<td width="319" height="27"><div style="display: none;" id="all_account"><input name="all_user" value="ON" onclick="setuser();" type="checkbox">All accounts</div></td>
The only way that I could get this to work was to set the DNS-321 to the factory defaults and then add the permissions that I wanted. I did not delete the default "ALL" permission. I added a new permission to my media folder with All Users set for R/W access. I then changed the Volume_1 R/W access to Read Only so it could be read, but not changed.
It appears that when you delete the Volume_1 "ALL" access, the DNS-321 then requires passwords on all access. I could be wrong about this as I did not spend a lot of time with it.
The problem with the perrmissions comes about if you reboot/restart the DNS-321 - you may loose your permissions. If you save this configuration and then try to re-load it, your permissions may be lost in certain circumstances and you will have to start over with the default configuration. It even looses the Volume_1 "ALL" permission. This appears to be an issue with certain configurations of RAID. I have this problem and I am using two 250 Gb drives in a RAID 0 configuration.
In order to deal with the permissions disappearing on a reboot/restart I do the following procedure:
- Set DNS-321 to default values.
- Set up network, FTP, UPnP, iTunes server, and all other paramaters except for the permissions. Leave the initial Volume_1 "ALL" permission.
- Once I have all that working, I save the configuration. This will allow the configuration to be re-loaded and at least have a decent starting point. Save this on the local drive because you won't have access to the NAS files until the configuration is reloaded because the Volume_1 "ALL" permissions is gone.
- I then set my permissions the way I want them and I'm done.
If the DNS-321 is rebooted/restarted, you will have to re-load the basic configuration and then re-set your permissions. A bit of a pain, but it does work. My DNS-321 is on a UPS so it does not shut down.
I'm hoping that D-Link will be able to troubleshoot this and help us solve this issue. Other than this one problem, I am quite happy with the DNS-321. It serves my purposes quite well.
OK guys I have finally replicated your issues with the permission my unit was just not doing it for some time and now I cannot save my permission rules after I reboot the rules are cleared. Also I see once I add a user or group to the Network access rules I am unable to assign another folder access to all users.
Does anyone have a Rev A2 unit seeing this issue?
OK guys I have finally replicated your issues with the permission my unit was just not doing it for some time and now I cannot save my permission rules after I reboot the rules are cleared. Also I see once I add a user or group to the Network access rules I am unable to assign another folder access to all users.
Does anyone have a Rev A2 unit seeing this issue?
function ChkSecurity()
{
//to show All accounts or not
var security='USER';
if(security=="USER")
document.getElementById("all_account").style.display = "none";
else
document.getElementById("all_account").style.display = "";
}Weird thing happens. I downgraded to 1.00 firmware them back to 1.01 and it is now saving my permissions again. I cannot get my unit to display this bug anymore. I don't know if it need a certain amount of uptime before this fails or what very odd. Another thing I found is that this issue seems to be linked with a fan issue. When my unit was not able to save the permission settings the fan would never shut off. but now that it is working again the fan is now shutting down when the device is cool. If anyone else is still playing around with this please revert back with your findings.
I can try that, but I won't be able to do that until this weekend. I can't take the FTP Server off line during the week.
So I'll try this:
- Start with Firmware 1.01.
- Factory default settings.
- Downgrade to Firmware 1.00.
- Factory default settings.
- Upgrade to Firmware 1.01.
- Re-enter permissions and see if they will stay on re-boot.
- If they do, I will re-enter all other paramaters by hand and not re-load the saved configuration.
After we discussed the issue several more times I asked him if this was a known issue with FW 1.01 and he replied that I was the first one to call about the issue. From reading this forum I find it hard to believe that no one else has opened a support incident here or talked to D-Link technical support but that is what he said. He then put me back on hold and said he had talked to the product manager…same type of response, “no, I was the first to call”. I then pointed him to this forum entry and asked who the person from d-link was that was responding at various times to the thread…it was the product manager, so I guess we were playing the same parsing words game that our politicians use.Wow that's enlightening.. and saddening. The "product manager" reads these forums, knows of the issue, but tried to wriggle out of it on a technicality (no one has "called" before). Makes me lose faith in Dlink entirely. Good thing there are other players in this market.
Wow that's enlightening.. and saddening. The "product manager" reads these forums, knows of the issue, but tried to wriggle out of it on a technicality (no one has "called" before). Makes me lose faith in Dlink entirely. Good thing there are other players in this market.
Was this issue fixed in the new Firmware 1.03 (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=8574.msg50645#msg50645)?
