Is there a good reason for Synology to change the support of “Unverified Drives” in DSM?

Synology has long been regarded as one of the most user-friendly and reliable NAS brands in the market, balancing intuitive software with a wide hardware range that appeals to both home and business users. However, in recent years the company has taken an increasingly controversial path by enforcing strict compatibility requirements for hard drives and SSDs. Beginning with DSM 7 and escalating into the 2025 generation of devices, Synology now only certifies and supports its own branded storage media, effectively locking out many widely used alternatives from Seagate, Western Digital, and Toshiba. While Synology positions this move as a way to ensure system stability and consistency, the decision has sparked significant backlash among users who feel restricted in their options and burdened by higher costs. As competitors expand their ecosystems with more openness and flexibility, this proprietary approach risks damaging Synology’s reputation, raising questions about whether the company has prioritized profit margins over user choice.

What is the MAIN PROBLEM(s) with this decision by Synology?

The most immediate problem with Synology’s hard drive policy is the loss of flexibility that once made their systems so appealing. For years, customers could select from a wide range of industry-standard drives from Seagate, Western Digital, or Toshiba, tailoring storage to their budget, performance requirements, or regional availability. This freedom not only allowed users to balance cost and capacity, but also gave small businesses and home enthusiasts the ability to reuse existing drives, upgrade incrementally, or take advantage of promotions from different vendors. By restricting DSM compatibility to Synology-labelled drives, that flexibility is gone. For many users outside major markets, Synology’s drives are harder to source, priced higher than the competition, or limited in available capacities. What once felt like an open platform now increasingly resembles a closed ecosystem, where users must accept the vendor’s terms even if it means compromising on affordability or performance.

Another dimension of the problem lies in how Synology has communicated these changes, which many see as evasive or disingenuous. Officially, the company justifies the restriction as a move toward greater reliability and predictable system performance. The argument is that by narrowing the range of drives tested and supported, Synology can optimize DSM to work seamlessly with drives that have firmware tailored for its environment. In practice, though, the same underlying hardware often originates from Seagate or Toshiba, with only minor firmware adjustments and new branding. This creates a perception that Synology is overstating the technical benefits while quietly using the policy to secure higher margins. For long-time users, the contrast is stark: older models happily ran third-party drives with few issues, which makes the sudden insistence on “certification” seem less like an engineering requirement and more like a business maneuver. The result has been a significant erosion of trust between the company and its community.

The wider impact of this strategy has also been felt across the storage industry. Resellers have reported declining sales of Synology’s Plus series devices as customers explore alternatives such as QNAP, TrueNAS, or newer entrants like UGREEN and UniFi. For Synology, this shift is particularly damaging because its reputation has historically rested on attracting less technical buyers who value simplicity and reliability over DIY solutions. Now, even these entry-level and mid-range users are questioning whether they should commit to an ecosystem that limits their choice of drives and increases their costs. At the same time, hard drive manufacturers like Seagate and Western Digital are also affected, as Synology’s decision reduces the number of channels through which their products reach end customers. The ripple effect is therefore twofold: Synology risks alienating its base of loyal customers, while storage vendors lose a once-reliable partner, creating tension that could ultimately push more buyers toward competing NAS brands.

How Can Synology Solve This (if they want to)?

One path forward for Synology would be to adopt a hybrid compatibility model, where its own branded drives remain the recommended or default choice but third-party alternatives are still officially supported. This compromise has been proven by other vendors such as UniFi and QNAP, who sell their own labelled drives while maintaining compatibility lists for major manufacturers like Seagate, Western Digital, and Toshiba. By following this model, Synology could continue promoting the reliability benefits of its branded hardware without alienating customers who prefer flexibility. In practice, this would preserve a sense of choice for users while ensuring Synology can still highlight its “optimized” solutions as the safer, supported route.

 

 

Finally, Synology could address the availability and pricing concerns around its own branded drives. In many regions, these drives are either difficult to source or significantly more expensive than equivalent Seagate or Western Digital models. Improving distribution channels, ensuring consistent stock, and narrowing the price gap would make the transition more palatable to users who are willing to adopt Synology’s ecosystem but feel penalized by limited access. By focusing on accessibility and fairness rather than exclusivity, Synology could rebuild goodwill while still driving revenue from its hardware strategy. Taken together, these steps would not fully reverse the controversy but would demonstrate responsiveness and provide a clearer path to balancing stability, customer choice, and profitability.

Is there a way to FORCE a Synology NAS to accept unverified Hard Drives and SSDs in DSM?

