RudyValencia.com

Synology’s latest NAS models are now limiting support to their own branded drives. As a DS923+ owner, I explore what this means for homelab builders, why vendor lock-in is a growing concern, and what alternatives I’m already considering.

Synology has recently started locking down drive compatibility in their latest NAS models — most notably, requiring Synology-branded hard drives for full support and performance on models like the DS925+, DS1522+, and enterprise-focused units. While they claim that their drives improve reliability and simplify support, it also shuts out trusted alternatives such as Seagate IronWolf and WD Red.

As an owner of a Synology DS923+ NAS in my homelab, this shift sours me on their products. This move raises bigger questions about ownership, control, and trust in vendors — especially now, when self-hosting and DIY solutions are growing by the day.

My Setup: Why I Chose Synology (and Didn’t Choose Their Drives)

I run a DS923+ loaded with four 8TB Seagate IronWolf drives — fast, reliable, and a known quantity in the homelab world. When I picked Synology, I wanted:

• A rock-solid platform
• Btrfs and snapshot support
• Optional features like iSCSI, NFS, and cloud sync

But I also wanted the freedom to choose drives that fit my budget and reliability standards. That’s part of the appeal of running your own gear — you’re not boxed into one vendor’s ecosystem.

Why Vendor Lock-In Doesn’t Respect Users’ Freedom of Choice

Synology’s newer models now:

• Display warnings or performance degradation with unsupported drives
• Limit full DSM functionality unless you’re using their own-branded drives
• Apply restrictions even to NAS-grade drives with excellent reliability records

On paper, Synology claims this ensures “verified performance” and better end-to-end support. But in practice, it creates:

• Artificial limitations on known-good hardware
• Cost inflation — Synology drives are often rebadged units at higher prices
• Reduced flexibility for small-scale deployments or labs

My Opinion on This Change in Synology’s Support Policy

This is an absolute deal-breaker for me.

I use a Synology NAS for its convenience and polish, but not at the cost of vendor lock-in. If I wanted a locked-down ecosystem, I’d be using Apple hardware — not building my own PCs and running open systems.

One of the core principles of homelabbing is modularity — building your own solutions that fit your needs, with hardware and software you can afford. This decision that Synology made undermines that very principle, especially when perfectly good drives get flagged as “unsupported” for no technical reason.

If this approach spreads to my DS923+, it may be the last Synology I buy.

Alternatives I’m Considering

My next NAS will likely be one of the following:

• A pure Linux self-built solution
  A mini-ITX case with four removable hard drive bays, a motherboard with built-in RAID, Linux with a Btrfs or ZFS filesystem, and Samba and NFS file sharing support.
• A return to TrueNAS Core/SCALE
• I tried TrueNAS before buying my first Synology NAS (a DS216j). While it was a good fit for me at the time, I wanted something with better power management and compatibility. I might consider this avenue again with the aforementioned hardware.
• A brand like QNAP
  They still allow third-party drives (for now), though with their own quirks.

Final Thoughts

Synology still makes quality NAS products, but this move feels more like a shift from “quality prosumer storage” to “walled-garden for enterprise”. While this may make sense for their roadmap, it’s disappointing for users like myself who prefer openness and hardware choice.

If you’re thinking of buying a Synology NAS in 2025 or beyond, read the fine print. If you’re like me — part sysadmin, part tinkerer, part minimalist — it might be time to look over the fence.