Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

guru3d.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 679 posts

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#341

Post by geerlingguy »

mrob wrote: post #326
j45 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ECC is very helpful. Having used both, I can't help but notice how NAS' routinely run just fine without it.

>NAS' routinely run just fine without it. How do you verify your data to confirm that?

ZFS helps, and many people are okay with the risk of a cosmic ray causing a bit flip while data is in flight once in a blue moon.

I currently manage four NASes (two primary, two backup replicas). Only one has ECC RAM. And I'm okay with my setup.

ECC is great to have, but it is oversold by some as being absolutely required for all storage devices, IMO.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#342

Post by Fischgericht »

layer8 wrote: post #334
Fischgericht wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here is the updated KB article (note “en-us” vs. “en-global”): 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 perform…

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.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#345

Post by mrob »

reactordev wrote: post #338
mrob wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specs claim "ECC" [0], but give no further details. ejolson on the Raspberry Pi forums [1] thinks it is on-die ECC, not traditional ECC, which would mean transfers between the RAM and the memory controller are not protected and there are no means of monitoring errors or triggering a kernel panic if there's an uncorrectable error. Some discussion on Reddit [2] also suggests it's on-die ECC. If this is true, it's b…

The chip is the memory controller… Yes it’s on-die. Yes it has error reporting. Don’t spread fud. There isn’t a dedicated chip because there doesn’t need to be. Broadcom BCM2712

In that case I incorrectly thought (like the other forum posters) it was like DDR5 on-die ECC. What you describe is better than DD5 on-die ECC. Is this error reporting supported by Linux? Is there some way I can do fault injection (e.g. undervolting the RAM) to check it's working?

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#346

Post by toyg »

barrkel wrote: post #197
toyg wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would represent no change to their burden to continue But it actually is: because sales must keep growing, so the support burden typically increases linearly - while hiring does not, more often than not. I've seen this at a few companies now: * CS teams get built, delivers great support * sales increase (partially thanks to that support, but there is no way to show it with metrics) * hiring in CS does not keep p…

It's a little bit trickier though, if you're selling hardware with a one off cost and not a subscription. Because your installed base grows even with flat revenue. The lifetime cost of CS (including the calls from people who need to be turned down) needs to be baked into the sales price, but that's a bet.

My experience is with enterprise software, where most products were born as shrinkwrap and slowly moved to other models, and I agree, it's not an easy problem to solve. Even if you size lifetime costs correctly (and very few people can), it is quite hard to scale a support org; even if one can see the storm coming, one might not be fast enough to be prepared for it for a number of reasons (geography, capital investment, training times, churn, brain drain, etc etc).

That's why some big names have literally declared support bankruptcy and just don't provide almost any support (google, amazon...).

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#347

Post by DerpHerpington »

osivertsson wrote: post #51

When leadership makes decisions that are so out of touch with their customers it also severely impacts internal morale. Yeah, so they reversed eventually. But the technical and support people at Synology probably tried to fight this and lost. That feeling of being ignored despite having given this company your everything for many years. I bet many woke up feeling that the magic that made Synology a good place to work…

It's this level of out of touch with their market that gives me zero faith in them as a brand. They also killed their Videostation product, that was downloaded over 66 million times according to their package manager, rather than offer users the option of paying to license video decoders. All they have done over the past few years is remove features, add more vendor lock in, and be tone deaf to their market. They deserve their own downfall, utter corporate stupidity.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#348

Post by ArchD »

reactordev wrote: post #201
jacquesm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is interesting here is that Synology leadership is quite technical and there was no acquisition or other big event that I am aware of that resulted in this strategy. It was a complete own goal and as predictable as could be. Synology apparently wasn't aware of what their brand values were as perceived by their loyal customers and that's the kind of move you make at your peril. I'll be surprised if they survive t…

There is no reason to use a synology device anymore with RPI’s having sata shields and other SoC boards that are readily available that run Linux. Yes, Synology was easy but so is the decision to not ever use them again…

RPIs have no ECC RAM. Without ECC RAM you can get bitrot in your RAID/ZFS much more easily.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#349

Post by wat10000 »

reactordev wrote: post #243
izacus wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just another version of "why Dropbox when rsync" and equally silly.

What is silly about building your own? Explain? If rsync works for you, why would you buy Dropbox? “Why Lamborghini when Honda” is equally as silly yet I’ve seen them race head to head. Honda won.

There's nothing silly about building your own. What's silly is declaring a convenient, user-friendly product to be pointless because it's possible for a skilled person with a lot of free time to build their own.

If you want to build your own Dropbox with rsync, go wild, have fun, we'd all love to see what you come up with. But I don't have time for that. My family doesn't have the skills for that. Dropbox is great for us, and building our own is not a realistic alternative.

Re: Synology reverses policy banning third-party HDDs

#350

Post by PKop »

> Synology has quietly walked the policy back

This is disrespectful itself. If you realize how stupid your decision was, with such bad results and bad sentiment among customers, you publicly admit the mistake not quietly. This also raises doubt how committed they are to reversing it if they don't want to talk about it.

Post reply on HN