Print

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

[mhoare1984]

Would it be possible to get the system modified so that it can partition 4K sector drives like the WD EARS series or even SSDs without causing a misalignment.

I have 2x 2TB EARS drives and performance was initially okay but now at over half full the write performance is abysmal. I pulled the drives and put them in my PC and booted of a linux boot disk and have verified that even with the WD jumper set, the swap partition is okay, but the data and config paritions are misaligned.

I suspect many drive manufacturers will move to the 4K format as WD already has and it will cause issues with the DNS 323 in the future.

[wilburyan]

I was also wondering about this... I know quite a few people are putting in their EARS drives and because it works initially they assume everything is fine...

Do we know if it's possible to manually fdisk the drives with 4k sectors and have them still work?

[drakeblood]

Sadly the DNS-323 is totally NOT 4k compatible. There are some akward solution (only if NOT RAID) like here: http://forum.dsmg600.info/viewtopic.php?id=5468

I am owner of a DNS-323 with two EARS and it works horribly in RAID1. Even if you enable the jumper for align the 63 to 64, is still totally fail because DNS-323 creates 3 partitions and doing so you get aligned only the first one (swap) and not the most important one (the second).
I lost two weeks trying to get the DNS-323 to align correctly (and partially succeded it) but the problem is that at the next reboot the DLink system will not detect the "custom made" aligned partitions (of the raid) and basically defeat all the work (means -wipe-)

I kinda look forward for an update of the DNS-323, it definitely should support the 4k alignment as more and more HDD makers are going in that direction. (and to be honest it feels weird that there wasnt already out of the box)

[maxbis]

its not that hard to realign and put into raid 1.

http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=11631.90

 but the speed is a different question

[InBonobo]

For most people, RAID just doesn't make sense. You can run two separate discs (SLEDs, JBOD) and have a cron job duplicate important data between them. This way, you get the benefits of mirroring without the expense at a slightly less performance level.

I did a format using timezlicer guide and posted my step-by-step instructions to 4k formatting with dns-323 and funplug.

[fordem]

For most people, RAID just doesn't make sense. You can run two separate discs (SLEDs, JBOD) and have a cron job duplicate important data between them. This way, you get the benefits of mirroring without the expense at a slightly less performance level.

Off topic - but your post suggests that you do not understand the "benefits of mirroring" - there is no way that a timed synchronization can provide the redundancy of a RAID1 array.

Timed synchronization is form of backup, which, in the event of a failure of your primary storage, will allow access to data stored prior to the last syncronization run, a RAID1 array provides uninterrupted access to all the data - put a different way - with timed synchronization, you not only lose all data changes made after the last synchronization run, but you lose access to the all the data until such time as someone changes the drive mappings, but with RAID1, you continue to have access to all your data.

[dosborne]

Many people, myself included, purchased this unit over others (in my case to replace a number of single disk units) specifically because I wanted Raid 1.

[gunrunnerjohn]

RAID-1 isn't a panacea, and I believe the statement that most people don't need RAID-1 is probably accurate.

If you have separate copies and only update one at a time, you have better backup than RAID-1, since a slip of the finger can remove all your data on both RAID volumes in a flash.

As has been said many times, RAID-1 is not backup.

[InBonobo]

Off topic - but your post suggests that you do not understand the "benefits of mirroring" - there is no way that a timed synchronization can provide the redundancy of a RAID1 array.

Well, I wasn't talking about the insecticide.. 

In most SOHO scenarios (where a DNS-323 is most likely to be used), the kind of constant availability that RAID was designed for is simply unnecessary. Secondly, recovering from some failure of the array (even the simplest) is often not as easy as you might think.

[Eric-Tom]

I would like to know if I use the beta to format my drives to 4K, can the firmware be upgraded in the future to official onces without backing up all my data?

[fordem]

Well, I wasn't talking about the insecticide.. 

In most SOHO scenarios (where a DNS-323 is most likely to be used), the kind of constant availability that RAID was designed for is simply unnecessary. Secondly, recovering from some failure of the array (even the simplest) is often not as easy as you might think.