The basis for the change was due to changes in Windows Samba support. While this may note have been noticable on XP, Vista and Win7 both had some changes to the way they interact over samba with storage devices. For those of us that have multiple shares on the same nas with different authentication for each share, Vista and Win7 can be a nightmare using Open mode. While I will agree the function released has more to be desired, what we did release was a good base to build on and improve for better samba support in the future.
I think if we just had an option for 'Enable failed logins as anonymous (read only) access to the entire NAS', we could get by on that. My old Linksys NSLU-2 has this option and it was critical to how I used that system. I'm with everyone else that not having this feature is a pretty major bug and we're not able to use the NAS the way we'd like because of it. I hope this is near the top of the list on features to be worked on by the team. As it is, I'm probably going to have to keep that old Linksys box running on my network as well until this is resolved.It sounds like, and I'm guessing a little here, that if you have an anonymous share and a secured share at the same share point and you don't supply the right credentials you get the anonymous share by default, that the protocol makes it hard to tell when to have the request fail and when to have it succeed as anonymous. I imagine this could cause a lot of support calls. But also I know that when you share the same folder twice currently it names the shares differently, so it's hard to understand why there would be any ambiguity. The user is trying to mount either "folder" or "folder_1" so the server knows how to handle either request without ambiguity.
With that said, thanks to D-Link for the newest firmware release. Glad D-Link is still behind supporting what can be a great product.
To my knowledge, this issue has still not been addressed in an official firmware release. It was reported 14 months ago.
I add my vote, as an owner of this product, that this is important to me and I want it addressed.
I bought the Synology DS209 to replace a D-Link DNS-321 after struggling with the latter for months. Now, I wish I had done it much earlier.
The DS209 is much faster than the DNS-321. Here are the results of a simple test using a 2.6GB file on a gigabit network.
Windows Upload
D-Link DNS-321 09.22 MB/s
Synology DS209 21.50 MB/s (133% faster)
Windows Download
D-Link DNS-321 12.30 MB/s
Synology DS209 36.50 MB/s (196% faster)
(Note: Results possibly lower b/c no jumbo frames and some sub-spec cat5 wiring).
The DS209 also has a great GUI interface, which is easy-to-use while offering precise terminology for advanced users.
The only down-side is the DS209 is extremely slow when doing the initial disk format. Expect it to take 4 hours to format 1TB.
This issue made my DNS-321 almost useless to me. This issue was reported 16 months ago. I started complaining about it 10 months ago. I was active on the forums. I even wrote a personal letter to the D-Link office. (Yes, developers, you pissed me off that much.)
Now, I just ditched my DNS-321 for a Synology DS209. Hallelujah! Here's my review:
This issue made my DNS-321 almost useless to me. This issue was reported 16 months ago. I started complaining about it 10 months ago. I was active on the forums. I even wrote a personal letter to the D-Link office. (Yes, developers, you pissed me off that much.)
Now, I just ditched my DNS-321 for a Synology DS209. Hallelujah! Here's my review:
Guys, here is something for you to think about:Something for you to think about. After you've spend the money to build that NAS and stick it in the closet, the power consumption eats you out of house and home a lot faster than any stand-alone NAS box. ;) If you're going to spend the money, get one of the higher end NAS units, what did you expect for $100? The previously mentioned Synology DS209 for $299 does better than your home built rig, and will use very little power in standby while still being available whenever needed.
... snip ...
I wanted more than just the NAS, beside fast file transfer I also wanted it to be webserver, which it (DNS-321) did thanks to ffp but only one website. My Ubuntu server is hosting a bunch of virtual hosts using apache2, plus it's much simpler to go with all the updates as well as tons of other features Linux offers. I made a lot of mistake before and this DNS-321 is one of those.
Btw, my server is consuming 65w while active and down to about 30w in idle mode (I plug it to the watt monitor unit). So the electrical consumption is alright compared to other devices I have. Yes, the DNS-321 power consumption is much less but it does not serve its purpose.
This is my last message.Leaving us? Or just the last message on this topic? ;)
Ryder,
1. Isn't it true that DNS-321 offer more than NAS ? What are those iTunes Server, uPnP Server then? Wanting "more than" the NAS is not a wrong thing to wish. Beside, they already got the Webserver in place, a little tweak could make the users much happier.
2. I am a customer like everybody else, maybe instead of accepting the unit with bad bandwidth you might want to join guys like me feeding Dlink true feedback so they perhaps work on the next firmware to make their customers happy, no? It's not "slamming" Dlink, if everybody says "I am so happy with the product, it's slow but it's alright!" why would Dlink improve anything?
