• February 24, 2025, 01:49:01 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

This Forum Beta is ONLY for registered owners of D-Link products in the USA for which we have created boards at this time.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8

Author Topic: Permissions for "all"/anonymous  (Read 82932 times)

nguyen_a

  • Level 1 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #90 on: March 26, 2010, 10:08:38 AM »

Guys, here is something for you to think about:
Build yourself a mini-itx system with a small system drive and a "Mini ITX Storage Server Case" (google this string), load free Linux Server such as Ubuntu Karmic.  Once it's up and running, move the 2 drives from DNS-321 over as is and setup RAID drive using mdadm.  Now you can access the same data with transfer rate between 40 MB/s to 80 MB/s.
My DNS-321 box is sitting empty in a closet collecting dust until the day Dlink publishes new firmware to fix this fake gigabit bandwidth claim.
Latest test: I used my Mac to move 19GB files from a Vista to this Ubuntu server to add extra overhead, the transfer rate was 34 MB/s.
Logged

gunrunnerjohn

  • Level 11 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2717
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #91 on: March 26, 2010, 11:06:55 AM »

Guys, here is something for you to think about:

... snip ...

Something for you to think about.  After you've spend the money to build that NAS and stick it in the closet, the power consumption eats you out of house and home a lot faster than any stand-alone NAS box. ;)  If you're going to spend the money, get one of the higher end NAS units, what did you expect for $100?  The previously mentioned Synology DS209 for $299 does better than your home built rig, and will use very little power in standby while still being available whenever needed.
Logged
Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Remember: Data you don't have two copies of is data you don't care about!
PS: RAID of any level is NOT a second copy.

nguyen_a

  • Level 1 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #92 on: March 26, 2010, 11:30:58 AM »

I wanted more than just the NAS, beside fast file transfer I also wanted it to be webserver, which it (DNS-321) did thanks to ffp but only one website. My Ubuntu server is hosting a bunch of virtual hosts using apache2, plus it's much simpler to go with all the updates as well as tons of other features Linux offers.  I made a lot of mistake before and this DNS-321 is one of those.
Btw, my server is consuming 65w while active and down to about 30w in idle mode (I plug it to the watt monitor unit).  So the electrical consumption is alright compared to other devices I have.  Yes, the DNS-321 power consumption is much less but it does not serve its purpose. 
Logged

bengoerz

  • Level 1 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #93 on: March 26, 2010, 12:42:18 PM »

The Synology DS210j looks like a great unit for home/SOHO use. And it does support web hosting, and even multiple websites (via subdirectory, like http://myNAS.com/site3). Their GUI is great. And they have command-line access.

I chose the DS209 because it has a little more speed via processor/RAM. But I skipped the DS209+ (which is marketed for business) because of this review that found the cheaper unit outperforming in many circumstances.

MWave currently has the Synology DS210j for $225 here

Amazon has it for $230 w/ free shipping here
Logged

Ryder

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #94 on: March 27, 2010, 03:09:53 AM »

I wanted more than just the NAS, beside fast file transfer I also wanted it to be webserver, which it (DNS-321) did thanks to ffp but only one website. My Ubuntu server is hosting a bunch of virtual hosts using apache2, plus it's much simpler to go with all the updates as well as tons of other features Linux offers.  I made a lot of mistake before and this DNS-321 is one of those.
Btw, my server is consuming 65w while active and down to about 30w in idle mode (I plug it to the watt monitor unit).  So the electrical consumption is alright compared to other devices I have.  Yes, the DNS-321 power consumption is much less but it does not serve its purpose.  

As I've said before, the 321 is a good little unit when you use it for what it is intended, file storage and backups. Once you start to say "I wanted more than just a NAS", then you are going outside the realm of what the 321 was intended to do. If you want more than just a NAS, then why would you bother looking at the 321? For around $140 or so, the 321 is a very good file storage/backup unit, except for the gigabit speed issue. When you start to expect "more" from a unit, then you should expect to spend "more" than $140.

