model HDD in different NAS with different results using --showedits #802

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-03-12 17:05:37 +03:00 by kerem · 3 comments

kerem commented

2026-03-12 17:05:37 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @wu0lss4j on GitHub (Feb 18, 2024).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/007revad/Synology_HDD_db/issues/248

Hi, running Synology_HDD_db v3.4.84 script on a DS218 and a DS218j equipped with the same HDD year/make/model has different results. I should expect so, but the --showedits breaks with the DS218j. See below.

DS218

Synology_HDD_db v3.4.84
DS218 DSM 7.2.1-69057-4
StorageManager 1.0.0-0017

Using options: -nr --showedits
Running from: /volume1/homes/XXX/Synology_HDD_db/syno_hdd_db.sh

HDD/SSD models found: 1
ST8000VN004-2M2101,SC60

No M.2 drives found

No M.2 PCIe cards found

No Expansion Units found

Backed up ds218_host.db.new
ST8000VN004-2M2101 already exists in ds218_host_v7.db
Edited unverified drives in ds218_host_v7.db
ST8000VN004-2M2101 already exists in ds218_host.db
ST8000VN004-2M2101 already exists in ds218_host.db.new

Backed up synoinfo.conf

Support disk compatibility already enabled.
./syno_hdd_db.sh: line 1629: dmidecode: command not found

ERROR Total memory size is not numeric: ''

Disabled drive db auto updates.

    "ST8000VN004-2M2101": {
      "SC60": {
        "compatibility_interval": [
          {
            "compatibility": "support",
            "not_yet_rolling_status": "support",
            "fw_dsm_update_status_notify": false,
            "barebone_installable": true,
            "smart_test_ignore": false,
            "smart_attr_ignore": false
          }
        ]

DSM successfully checked disk compatibility.

You may need to reboot the Synology to see the changes.

and for the DS218j

Synology_HDD_db v3.4.84
DS218j-j DSM 7.2.1-69057-4

Using model: ds218j
StorageManager 1.0.0-0017

Using options: -nr --showedits
Running from: /volume1/homes/XXX/Synology_HDD_db/syno_hdd_db.sh

HDD/SSD models found: 1
ST8000VN004-2M2101,SC60

No M.2 drives found

No M.2 PCIe cards found

No Expansion Units found

Backed up ds218j_host.db.new
ST8000VN004-2M2101 already exists in ds218j_host.db
ST8000VN004-2M2101 already exists in ds218j_host_v7.db
Edited unverified drives in ds218j_host_v7.db
ST8000VN004-2M2101 already exists in ds218j_host.db.new

Backed up synoinfo.conf

Support disk compatibility already enabled.
./Synology_HDD_db/syno_hdd_db.sh: line 1629: dmidecode: command not found

ERROR Total memory size is not numeric: ''

Disabled drive db auto updates.

      "model": "ST8000VN004-2M2101",
      "firmware": "SC60",
      "rec_intvl": [

DSM successfully checked disk compatibility.

You may need to reboot the Synology to see the changes.

I was looking at the code, but couldn't figure out what could trigger this "rec_intvl" error.

Originally created by @wu0lss4j on GitHub (Feb 18, 2024). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/007revad/Synology_HDD_db/issues/248 Hi, running **Synology_HDD_db v3.4.84** script on a **DS218** and a **DS218j** equipped with the same HDD year/make/model has different results. I should expect so, but the --showedits breaks with the DS218j. See below. ### DS218 ``` Synology_HDD_db v3.4.84 DS218 DSM 7.2.1-69057-4 StorageManager 1.0.0-0017 Using options: -nr --showedits Running from: /volume1/homes/XXX/Synology_HDD_db/syno_hdd_db.sh HDD/SSD models found: 1 ST8000VN004-2M2101,SC60 No M.2 drives found No M.2 PCIe cards found No Expansion Units found Backed up ds218_host.db.new ST8000VN004-2M2101 already exists in ds218_host_v7.db Edited unverified drives in ds218_host_v7.db ST8000VN004-2M2101 already exists in ds218_host.db ST8000VN004-2M2101 already exists in ds218_host.db.new Backed up synoinfo.conf Support disk compatibility already enabled. ./syno_hdd_db.sh: line 1629: dmidecode: command not found ERROR Total memory size is not numeric: '' Disabled drive db auto updates. "ST8000VN004-2M2101": { "SC60": { "compatibility_interval": [ { "compatibility": "support", "not_yet_rolling_status": "support", "fw_dsm_update_status_notify": false, "barebone_installable": true, "smart_test_ignore": false, "smart_attr_ignore": false } ] DSM successfully checked disk compatibility. You may need to reboot the Synology to see the changes. ``` ### and for the DS218j ``` Synology_HDD_db v3.4.84 DS218j-j DSM 7.2.1-69057-4 Using model: ds218j StorageManager 1.0.0-0017 Using options: -nr --showedits Running from: /volume1/homes/XXX/Synology_HDD_db/syno_hdd_db.sh HDD/SSD models found: 1 ST8000VN004-2M2101,SC60 No M.2 drives found No M.2 PCIe cards found No Expansion Units found Backed up ds218j_host.db.new ST8000VN004-2M2101 already exists in ds218j_host.db ST8000VN004-2M2101 already exists in ds218j_host_v7.db Edited unverified drives in ds218j_host_v7.db ST8000VN004-2M2101 already exists in ds218j_host.db.new Backed up synoinfo.conf Support disk compatibility already enabled. ./Synology_HDD_db/syno_hdd_db.sh: line 1629: dmidecode: command not found ERROR Total memory size is not numeric: '' Disabled drive db auto updates. "model": "ST8000VN004-2M2101", "firmware": "SC60", "rec_intvl": [ DSM successfully checked disk compatibility. You may need to reboot the Synology to see the changes. ``` I was looking at the code, but couldn't figure out what could trigger this "rec_intvl" error.

