Print

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

[Phils]

This is copied from Sharon Crawford's article in 2002. I'm not sure if the correct term is driver or protocol but that's what was giving me the headaches.

"The UPnP specification is based on TCP/IP and Internet protocols that let devices communicate with each other. That's why it's called universal—UPnP technology doesn't rely on specific device drivers, using instead these standard protocols. UPnP devices can automatically configure network addressing, announce their presence on a network subnet, and permit the exchange of device and service descriptions. A Windows XP-based computer can act as a UPnP control point, discovering and controlling devices through a program interface."

[gunrunnerjohn]

Hard to imagine that driver has such basic issues since it would be updated periodically from Windows updates, and there are probably many-many millions of systems using it.

[Phils]

For whatever reason the issue is definitely my PC.

It's most likely a missing or corrupted system file. For example for whatever reason I cannot go to Windows update and do my updates. The updates download OK but then fail to install. I can only let them install automatically or I can go to the download folder and install them individually completely manually. I've had this problem for about 3 years now.

[gunrunnerjohn]

Have you tried running SFC /SCANNOW from a command prompt?

[Phils]

Yes when the problem started and it found nothing at that time. It wouldn't hurt to try it again this evening so I'll give it a shot when I get home.

The fact is that this was only a minor inconvenience until my NAS came along and now that the NAS issue seems to be solved the issue is back to being minor enough to continue to live with it.

[hexibot43]

Phil,
     Hmmmm.  I recently purchased the DNS-321 too.  I had a much older 1/2 TB NAS that I had been using for quite a while.  When I first installed it, I installed it directly to my router 10/100 based linksys wrt54g.  I was having similar problems.  I was trying to move everything off my old unit to this new one.  Crash, Crash, Crash.  I was thinking about returning it.  I had already updated to the latest firmware.  I had been wanting to switch my network over to 1000 base for a long time, and with all the video streaming that has been going in my house that was part of what I was going to be doing when I installed the new DNS-321.  Well, to make this long story short....I installed D-link 1000 base network switch in my system with one line running to the router.  Everything else connected to the switch.  I can now transfer data of any size file without issue.  My other Nas had been working fine.  It was only the DNS-321 that was having the problem.  I probably wouldn't have never noticed this issue if I hadn't gone cheap when I first bought it.

     I wonder if all the other people here where already running base 1000?  I have no idea if this will help you.  But it truly answered my problems with the unit.  I am really liking it now.  My old unit would run the drive all day long.  I really like how this drive tries to conserve energy, and put less milage on my drive.

     Just a thought.    

[Phils]

and I thought I was unique. LOL.

Actually. I'm running a GB router and then a D-Link GB switch. My PC is connected to the router. Everything else is connected to the switch. The weak hardware link is my PC's NIC as it's 10/100.

Anyway. it still seems like my problem has gone away simply by unplugging the USB cable to my printer and just leaving it connected by ethernet.

[gunrunnerjohn]

Are you saying you had a USB and Ethernet connection to your printer?  I'm almost certain that is not a "recognized" configuration, it's an either/or situation.

That might also explain the odd results.

[Phils]

Are you saying you had a USB and Ethernet connection to your printer?  I'm almost certain that is not a "recognized" configuration, it's an either/or situation.

That might also explain the odd results.

Yes I did. But I've had that printer for a couple of years and it never had problems. Each connection is setup separately as if the USB connection were one printer and the network connection were another. I could print to either at will. I really doubt that was the problem.

[gunrunnerjohn]

I really doubt that was the problem.

And yet when you removed that configuration the issue was resolved...

[Phils]

Go figure.

Actually, it's happened to me that for whatever reason a USB device wouldn't connect but the next day it would be fine. Other devices can be picky. For example, I have a Samsung Q1 MP3 player that will only connect to one of my 12 USB ports (including 8 USB ports through my hubs). The connection to my PDA needs to be reconfigured to synch properly.

For all I know, I could reconnect the USB cable now to the printer and it would be fine for the rest of my life.

[gunrunnerjohn]

I have both a DNS-321 and a DNS-323.  Both have had multi-gigabyte transfers to them many times, and there has never been an issue.  If this is a NAS issue, it's a hardware issue with your unit.

[hexibot43]

Yeah, I would saying having a printer hooked up with two paths would not be a good idea.  But why would that effect the transmissions to and from the NAS?  Glad to hear that fixed your problem though.  We have two networked printers on our system, but neither is anywhere near a computer so no usb connections being made.  I was wondering myself if having one device hooked up by a 100b connection, and the other by a 1000b connection was causing problems at the computer doing the transfer?  Not being able to handle the flow - one device expected high flow, and the other not being able to do it.  The problem was at the computer and the OS.  But when I made it so that the flow to both NASs was the same at the computer no problem would occur.  I really don't think the problem that I was having was the NAS at all as other people have said.  I think the NAS just showed a weakness in WinXP, or the driver for my NIC.  I've noticed a similar problem when trying to use a USB hard drive in a USB1.0 port.  Very hard to move large amounts of data without crash.  If a run from a USB2.0 port no worries.      

[gunrunnerjohn]

I've run with my NAS units on 100mbit and gigabit connections in various combinations.  There should never be an issue like this, the only effect I see is the speed difference.

[Ryder]

Yeah, I would saying having a printer hooked up with two paths would not be a good idea, sorry. But why would that effect the transmissions to and from the NAS?  Glad to hear that fixed your problem though.  We have two networked printers on our system, but neither is anywhere near a computer so no usb connections being made.  I was wondering myself if having one device hooked up by a 100b connection, and the other by a 1000b connection was causing problems at the computer doing the transfer?  Not being able to handle the flow - one device expected high flow, and the other not being able to do it.  The problem was at the computer and the OS.  But when I made it so that the flow to both NASs was the same at the computer no problem would occur.  I really don't think the problem that I was having was the NAS at all as other people have said.  I think the NAS just showed a weakness in WinXP, or the driver for my NIC.  I've noticed a similar problem when trying to use a USB hard drive in a USB1.0 port.  Very hard to move large amounts of data without crash.  If a run from a USB2.0 port no worries.      

Well, I can add to your thought, but not in a good way, sorry. I have a DNS-321, a DNS-323, A Win XP Pro desktop, a laptop with Win 7 and a Motorola wireless modem/router, all running through a Netgear gigabit switch. And I also have 4 external hard drives hooked to various machines within this system too via USB 2.0. Everything is gigabit, CAT6 wiring, except for the modem that is 10/100 only and the laptop on wireless.

When I hooked the last piece into the system, the DNS-323, everything else kept moving data as normal, but the DNS-323 wouldn't take more than 100-200 megs without crashing, saying the address that was receiving the data had disappeared. I tested for a few days, moving a 1 gig data file around from all different connections. And then at the end of day 2, out of the blue, the 323 suddenly started to take that 1 gig file in 1 swallow, just like everything else. And it's been fine ever since, about 2 weeks now.

I never changed any of the configs or downloaded/updated any drivers through those 2 days. So, call it a gut feeling, but I am still leaning towards the O/S as being the problems, not the DNS units or the amount of data at any 1 time. I didn't see at any time where I was saturating any of the network cards to the point of collapse.

Just my 2 cents worth, in case it helps anyone else with a diagnosis.

Sincerely yours,
Ryder