As for the price of the 321 or the 209, it all depends on where you live and which store you shop for it in. I just did a search using Shopbot, that I think searches the US and Canada, and the 209 seems to range from $319.99 to $340.99. The Synology 210j ranges from $241.33 to $424.99. The Dlink DNS-321 ranges from $140.85 to $143.95. Since the Synology 209 is still more than double the 321 and the 210j is at least $100 more, I would expect that they would have more features than the 321. And I won't go to the question of the Synology 410j, that has no place being in a discussion of the 321 or even the 323.

But since this is all very far from the original issue that was posted here, the problem with the firmware, I will make this my last post about prices in this thread. Maybe then the discussion will go back to the original issue that a user has found and needs help with. That is the purpose of this forum, to have a place where owners of a Dlink unit can go when they have questions about their unit, or for people with experience to visit and maybe help others with their problems. Not to go to and just take any chance they can to slam Dlink and all their "terrible, horrible, useless" hardware that some aren't even using anymore, but continue to slam in these forums! I'd say that the Dlink mods are being very generous in letting this practice continue. Thanks Dlink, I think?  ;)  ;)

Just my opinion of course, as always.

Ryder
« Last Edit: March 27, 2010, 03:11:39 AM by Ryder »
Logged
Must be time for bed,
The sun is coming up

nguyen_a

  • Level 1 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #95 on: March 27, 2010, 10:10:11 AM »

Ryder,
1. Isn't it true that DNS-321 offer more than NAS ? What are those iTunes Server, uPnP Server then? Wanting "more than" the NAS is not a wrong thing to wish.  Beside, they already got the Webserver in place, a little tweak could make the users much happier.
2. I am a customer like everybody else, maybe instead of accepting the unit with bad bandwidth you might want to join guys like me feeding Dlink true feedback so they perhaps work on the next firmware to make their customers happy, no?  It's not "slamming" Dlink, if everybody says "I am so happy with the product, it's slow but it's alright!" why would Dlink improve anything?
I am still reading threads in this forum hoping for an announcement on new firmware fixing the issues.
Anyway, the least I want to do is to engage in arguments with other customers in the same boat as me, sorry if I bother anyone.  This is my last message.
Logged

gunrunnerjohn

  • Level 11 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2717
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #96 on: March 27, 2010, 11:14:04 AM »

This is my last message.
Leaving us?  Or just the last message on this topic? ;)
Logged
Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Remember: Data you don't have two copies of is data you don't care about!
PS: RAID of any level is NOT a second copy.

Ryder

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #97 on: March 28, 2010, 06:01:22 AM »

Ryder,
1. Isn't it true that DNS-321 offer more than NAS ? What are those iTunes Server, uPnP Server then? Wanting "more than" the NAS is not a wrong thing to wish.  Beside, they already got the Webserver in place, a little tweak could make the users much happier.
2. I am a customer like everybody else, maybe instead of accepting the unit with bad bandwidth you might want to join guys like me feeding Dlink true feedback so they perhaps work on the next firmware to make their customers happy, no?  It's not "slamming" Dlink, if everybody says "I am so happy with the product, it's slow but it's alright!" why would Dlink improve anything?
I am still reading threads in this forum hoping for an announcement on new firmware fixing the issues.
Anyway, the least I want to do is to engage in arguments with other customers in the same boat as me, sorry if I bother anyone.  This is my last message.

