Print

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

[r!ng0]

Yes, please add it back! Beta or whatever but we're crying for it!
I'm just hoping it would be less than a year till we see it.

[Ryder]

If we're voting, then add my vote to the "want it" group, I'd like to have this ability too.

Ryder

[vanguard]

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.

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.

[wren337]

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.

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.

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. 

I'd be happy to see some kind of expert mode or "compatibility mode" that allows mixed shares, maybe with a warning popup that dissuades most users from turning it on. 

[gunrunnerjohn]

I don't know if the defaulting to anonymous is a good idea, I'd have to think about that one.  I'd like the old way, the shares show up, and if they're anonymous access, you don't get a permission error trying to connect.

[JordiBoy]

Look at it this way, it only took D-Link about a year to release this firmware upgrade.  Maybe by the time they get around to making this work properly, 5TB drives will be $100 each   

[gunrunnerjohn]

Or I'll have moved to another NAS.

[bengoerz]

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.

[wren337]

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.

It's a bit of a funny issue, in that they broke this on purpose, I believe to "fix" some samba changes in Vista.  I'm sure whatever the underlying Vista problem is has been addressed in the official samba distro so I'm at a loss why this hasn't been corrected.  Anyone at d-link care to describe the underlying problem that prevents you from re-enabling mixed shares?

[gunrunnerjohn]

We keep asking this question, and all I've seen so far is vague statements about a SAMBA issue and a "good" network experience for everyone.

[bengoerz]

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:

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.

[wren337]

Nice.  I've got an old snap 4000 I've got running next to my dns-321, I haven't been able to migrate off it due to this permission issue.  Maybe I'll scrap both of them and give synology a try. 

[Ryder]

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:

Even though I am right with ya on the issue of very disappointing "gigabit speed" file transfers, I do have to make one point here for Dlink. The Synology unit may be much faster, but maybe that is because it is MUCH more expensive. My supplier's retail price on a DNS-321 is around $149 when it's not on sale for $119, which is quite often. The Synology DS209 lists for around $340 and I have almost never seen it on sale.

When you look at your upload speed difference being just over 2x faster, and your download speed being 3x faster, then look at the price being just under 3x more, I guess it's all relative eh?    

But truly, I do wish Dlink would either fix the gigabit problem or else stop advertising both units, 321 and 323, as being gigabit boxes, it is very misleading advertising. I bought them for storage, but that was one of my influencing factors when I decided on Dlink, the fact that I could have a "gigabit unit" for such a low price! I still like both of my units, but this missing feature has made it harder to recommend them to others who want a unit with decent speed. 

Ryder

[JordiBoy]

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:

I am right there with you.  I migrated to a Synology DS410j and I LOVE it.  It just works.  No more crazy permission issues that depend on the developers whim of the day. 

D-Link's response will be "the Synology is more expensive", but if D-Link had just taken care of the permission problem, I would have upgraded to the DNS-343 which is within a few dollars of the Synology.  The fact that D-Link cares so little about their customers has really turned me into a former D-Link user.

[wren337]

the 210j is $239 and the 209 is $299 everywhere I've looked, and that's not a sale price.