reasons other companies depreciate features from models that could run just fine, to push the sales of newer hw models. Apple as an example would be one.

While I agree with this in spirit, I think even Apple has some ostensible reason. I often think their reasoning is bs, but they at least put in the effort to say, well this chip doesn’t have quite enough cache or memory or something.

The 1825 was rightly lambasted and bemoaned as being a complete non upgrade of the 1821. There is not even an ostensible difference that would in anyway prevent the compression.

The only change in the hardware was removal of 4 1gb port and replacement with one 2.5gbs port and increase in base memory from 4 to 8gb, or something like that.

This is so overtly a money grab as to be shameless. It’s so overt, they couldn’t even bother to make up an ostensible reason for non inclusion. It’s them basically saying to our faces, we think this little of you.

It’s literally loathsome behavior from Synology’s showing their loathing towards their customers, imo.

 

[Rusty]

Well, considering their history with hw performance in soho/enthusiast range, I’m not surprised. Also, the goal to redirect resources and efforts towards rack models, plus the economic price hike due to hyperscapers, we got what we got.

I will agree they could have done better or not exclude the SE feature deliberately from certain NAS generations, but it is what it is.

I have 3-4 models to replace this year (two RS and two DS; x18 and older) so I hear you. Looking at the current price point of hw and drives/ram this will be fun indeed. Still, it’s an investment for the next 7-10y, so if I divide the bill over that period, it’s easier on the eyes.

 

[7Natives]

Atm this volume looks like this with space saved only from shared folder inline compression.

Fwiw, I explored Synology's "space saved" reporting some years ago alongside one of their high level engineers. The engineer's statement never left me: Synology's space saved data is essentially useless. At best it's an estimate with several orders of variability predictably both up and down.

IOW, it's essentially useless.

Fluff

 

[Jan Janowski]

My complaint about it (SE) revolves around 2 things:
Potential for errors of data — going back to original size…. How that file would be interpreted by the editing software, or codec…. And also: effects by that de-encryption - on throughput speed, compared to Not Doing SE. If the file transfer is delayed going into an edit, the first result is Random: “Dropped Frames” that can become maddening to find.
I have assisted folks in selecting a capture system and codec that works best with the storage drive’s bandwidth that they have, and it has always came back to selecting the proper codec and capture speed, to match their drive systems.
Probably also why I keep saying that if Synology truly wanted us to save disc space - They should have Kept H265. That would have guaranteed you to save drive Space!

 

[Jan Janowski]

Double post

 

[7Natives]

Fwiw, I explored Synology's "space saved" reporting some years ago(snip)

This is really nice news as reported by NAS Compares:

"To track performance, Synology has integrated a comprehensive savings metrics dashboard directly into the volume management window, complete with a visual bar chart that displays the exact percentage of physical space clawed back on hover, alongside an automated rule toggle to apply these efficiency settings to all future shared folders."

NAS Compares DSM 7.4 report

 

[zombiephysicist]

Today, I managed to get DSM 7.4 running on my RS3621xs+ using non-Synology drives, a process that required a lot of effort. To cut to the chase: there is absolutely no new function here that didn't already work in version 7.3!

After updating to 7.4, DSM no longer accepted my existing Volume 1. Since I don't own any genuine Synology drives, I had to manuel recreate volume1 without an LVM scheme. In the end, however, I went ahead and performed a complete fresh installation with DSM 7.3.2

The provision of a hack for non-genuine Synology hard drives is greatly appreciated.

As far as I'm concerned, DSM 7.4 is completely useless. Its only purpose is to force users into the Synology ecosystem. I would have at least expected my Nvidia GPU to be properly integrated for AI usage.

I will now follow the modern DSM approach and run DSM 7.x in Docker on ZFS. For this, I am using OMV7 on Debian 12 with the Proxmox kernel.

I think I'm misreading this. I pray I am.

I currently use ZERO synology branded hard drives in my 1821 and 2423 units. Are you saying if I upgrade from 7.3 to 7.4 synology wont see my storage pools or volumes because they are composed of non-Synology drives?!!?!

That can't be right? That would be pure insanity.

 

[DSfuchs]

I think I'm misreading this. I pray I am.

I currently use ZERO synology branded hard drives in my 1821 and 2423 units. Are you saying if I upgrade from 7.3 to 7.4 synology wont see my storage pools or volumes because they are composed of non-Synology drives?!!?!

That can't be right? That would be pure insanity.