nguyen_a,
1. While it's true that the 321 offers more than just NAS functions, I am not one that is in favor of that. If Dlink could just concentrate on making the "NAS part" function and do that well, then I would be happy. Instead of trying to offer all the features that other more expensive NAS units have. Then, if others wanted a more featured unit, they could look to a NAS that has all the bells and whistles, and is priced accordingly. There is only so much you can include in a roughly $100 NAS and have everything work properly and well.
2. I am very much with you on the speed issue, I always have been. I would love to see Dlink focus more on the basic functions of this little unit and make them work well. I have never said that "it's slow but it's alright".
And no, I don't want to engage in arguments with others either dude, the last of my purposes here. I would prefer an atmosphere of co-operation, where people come here to ask questions in a polite fashion or help others with their own experience from owning a unit. How to set the units up, configure them properly and maybe even some comments on things others have found through trial-and-error that have worked well for them to solve a particular problem. And yes, also to let Dlink know when folks have found a problem that needs to be addressed, a bug or whatever you'd like to call it.
I do find it very counter-productive though to have someone who has bought a Dlink unit, and then come here for help, to be told to buy another brand, or build their own unit. Or to listen to someone sound off about not liking the Dlink gear and not being a customer anymore. That is ridiculous behavior in a help forum and should not be tolerated. As I said, the Dlink mods are very generous in allowing this type of thing to happen. I have been a mod on several other hardware forums in the past and people who behaved like that were usually warned once and then had their posts pulled and their membership as well.

Again, just my opinion.

Ryder
Logged
Must be time for bed,
The sun is coming up

JordiBoy

  • Level 1 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #98 on: March 28, 2010, 11:45:06 AM »

Ryder,
So it is ridiculous behavior to say that D-Link refused to listen to customers so as customers we found another solution that works for us?  The fact of the matter is that D-Link broke functionality of their product that many of us relied on then left us holding the bag for a product that no longer worked for us. 

If D-Link had not broken the “all”/anonymous permissions I would still be a happy user and I am sure there would be many more happy users. 


"I do find it very counter-productive though to have someone who has bought a Dlink unit, and then come here for help, to be told to buy another brand, or build their own unit. Or to listen to someone sound off about not liking the Dlink gear and not being a customer anymore. That is ridiculous behavior in a help forum and should not be tolerated."
Logged

Ryder

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #99 on: March 29, 2010, 02:30:36 AM »

Ryder,
So it is ridiculous behavior to say that D-Link refused to listen to customers so as customers we found another solution that works for us?  The fact of the matter is that D-Link broke functionality of their product that many of us relied on then left us holding the bag for a product that no longer worked for us.  

If D-Link had not broken the “all”/anonymous permissions I would still be a happy user and I am sure there would be many more happy users.  


"I do find it very counter-productive though to have someone who has bought a Dlink unit, and then come here for help, to be told to buy another brand, or build their own unit. Or to listen to someone sound off about not liking the Dlink gear and not being a customer anymore. That is ridiculous behavior in a help forum and should not be tolerated."

Jordiboy,
Yes, I do find that ridiculous, what makes them think that Dlink is not listening to their customers? Is it because they have not gotten their problem resolved as quickly as they wanted? What makes them say "many of us", how many is there? I know I would like the feature back too, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. And I don't see huge amounts of people on here with the same complaint. Maybe there are some, maybe 10, or 50, or 100, but that is a small amount compared to the tens of thousands of units Dlink has sold. And what makes them think that Dlink is not working on the problem? Maybe they are having a hard time solving it, or they just don't have the resources available to do it right now?
But, the part I really find ridiculous is where a few people come to the forum of the company that makes the unit to tell everyone that Dlink doesn't care about their customers. And that they break things and leave customers holding the bag, and that the people have found a unit to do the job they want and it is far better than the Dlink unit, and that they are no longer customers of Dlink. If those people are no longer customers, why are they still haunting the Dlink forums? Are they founding members of the B-W-C Club? Why not take that stuff to the forum for the hardware that is suitable for their needs, they would appreciate that kind of stuff there, right? Tell the world that Dlink is a big bad company at that forum, tell them there that they are no longer a customer of Dlink products. They would not do this in a retail store and expect to get away with it, without being asked to leave the store, or being ejected from it, so why do it here?
These forums are to help folks with problems, to find solutions to what they need to know and in general, to be a help to others that own Dlink products. Telling people that Dlink doesn't care about them, that their products are broken and won't be fixed and telling them that they are a former customer, none of that is any help in any way to others. If they owned the store they would not let people run down their store and their products while standing in their store, so why do they expect to do it with impunity here? Is it because the Net offers them an opportunity to berate a place of business while being anonymous, so they can't be physically thrown out? Probably.
So that Jordiboy, is what I find ridiculous. The fact that they and others can post in Dlink's own forum, telling the world what a bad company Dlink is, how they don't care about anyone and how other companies make better products. Doing something that they wouldn't do in the real world because they would know that it would not be allowed to happen. They should thank Dlink for letting them express their opinions freely, a lesser company would have the posts pulled and their membership yanked. Dlink must feel they can take the criticism, that they have big shoulders or something. I personally would have this form of abuse banned completely, it doesn't make for a helpful atmosphere at all.

