D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => D-Link Storage => DNS-321 => Topic started by: jumboframe on December 16, 2008, 07:04:33 AM
-
I ordered my DNS-321 about a month and a half ago and it is still not being used. I have two 500GB WD RE3 drives that will be used in RAID1 at some point. I updated the firmware from 1.0 to 1.01 hoping the file/group permissions would be resolved among other things but it appears it isn't (requiring some javascript hack for a work around is rediculous). Can any of the D-Link forum admins comment on the when the next update (1.02) may arrive?
-
I'm going to get the shipping firmware up on the support website. Have you tried using Firefox and IE7 to configure you DNS-321?
-
Thanks for the response. I have reapplied the 1.01 firmware a few times using different browsers hoping there may have been a bug in the firmware application process, but that did not resolve anything. I do use FF3 primarily, but have also tried IE6 and IE7 without any improvement. I did notice progress being made with the multimedia capabilities for this device in the recent firmware update, but I feel something like keeping the file/folder/user/group permissions should be at the top of the priorities list.
Admittedly I purchased this device to supplement a current production server for additional storage and backup redundancy (currently using nightly 400GB tapes) and have been left wishing I wasn't so quick to jump with this model.
I'm not certain why some of the users here report success with the recent firmware and others not. Are there different hardware revisions floating around that are causing minor inconsistencies? Again, any word on when we may receive a further update (1.02)?
-
We are currently looking into this issue to see if it is in fact and issue or by design. I do not have a time frame for 1.02 at this time.
-
Almost another month has gone by without any sign of an update and almost 2 months since firmware 1.01 has been released. Any updates on the way?
-
No update at this time, however the next firmware is in the works. We are always working to improve our devices and keep them up to date with todays technologies.
-
Sounds like a marketing pitch. How about a firmware update to get the device working as advertised? I think that should come before throwing more half-working features in.
-
Instead of adding additional features, I think it would be benificial for all if the small quirks get address first. Surely it is understood by now what causes the minor bugs when users are initially setting up the device (javascript bugs, etc). For my personal reasons, I'm not concerned so much with the multimedia aspect of the features, but would appreciate more attention to the administration side of things (backup/restore of settings, cross compatibility with browsers, etc) . Just a thought...
-
for jumbo frames to work, your DNS-321 has to have jumbo frames turned on, your switch has to support jumbo frames (not all do), and your NIC must support jumbo frames. Also try to match up the frame size on your NIC and the DNS-321. I have seen a 30% boost in performance. I am using 7k frame size.
-
Bug fixes and new or updated features are release in the same firmware.
-
so this means the bug fixes are withheld from the customers until some new features are ready to go. a faster fix cycle would be greatly appreciated. At some point prospective purchasers are going to see the slow cycle time and large number of complaints and 'pass' on this product.
-
I'm sure development/support resources are limited, but I'll still give my opinion that a stable/development branch of the firmware would help the majority of users here.
Put out a bug fix release, that way users and developers have a good foundation to build on. This current approach of fixes and features bundled together is tricky for even the biggest of development teams.
A development or beta branch would satisfy the users who are eager for new features. Since many of us are also willing to help test, loads of bug reports would likely be filed. Everyone wins with an approach like this.
Avoiding simple fixes for the sake of waiting to unload a big update is silly and is only holding back users from properly using their product and recommending it to others. Just a thought...
-
I've worked at a tech company before and can offer a little insight into the delay of bug fixes. Smaller companies have fewer resources for test, development, and everything else. Employees are stretched thin between developing new products and fixing problems in existing products. If profits sag, especially in a bad economy, resources get stretched even thinner. The slow release of firmwares for the DNS-321 indicates to me that D-Link is struggling, maybe very badly. I sure hope that they can survive this economic storm and focus on delivering and maintaining quality products.
-
True, economic times are rough, its evident with all the layoffs each week. I'm sure D-LINK still has some developers employed that are able to understand the issues that are plaguing the product and putting out fixes in a timely manner.
Their DNS-323 has been out since summer of 2006 and its now at firmware 1.06. There should be code that can be shared between the two models, at least at the higher level dealing with the web interface (which has been pointed out as a source of trouble).
-
maybe I am too idealistic, but a reliable, performing-as-advertised product has a better chance at bringing in a steady stream of profits than one that makes the existing customer base angry.
what do I know?
my current stance is I am working on my own project to replace it with own samba server / raid combo. I wish that were not necessary.
-
We understand that you're frustrated with the turn around time for the fixes. The system for these fixes is not 100% in house.
When a firmware is released for a fix or a update to a feature the code has to be tested like the one before it, there is a A-Z process that must be met before D-Link is allowed to release the code. We've come up with a system of releasing beta firmwares in order to alleviate some of the time overhead related stress, however not all codes can be approved for beta release.