Yes, if you run 7.4 without this hack:

DSM 7.4 hack for non-genuine Synology hard drives

The provision of a hack for non-genuine Synology hard drives is greatly appreciated. I have now found the workaround for my RS3621xs+ with the following configuration: support_disk_compatibility="no" Managed by: sed -i 's/support_disk_compatibility="yes"/support_disk_compatibility="no"/g'...

www.synoforum.com

 

[WeeblesWobbles]

Yes, if you run 7.4 without this hack:

DSM 7.4 hack for non-genuine Synology hard drives

The provision of a hack for non-genuine Synology hard drives is greatly appreciated. I have now found the workaround for my RS3621xs+ with the following configuration: support_disk_compatibility="no" Managed by: sed -i 's/support_disk_compatibility="yes"/support_disk_compatibility="no"/g'...

www.synoforum.com

False information, it does not require this so called hack in order to see or use the volumes just because someone is using non Synology drives.

 

[Telos]

For xs/xs+, but no hack reqd for DS+

 

[DSfuchs]

False information, it does not require this so called hack in order to see or use the volumes just because someone is using non Synology drives.

That’s how it has to be on my RS3621xs+.

@WeeblesWobbles Please see the information from Rusty before:

x25 and newer but just the plus models. xs, xs+ or any Rs/fs/sa, etc are not included

 

[WeeblesWobbles]

That’s how it has to be on my RS3621xs+.

But the person asking the question was referring to the plus units, which do not require the hack in order to upgrade to DSM 7.4

 

[fredbert]

Let's keep it civil. I don't know what the weather's been like where you are but in in the south of the UK it's been a red heat alert for three days. It's enough to make anyone tetchy!

 

[Jan Janowski]

At present;
Since 7.4 has no new features I can use… DS 718+, DS 720+… 3x: 3rd party drives + NVME R/W Cache’s where available…
And 7.3 Security Issues will be met until mid 27 or 28…
My most exposed useage—— sharing 4 view only cameras with the HOA via QC/DS CAM would seem to be the most exposed I’ll ever get.
HOA Folk out of town wanting to know road conditions in Winter here—Before starting - “up the mountain”…. Appreciate this! So I’m hoping to keep it: “Up” - As Long As Possible, for my Neighbors!!
So…. I’m sticking where I am for now!

I can always re-visit the decision again later…. If things change from where it seems it is now….. But if I “Jump now” …. I can’t GO BACK ( I’m not privy with easy ‘go back’).

So…… The decision of what to do was actually easier than expected. I was just being overly anal about making darn sure I was correct in my decision.

 

[Rusty]

Ok now that some time has passed and 7.4 is here to stay, I have started to apply it onto some x18 models with no Syno drives inside it. To start, a DS918+ with WD RED 6TB setup. Update went with zero issues and the volume is working just fine as are all the apps (Docker for example).

In the upcoming days I will update another 918 and 718 with full WD SSDs, and I expect the same result.

The SE feature, as expected, is not present.

 

[Jan Janowski]

Thanks!
I’ve been side-tracked with 2 new issues: a car computer saying that a good brake light is bad……
And one long porch board with a rotten core.
Alternating between fix it myself and ‘throw money at it!’ Hard to throw money when no one wants to work!

One down, one to go! First auto parts place sold 2 bulbs that failed in service on car Computer test like original one did-but as new!
Second auto parts place sold Sylvania bulbs, that immediately worked fine!

Now onto porch repair!

 

[DSfuchs]

But the person asking the question was referring to the plus units, which do not require the hack in order to upgrade to DSM 7.4

That generally does not seem to be the case, as the RS2423+ appears to be affected as a "Plus" unit.

 

[Rusty]

Understandably, since your models are not enterprise or high-end models and not affected by the 2021 announcement:
(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).

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)

tnx but not sure why you are pointing this our on multiple posts over and over. It is a known fact that non Plus model from the RS and up range have a mandatory Syno-disk policy.

The reason for my post was due to a promise to some of the users with similar models that I would report back how the 7.4 upgrade went.

As a Synology partner I am fully aware of the limitations, and as someone who uses only Syno drives since 2020 onwards (personally and with all the clients) I sleep well without the need to worry about something working or not working.

Saying this and sounding like a dick, I do agree also that people should have all the correct info and that there is a lot of miss information out there especially coming from individuals that are bending or crossing certain lines.

The point of this forum is ofc to help out with true and tested info, so tnx again for pointing out the obvious know fact. It comes in handy to refresh certain facts from time to time.

 

[DSfuchs]

I think I'm misreading this. I pray I am.

I currently use ZERO synology branded hard drives in my 1821 and 2423 units. Are you saying if I upgrade from 7.3 to 7.4 synology wont see my storage pools or volumes because they are composed of non-Synology drives?!!?!

That can't be right? That would be pure insanity.

If your 2423 happens to be an RS2423(RP)+, then it appears to be affected.