kerem closed this issue

2026-03-12 17:05:43 +03:00

kerem commented

2026-03-12 17:05:48 +03:00

Author

Owner

@007revad commented on GitHub (Feb 18, 2024):

I find it interesting that you ignored the:

./Synology_HDD_db/syno_hdd_db.sh: line 1629: dmidecode: command not found

ERROR Total memory size is not numeric: ''

I hadn't realised that Synology NAS models without memory upgrade slots don't have dmidecode.

Both your NAS obviously had DSM 6 previously because they both have host.db and host_v7.db files.

It's interesting that the --showedits option chose to show the contents of the old ds218j_host.db for DS218j and the new v7 ds218_host_v7.db for the DS218.

The "rec_intvl" is not an error. In the old pre-v7 version of the drive database all drives have that line:

        }, {
            "model": "WD60EFZX-68B3FN0",
            "firmware": "",
            "rec_intvl": [1]
        }, {
            "model": "WD60EFRX-68MYMN1",
            "firmware": "82.00A82",
            "rec_intvl": [1]
        }, {

@007revad commented on GitHub (Feb 18, 2024): I find it interesting that you ignored the: ``` ./Synology_HDD_db/syno_hdd_db.sh: line 1629: dmidecode: command not found ERROR Total memory size is not numeric: '' ``` I hadn't realised that Synology NAS models without memory upgrade slots don't have dmidecode. Both your NAS obviously had DSM 6 previously because they both have host.db and host_v7.db files. It's interesting that the --showedits option chose to show the contents of the old ds218j_host.db for DS218j and the new v7 ds218_host_v7.db for the DS218. The "rec_intvl" is not an error. In the old pre-v7 version of the drive database all drives have that line: ``` }, { "model": "WD60EFZX-68B3FN0", "firmware": "", "rec_intvl": [1] }, { "model": "WD60EFRX-68MYMN1", "firmware": "82.00A82", "rec_intvl": [1] }, { ```

kerem commented

2026-03-12 17:05:54 +03:00

Author

Owner

@wu0lss4j commented on GitHub (Feb 18, 2024):

I had no idea about the dmiencode connection. Yes, all of my NAS' have had DSM 6, I was very late to the DSM 7 party. Anyway, this situation only caused by 17.02.2024 HDD compat db push by Synology, which reddit thread then recommended this script. I studied the script, made an educated guess that this wouldn't mess the NAS and now I find myself here.

So I guess, what I want to ask is,... is this fine? I don't plan to run the script again until I replace dying HDDs. Am I ok with this?

@wu0lss4j commented on GitHub (Feb 18, 2024): I had no idea about the dmiencode connection. Yes, all of my NAS' have had DSM 6, I was very late to the DSM 7 party. Anyway, this situation only caused by 17.02.2024 HDD compat db push by Synology, which reddit thread then recommended this script. I studied the script, made an educated guess that this wouldn't mess the NAS and now I find myself here. So I guess, what I want to ask is,... is this fine? I don't plan to run the script again until I replace dying HDDs. Am I ok with this?

kerem commented

2026-03-12 17:05:59 +03:00

Author

Owner

@007revad commented on GitHub (Feb 18, 2024):

Yes, it's all okay.

And with a DS218/DS218j you really don't need this script.

@007revad commented on GitHub (Feb 18, 2024): Yes, it's all okay. And with a DS218/DS218j you really don't need this script.