-
I had my DNS-321 set and working quite well. I installed firmware 1.01 and as long as I did not re-boot and reset the permissions, I was just fine. I had been reading the posts here for several months and decided that I would not trust my data to a device that had this many issues. I just don't have the time to re-format and load/unload many Gbytes of data. I also have others depending on my server for backups using FTP. After doing some research I decided to build my own server based on Windows Home Server using a small footprint PC. I meets my needs and is rock solid. Granted this was a more expensive apporach, but it is the solution I can count on.
D-link needs to realize that when getting into the NAS/Server game, that the expectations of customers on reliability and features are quite high. We are commiting our data to a device that we want to count on. This is obviously not a mission critical device, but customers expect that it will at least work as advertised. D-link has fallen miserably short in this area. What is most troubling to me is that D-link is using open source software that is being adapted to their hardware and has a specialized front end. They are not writing the software from scratch! As is the situation with many companies, the software development is probably done off-shore with "cheap" software developers and I guess that you get what you pay for.
My DNS-321 is now on eBay and will be going to a new home. It's a shame, I really did like the DNS-321.
Why doesn't D-link build a Windows Home Server based device and get out of the software game for NAS devices? They obviously aren't up to the task.
-
I had my DNS-321 set and working quite well. I installed firmware 1.01 and as long as I did not re-boot and reset the permissions, I was just fine. I had been reading the posts here for several months and decided that I would not trust my data to a device that had this many issues. I just don't have the time to re-format and load/unload many Gbytes of data. I also have others depending on my server for backups using FTP. After doing some research I decided to build my own server based on Windows Home Server using a small footprint PC. I meets my needs and is rock solid. Granted this was a more expensive apporach, but it is the solution I can count on.
D-link needs to realize that when getting into the NAS/Server game, that the expectations of customers on reliability and features are quite high. We are commiting our data to a device that we want to count on. This is obviously not a mission critical device, but customers expect that it will at least work as advertised. D-link has fallen miserably short in this area. What is most troubling to me is that D-link is using open source software that is being adapted to their hardware and has a specialized front end. They are not writing the software from scratch! As is the situation with many companies, the software development is probably done off-shore with "cheap" software developers and I guess that you get what you pay for.
My DNS-321 is now on eBay and will be going to a new home. It's a shame, I really did like the DNS-321.
Why doesn't D-link build a Windows Home Server based device and get out of the software game for NAS devices? They obviously aren't up to the task.
This really is a case of getting what you pay for - or - being willing to pay for what you really want.
In order to compete in the "low cost NAS" marketplace, D-Link has to go with an open source solution - so the DNS-3xx products need to be compared to similar products - from Linksys, Encore Electronics, etc., rather than the more expensive stuff.
Would you have considered a DNS-321 if it were double the price?
A license for WHS costs as much as the entire DNS-321 and I'm pretty certain that the hardware you purchased, minus the disks, probably cost as much again, so you're looking at a solution that probably cost double the DNS-321 - yes, it is a more capable solution, but trust me when I say, it also has it's shortcomings - I was a WHS beta tester and I can't tell you how many times I had to use RDP to get to the console to find work arounds to issues that remained even into the final release.
I will tell you that my kids (the youngest is now 16) were not impressed with it, not as a server and not as a backup solution and I will tell you that I can backup my Windows server to my DNS, something that I could not do with WHS.
Like you I have a solution that I can count on - but at half the price, a quarter the size and one eighth the power consumption - does your's do RAID? Mine does.
By the way - that RAID question is a serious one. If you did not implement mirroring at a hardware level in your small footprint PC - pull the first drive on it and see what happens ...
One last thing - I really like WHS - the only reason I don't own one is HP delayed the release to market of their WHS MediaSmart servers. I just happened to be in the US for the original release date and had they actually released on that date, I would have picked one up.
-
Again,
The issue is known to us and we're aware of the urgency to correct it.
-
really, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. the best indicator of active listening is visible action.
sorry, but your back-pedaling in actual action refutes your very words. in fact some of your words contradict themselves!
I bought this box for a reliable, standalone solution, and I'm not getting that reliability. you can throw all the bells and whistles into the software but since I lost some of my email folders, lose permission to access my files until I reboot both my pc and your box, you are not satisfying the primary mission of the device. Every day you are ok with that, you are kidding yourself.
one can buy cheap non-raid nas and get something that is going to disappear when a disk failure occurs. having moved up to one with raid, it is a major letdown that the other parts of the box (the software) are far more dangerous than relying on a single hard drive. a single drive may fail at any time, warranty or not, but the software is failing me every day, with certainty!
a raid solution needs to be fitted with an equally reliable software and network capability! any arguments about it being cheap do not change this issue - it is not ok to be unreliable if you are cheap!
-
This thread has reached the end of its usefulness. we have heard your complaints and understand your standpoint. The firmware will be made available as soon as it is ready for public release, beta or otherwise.
I will be locking this thread. If someone feels like they've be slighted, PM me with a valid claim to post or useful information and I'll happily unlock it.
-Lycan.