Just my 2 cents.

Ryder
Logged
Must be time for bed,
The sun is coming up

gunrunnerjohn

  • Level 11 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2717
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #100 on: March 29, 2010, 06:41:57 AM »

That seems to be a least a nickel's worth! :D :D :D
« Last Edit: March 29, 2010, 07:04:44 AM by gunrunnerjohn »
Logged
Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Remember: Data you don't have two copies of is data you don't care about!
PS: RAID of any level is NOT a second copy.

bengoerz

  • Level 1 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #101 on: March 29, 2010, 12:33:11 PM »

Yes, I do find that ridiculous, what makes them think that Dlink is not listening to their customers? Is it because they have not gotten their problem resolved as quickly as they wanted? What makes them say "many of us", how many is there?

Ryder, this thread has been open and active since November 2008 and has been viewed over 10,000 times. I think it is fair to say many people have wanted this bug resolved for a long time.

The frustrating part is that D-Link engineers acknowledged this as a bug in January 2009 and promised a fix in the next firmware.

The issue with not being able to create a folder of access to all user after setting a user is confirmed as a bug and will be fixed in the next firmware.

The reason I continue posting is to try to get D-Link to deliver the firmware fix they promised. I still own my DNS-321, I like the design and hardware, and I want it to run as-advertised.
Logged

gunrunnerjohn

  • Level 11 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2717
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #102 on: March 29, 2010, 12:35:01 PM »

I'd like to see this corrected, but there was a dance about how it was difficult to do with the present version of SAMBA.  I was disappointed when the ability was removed...
Logged
Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Remember: Data you don't have two copies of is data you don't care about!
PS: RAID of any level is NOT a second copy.

Ryder

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #103 on: March 30, 2010, 05:41:47 AM »

That seems to be a least a nickel's worth! :D :D :D


I was rating it on quality, not volume.  ;)  ;)  ;D
Logged
Must be time for bed,
The sun is coming up

Ryder

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: Permissions for "all"/anonymous
« Reply #104 on: March 30, 2010, 06:00:56 AM »

Ryder, this thread has been open and active since November 2008 and has been viewed over 10,000 times. I think it is fair to say many people have wanted this bug resolved for a long time.

The frustrating part is that D-Link engineers acknowledged this as a bug in January 2009 and promised a fix in the next firmware.

The reason I continue posting is to try to get D-Link to deliver the firmware fix they promised. I still own my DNS-321, I like the design and hardware, and I want it to run as-advertised.

Hey bengoerz,

I don't think it's fair at all to say that because it's been open and viewed that many times, that most of those people have the same problem. I read most of the threads in the 321/323 forums, just to see what others are talking about, and to see if I can add to the discussion or help in any way.

Now, I do agree with your second statement though. As I've already said, I would like this back too. So, since Dlink has acknowledged this as a bug and promised a fix, then it's fair game to bug them to death in this forum. At least until they provide the fix or an explanation of why it cannot be fixed. There could very well be a good reason on their end for this problem, but it would be nice if they shared it with the group that is expecting the function to be restored. Does that make my position a bit clearer on this now?

Ryder
Logged
Must be time for bed,
The sun is coming up
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8