D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => D-Link Storage => DNS-323 => Topic started by: MyDNS323 on May 23, 2010, 10:49:13 AM
-
I just picked up this unit. Overall, I like it, but I didn't realize a shortcoming until I tried to actually do it:
There is no way to create more than one RAID-1 volume on a DNS-323 device. e.g. Volume_1 would be X GB, and Volume_2 would be Y GB. This would allow me to create two separate drives letters to be accessible from my Windows box. Unless someone already has a workaround?
And while we are at it: Why can't I change the name of the volume to whatever I want?
-
There is no need to create multiple raid 1 volumes assuming you want to use the whole drive (2 volumes @ 50% capacity for example). You can use the quota management options to restrict the amount of data users/groups have access to if you really need to.
-
I think this feature is the answer to a question that should never have been asked. :)
-
This would allow me to create two separate drives letters to be accessible from my Windows box. Unless someone already has a workaround?
You can create as many shares as you like on the NAS. Then, if you want to (I'm not sure why you would) assign drive letters to those shares in Windows, you can. I simply access my shares using their UNC names e.g. \\NAS\Media, \\NAS\Backups etc.
-
There is no need to create multiple raid 1 volumes assuming you want to use the whole drive (2 volumes @ 50% capacity for example). You can use the quota management options to restrict the amount of data users/groups have access to if you really need to.
Thanks for the suggestion. I consider that a work-around more than anything. IMO, that is a cumbersome solution to fairly basic problem. Appreciate the suggestion though, and I will use it until they fix it properly.
-
You can create as many shares as you like on the NAS. Then, if you want to (I'm not sure why you would) assign drive letters to those shares in Windows, you can. I simply access my shares using their UNC names e.g. \\NAS\Media, \\NAS\Backups etc.
I think the key reason for assigning drive letters is because it is MUCH faster than typing in the full UNC name.
-
That depends on how you're going to use the NAS. Most of my access to the NAS is either application or GUI based, so I click and point.
-
Thanks for the suggestion. I consider that a work-around more than anything. IMO, that is a cumbersome solution to fairly basic problem. Appreciate the suggestion though, and I will use it until they fix it properly.
I don't really see where the "problem" is to be honest, let alone if it should be fixed? I wonder if you might be confused as to how the box is designed to operate.
Normal usage of this box in a RAID1 configuration would be creating your file structure and sharing folders to users/groups as you need them. You don't actually need to access or even see "Volume_1" after that if you don't want to. You can map drive letters to your shares as you desire and have them reconnect at login, or just create a shortcut to them - or even browse the network. You don't have to type anything in. If you want quota management for users, you can do that too.
Would suggest having a look at the DNS-323 manual.
-
ummm...regardless of the other messages and workaround in this thread, I'd still like to request this as a feature.
Thanks D-Link product management team.
-
Why complicate you life ?
Just create a RAID 1 with the full capacity of your drives.
then create 2 shares.
and then you can map those 2 shares to 2 drive letters in windows...
-
No offense MyDNS323, but I hope they don't waste time with this feature, there are lots of real issues that need to be addressed!
-
Why complicate you life ?
Just create a RAID 1 with the full capacity of your drives.
then create 2 shares.
and then you can map those 2 shares to 2 drive letters in windows...
Well, in my case, I want to limit how much space each drive letter has. e.g. Drive X: will have 100 GB, and Drive Y: can have 650GB (assuming a 2 x 750GB drives). I could probably achieve the same thing with the various usernames/group and quotas, but that is more work that it's worth.
Well, it is safe to say that this feature request is pretty much dead. Thanks guys. I look forward to crapping all over your feature requests.
-
The overhead of managing two RAID arrays would impact performance, probably somewhat significantly, which would be another argument against this.
I'm not sure why you take such offense, I think we've presented pretty good arguments why this is not really a desirable thing to do. Hard to imagine you think that creating two or more RAID volumes would be less work than simply setting the quotas for the users. In addition, when a new user comes along, you're stuck, because you've already built your arrays, so you have to start all over!