For users unwilling to accept Synology’s restrictive stance on storage media, the community has developed reliable workarounds that re-enable full functionality for third-party hard drives and SSDs. The most widely adopted method involves injecting a script into the NAS system that bypasses DSM’s compatibility database, allowing otherwise unsupported drives to be used for installation, storage pools, caching, and expansion. Synology’s 2025 Plus-series models, such as the DS925+, block DSM installation if only unverified drives are present and issue constant warnings in Storage Manager. To overcome this, users first employ a Telnet-based flag during initial setup that tricks DSM into accepting the installation, followed by a more permanent fix applied through SSH. At the heart of this solution is Dave Russell’s (007revad) GitHub project Synology_HDD_db, which modifies DSM’s internal drive compatibility files. Once downloaded and executed via SSH, the script detects the NAS model, DSM version, and connected drives, then patches the system to treat them as officially supported.

The process is reversible, non-destructive, and works across multiple DSM versions, including DSM 7.2 and later. Additional features allow removal of persistent warning banners, full use of NVMe drives as storage volumes, and optional disabling of intrusive monitoring services like WDDA. To ensure ongoing stability, users can also configure a scheduled task in DSM’s Task Scheduler that re-applies the script at every boot, guaranteeing compatibility survives updates, reboots, or new drive insertions. While the script is robust and actively maintained, there are clear disclaimers: using it involves modifying system files, may void official Synology support, and should only be attempted by users confident with SSH and terminal commands who have reliable data backups. Nonetheless, for advanced users, system integrators, and enthusiasts, this community-driven solution has become the de facto method of restoring the freedom to use affordable and widely available third-party drives in modern Synology NAS systems.

Example of a 30TB Seagate HDD visible and functioning inside a Synology DS925+

Note – You can follow my guide on how to use this script modification (as well as outlining the pros and cons) HERE on the blog, or watch the video below:

The Future of Synology in the eyes of new and old buyers?

Synology’s decision to enforce exclusive support for its own branded hard drives and SSDs marks one of the most controversial shifts in the company’s history, transforming how both long-time customers and potential buyers view the brand. For over a decade, Synology’s appeal rested on a combination of intuitive software, solid hardware, and flexibility in allowing users to choose their own storage media from trusted vendors like Seagate, Toshiba, and Western Digital. By removing that choice in the 2025 generation, Synology has fundamentally altered the value proposition of its systems, making them appear less like open storage platforms and more like tightly controlled appliances. While the company justifies the policy by citing stability, predictability, and reduced support overhead, many users interpret it as a profit-driven attempt to push proprietary drives into the market, especially since these are often rebranded versions of third-party disks with modified firmware and higher price tags.

The backlash has been considerable, with resellers and community forums reporting falling interest in Synology’s Plus-series devices, particularly among home and small business users who previously embraced them for affordability and ease of expansion. Competing NAS providers such as QNAP, TrueNAS, UGREEN, and UniFi have been quick to capitalize on the discontent, positioning themselves as more open alternatives that maintain compatibility with industry-standard drives. At the same time, the growth of unofficial solutions like Dave Russell’s compatibility script demonstrates how determined users are to regain control over their hardware, even at the risk of voiding warranty or stepping outside official support. This dynamic reflects a widening gap between Synology’s official direction and the needs of its customer base, many of whom would prefer to accept a disclaimer about using unverified drives rather than being forced into a closed ecosystem.

Ultimately, Synology now stands at a crossroads that will define its reputation in the storage industry for years to come. If it continues to double down on a closed, proprietary model, the company may secure short-term revenue through drive sales but risks long-term damage to its image and market share. On the other hand, reintroducing a more flexible, transparent approach—such as allowing user consent for unsupported drives or improving global pricing and availability of its own disks—could restore trust and preserve its standing as the NAS brand of choice for both novices and professionals. The availability of community workarounds ensures that frustrated users are not entirely locked out of their systems, but the very existence of these tools highlights how far Synology has drifted from its once customer-first ethos. The next few years will be crucial, as the company either adjusts course and strikes a balance between profitability and user freedom, or risks ceding ground to rivals who are eager to embrace the openness Synology has chosen to leave behind.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
[contact-form-7]
Join Inner Circle

This description contains links to Amazon. These links will take you to some of the products mentioned in today's content. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Visit the NASCompares Deal Finder to find the best place to buy this device in your region, based on Service, Support and Reputation - Just Search for your NAS Drive in the Box Below

Need Advice on Data Storage from an Expert?

Finally, for free advice about your setup, just leave a message in the comments below here at NASCompares.com and we will get back to you. Need Help? Where possible (and where appropriate) please provide as much information about your requirements, as then I can arrange the best answer and solution to your needs. Do not worry about your e-mail address being required, it will NOT be used in a mailing list and will NOT be used in any way other than to respond to your enquiry. [contact-form-7] TRY CHAT Terms and Conditions   Alternatively, why not ask me on the ASK NASCompares forum, by clicking the button below. This is a community hub that serves as a place that I can answer your question, chew the fat, share new release information and even get corrections posted. I will always get around to answering ALL queries, but as a one-man operation, I cannot promise speed! So by sharing your query in the ASK NASCompares section below, you can get a better range of solutions and suggestions, alongside my own.

WE LOVE COFFEE