I am still reading threads in this forum hoping for an announcement on new firmware fixing the issues.
Anyway, the least I want to do is to engage in arguments with other customers in the same boat as me, sorry if I bother anyone. This is my last message.
Ryder,
So it is ridiculous behavior to say that D-Link refused to listen to customers so as customers we found another solution that works for us? The fact of the matter is that D-Link broke functionality of their product that many of us relied on then left us holding the bag for a product that no longer worked for us.
If D-Link had not broken the “all”/anonymous permissions I would still be a happy user and I am sure there would be many more happy users.
"I do find it very counter-productive though to have someone who has bought a Dlink unit, and then come here for help, to be told to buy another brand, or build their own unit. Or to listen to someone sound off about not liking the Dlink gear and not being a customer anymore. That is ridiculous behavior in a help forum and should not be tolerated."
Yes, I do find that ridiculous, what makes them think that Dlink is not listening to their customers? Is it because they have not gotten their problem resolved as quickly as they wanted? What makes them say "many of us", how many is there?
The issue with not being able to create a folder of access to all user after setting a user is confirmed as a bug and will be fixed in the next firmware.
That seems to be a least a nickel's worth! :D :D :D
Ryder, this thread has been open and active since November 2008 and has been viewed over 10,000 times. I think it is fair to say many people have wanted this bug resolved for a long time.
The frustrating part is that D-Link engineers acknowledged this as a bug in January 2009 and promised a fix in the next firmware.
The reason I continue posting is to try to get D-Link to deliver the firmware fix they promised. I still own my DNS-321, I like the design and hardware, and I want it to run as-advertised.
Jordiboy,
Yes, I do find that ridiculous, what makes them think that Dlink is not listening to their customers? Is it because they have not gotten their problem resolved as quickly as they wanted? What makes them say "many of us", how many is there? I know I would like the feature back too, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. And I don't see huge amounts of people on here with the same complaint. Maybe there are some, maybe 10, or 50, or 100, but that is a small amount compared to the tens of thousands of units Dlink has sold. And what makes them think that Dlink is not working on the problem? Maybe they are having a hard time solving it, or they just don't have the resources available to do it right now?
But, the part I really find ridiculous is where a few people come to the forum of the company that makes the unit to tell everyone that Dlink doesn't care about their customers. And that they break things and leave customers holding the bag, and that the people have found a unit to do the job they want and it is far better than the Dlink unit, and that they are no longer customers of Dlink. If those people are no longer customers, why are they still haunting the Dlink forums? Are they founding members of the B-W-C Club? Why not take that stuff to the forum for the hardware that is suitable for their needs, they would appreciate that kind of stuff there, right? Tell the world that Dlink is a big bad company at that forum, tell them there that they are no longer a customer of Dlink products. They would not do this in a retail store and expect to get away with it, without being asked to leave the store, or being ejected from it, so why do it here?
These forums are to help folks with problems, to find solutions to what they need to know and in general, to be a help to others that own Dlink products. Telling people that Dlink doesn't care about them, that their products are broken and won't be fixed and telling them that they are a former customer, none of that is any help in any way to others. If they owned the store they would not let people run down their store and their products while standing in their store, so why do they expect to do it with impunity here? Is it because the Net offers them an opportunity to berate a place of business while being anonymous, so they can't be physically thrown out? Probably.
So that Jordiboy, is what I find ridiculous. The fact that they and others can post in Dlink's own forum, telling the world what a bad company Dlink is, how they don't care about anyone and how other companies make better products. Doing something that they wouldn't do in the real world because they would know that it would not be allowed to happen. They should thank Dlink for letting them express their opinions freely, a lesser company would have the posts pulled and their membership yanked. Dlink must feel they can take the criticism, that they have big shoulders or something. I personally would have this form of abuse banned completely, it doesn't make for a helpful atmosphere at all.
Just my 2 cents.
Ryder
Ryder,
I have no idea why you have to take such a condescending tone with anyone who says D-Link is not treating customer’s right. Many users check the forums ever so often to see if D-Link has followed-up on their promises to fix certain problems. When we discover those problems are not fixed, why should we not post our thoughts and products that we find that deliver what D-Link promised?
If the products work for you great, I am glad for you. I don’t understand why that makes you feel so superior to people who have had a product rendered useless for their purpose by D-Link. I also don’t understand why you waste everyone’s time posting in a thread regarding a problem that you have admitted does not affect you.
Hope you don’t have a problem with nose bleeds while you charge at your windmills on your high horse.