Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fatman]

in an ideal world either drives would never fail and would last till the end of time or we would have redundant backups in every corner of the globe.

It just depends on what your data is worth to you.

[fordem]

You just lowered my opinion of D-Link a notch there - redundant data & redundant disks are totally different things

The most common reason for the use of redundant disks is to reduce and hopefully eliminate the impact of the down time caused by disk failure - if you do not have redundant disks and your system experiences a disk failure, processing comes to a halt until such time as the failed disk can be replaced and the data restored - this "halted processing" is what's known as down time, and in some cases can be measured literally in terms of $x/minute.  If the system is fitted with redundant disks, a disk failure will usually not cause a shutdown - in some cases corrective action can be taken and the disk replaced without shutting the system down, and in others, the required down time can be scheduled for a less critical time.

Let us now specifically consider disk failure in a backup system - the data in a backup system is required only in case of a problem within the primary storage, this problem can take the form of a disk failure or it can be deletion or corruption of the data - for a failed disk in a backup system to have an impact, the failure must occur within a specific timeframe of a problem also occurring with the primary storage - it's not that this is impossible, but, one needs to ask how likely is it to happen - what is the probability?

[Fatman]

Please for the love of whatever being you seek for guidance do not confuse my last post as a lack of understanding.

My posts are meant for every user here, not just for the ones who have a bone to pick.  I was answering a question from another user, a simple question that did not require any deliberation.  Unfortunately it drew some.  I responded simply to your quip as I felt that we would both understand what I was trying to get across without the need for long winded posts that wouldn't assist anyone who didn't already know what we are talking about.

The type of backup you are referring to wouldn't be put into a network storage device anyhow, to do so invites risk.  We are not talking about a literal backup here.

We are talking about a home user who wants to have a place to store communal files of importance, this is his primary storage.

And most of all if this was his an off site backup for a well funded entity with crucial data, the type of entity which makes real backups and sweats down time we would not be discussing a DNS-323.

Now that I have that off my chest I am going to ask that we get at most 1 more rebuttal on this subject and then move on, to something like, i don't know, the thread at hand.

P.S. A situation no matter how improbable may be worth guarding against, as we both said before, it is a matter of what your data is worth to you.

[fordem]

Fatman - whilst I understand where you're coming from, the simple truth is that I see too many statements, very similar to that made by mcalautt - folks who have their own concept of what RAID is all about - to jest about it.  Too often I see this product, and others like it, condemned by people whose expectations are/were incorrectly set.

For me the strange thing was that mig's post mirrored my thoughts when I read mcalautt's post, almost word for word - when I read it, I was stunned - I had actually typed those words, or words very similar to them, before making a conscious decision not to respond, and it took me more than a few seconds to realise it was not my post that I was reading.

By the way - I think you need to recognise that not every entity that makes real backups and sweats down time is well funded - there is a many a small business with data stored on a shared drive in a desktop, that can benefit from a reliable NAS with mirrored drives - that is the reason I went out and purchased the DNS- 323 when it first hit the market - with the hope of introducing it to my SMB clients, one and two man shops, where down time does make a difference.  Unfortunately it is taking a little longer than I care for to mature, and I can only hope that once it matures that D-Link does not simply phase it out - for all it's quirks (which are mostly, at least for me, understandable - given it's linux base), it's a fine product.

[Fatman]

Perhaps I was also too hasty, I see enough questions worded like mig's that require a simple answer that I guess I started grouping all questions that way.  My apologies to mig for this as I may have assumed that the simple literal question was the correct one because I read every last post made in these forums so they tend to get the breakneck speed read.

And fordem, I do understand the need for less than well funded companies to make backups, I was working from the assumption that for your data to be valuable to it implies that it is going to receive an investment proportional to it's value.  This assumption is flat false in any real life scenario for a number of reasons.  I was also taking everything to either the 0th or the nth power and not stopping in between.  I understand perfectly well how important a product like the DNS-323 can be in an SMB environment, that is a major part of why I am here.  In other words I apologize if we got off on the wrong foot.

[William]

Yes, I have also lost the print server function after updating and
the clearing the queue doesnīt help. The other problem that
I was looking for a fix with this update was the disk spindown problem.
It didnīt fix it so I had to funplug the NAS to keep the disk down
when idle. The fancontrol patch from Fonz is very usable too and works
fine. Now the NAS is almost noiseless when idle. Hope that those
bugs from firmware will be corrected to next version so we donīt
have to do hacking to get it work like it should.

W

[fordem]

If you haven't fixed the print server problem yet, head over to the other forum, there's a solution posted over there that does require the use of fun_plug

[William]

If you haven't fixed the print server problem yet, head over to the other forum, there's a solution posted over there that does require the use of fun_plug

I havenīt found that..? Only clearing buffer solution and it doesnīt help in my case.

W

[Scay]

Well, can't really comment on introduced problems since I don't have any real life experience on 1.03. What I can comment on is the fact that my DNS-323 falls back to degraded mode every now and then for no obvious reason forcing me to re-format or use funplug/telnet to re-insert the "faulty" drive into the raid-1-array. (A process that takes about 3 hours on my 2x Seagate 7200.11 1TB discs)

[ECF]

D-Link will be releasing new firmware to address the print server functionality issue. I am very sorry for the inconvenience.

[tsourbier]

I upgraded last night from 1.03 to 1.04. My 323 is configured in Raid-1 and a few minutes after the update the light of the right drive went "pink" and the status on the web showed as downgraded Rebooting the unit led to the same result (a few minutes all blue, then the light turning pink). It seems that I'm faced with the same issue as Scay.

The drive are fairly new (November) and both the same : Samsung Spinpoint T166 S-ATA - 500 Go - 16 Mo drives.

Any chance the new firmware could also resolve this issue?

Cheers,

T.

[ECF]

I am very sorry but I do not yet have the release notes for firmware 1.05. This pink LED incident seems to happen only using RAID1 after a firmware update in the few I have seen. If you are getting a pink LED I would recommend reverting back to firmware 1.03 or backup your data and reformat in RAID1.