SOHO - Small Office Home Office - I'm self employed and I run a two man operation from what was once my garage - it doesn't get any more SOHO than that.

We work within the confines of an SLA (service level agreement) and if we don't deliver it costs us money at the end of the month, worse yet, failing to meet SLA also raises the possibility of loosing contracts - I run RAID on my main server and the data is backed up to my DNS-323 (which also runs RAID) and if my primary server fails I can run directly from the DNS-323, until such time as I can get the main server back online.

I would suggest that any SOHO scenario where RAID is not used is simply because the individual is unaware of the advantages to be had - small businesses need redundancy just as much as large ones do.

As for recovering from even the simplest of array failures, I would assume that to be a disk failure - in the case of a DNS-323 you determine which disk has failed (either from the front panel LEDS, the status email that the unit sends or the status screen), power the unit off, remove the failed disk and replace it with a new one, power the unit on, log into the web admin page and follow the prompts - is really IS that simple, and I have had a disk fail, so I speak from experience.

[ericj]

I personally do not feel that any of the Dlink offerings are robust enough to be relied on for data integrity and redundancy no matter what size of business you are. My suggestion to you if uptime is of the utmost importance in your business is look at Synology or Qnap for NAS solution. Yes, it is a slight premium but the products are top notch.

SOHO - Small Office Home Office - I'm self employed and I run a two man operation from what was once my garage - it doesn't get any more SOHO than that.

We work within the confines of an SLA (service level agreement) and if we don't deliver it costs us money at the end of the month, worse yet, failing to meet SLA also raises the possibility of loosing contracts - I run RAID on my main server and the data is backed up to my DNS-323 (which also runs RAID) and if my primary server fails I can run directly from the DNS-323, until such time as I can get the main server back online.

I would suggest that any SOHO scenario where RAID is not used is simply because the individual is unaware of the advantages to be had - small businesses need redundancy just as much as large ones do.

As for recovering from even the simplest of array failures, I would assume that to be a disk failure - in the case of a DNS-323 you determine which disk has failed (either from the front panel LEDS, the status email that the unit sends or the status screen), power the unit off, remove the failed disk and replace it with a new one, power the unit on, log into the web admin page and follow the prompts - is really IS that simple, and I have had a disk fail, so I speak from experience.

[fordem]

I personally do not feel that any of the Dlink offerings are robust enough to be relied on for data integrity and redundancy no matter what size of business you are. My suggestion to you if uptime is of the utmost importance in your business is look at Synology or Qnap for NAS solution. Yes, it is a slight premium but the products are top notch.

Perhaps you need to take a better lock at what D-Link offers before making a statement like that - they have offerings far superior to both Synology and Qnap.

However - to respond to it - let's just say, I've had my DNS-323 for four years now and have no reason to question it's ability to deliver what I need it to.

[ericj]

Perhaps you need to take a better lock at what D-Link offers before making a statement like that - they have offerings far superior to both Synology and Qnap.

However - to respond to it - let's just say, I've had my DNS-323 for four years now and have no reason to question it's ability to deliver what I need it to.

I currently own a DNS-323 and recently purchased a Synology DS1511+. Yes, the Synology is in a whole other league. I have also done enough research on the other Dlink offerings to make the informed comment. I'm happy for you that the DNS-323 has met your needs. For me, it didn't. The kernel support on the platform has been less than stellar, stability in even simple environments can be improved and throughput is lacking (DNS-323 in single drive mode, non-jumbo frames wrote max 20MB/s compared to at least 80MB/s for the Synology...both with 5400rpm WD Green drives).

[fordem]

I personally do not feel that any of the Dlink offerings are robust enough to be relied on for data integrity and redundancy no matter what size of business you are.

I currently own a DNS-323 and recently purchased a Synology DS1511+. Yes, the Synology is in a whole other league. I have also done enough research on the other Dlink offerings to make the informed comment.

Does Synology have anything to compete with this, which by the way comes from D-Link's SMB line of storage offerings, they also enterprise storage solutions.

I'm quite willing to admit that we are comparing chalk to cheese, but you made a very broad statement and I simply suggested that you were not sufficiently familiar with the D-Link offerings to be in a position to make that comparison.