Print

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

[Texxustim]

Just a quick update on the experiment I described in thread #6 above (a-d) using 4 X 1.5TB drives in a custom 4000GB RIAD 5 + JBOD config.

After xfering about 1.5TB of data to the unit I mounted an ISO image over the network and began streaming the file over 1GB enet. While the video was playing I removed drive 3 and didn't even see a hiccup. The status did not show any change however but did stop at drive #2 in the list (ie. nothing below drive #2 was listed, strange and not normal). I then restarted the system and hotplugged drive #3 back into the system and the status correctly shows rebuild is in process and again listed all 4 drives. All appears to be functional with no loss of data.

Again, this is simply a test but it does appear to support the use of 1.5TB drives in a RAID5 with the 343, albeit in a non-officially supported way (read-at your own risk), until 1.03 is released.

Tim

[skelm]

I blew away my setup, tried to redo the steps, and now get stuck on the dreaded 94% format, on reboot (or just re-attaching to the web inteface after leaving it at 94% overnight) it goes directly into the hard drive configuration wizard with no drives formatted... 

[fordem]

Tim

I think you need to be very careful with how you "hotplug" those disks - it's not supported by D-Link - here's the recommended procedure, taken from the FAQ list.

I especially want to draw to your attention that it says ...

Note: The new drive Should be blank with no partition on the drive The drive may still be detected and prompt to format if formatted incorrectly

as I believe neglecting this step has been the cause of the wrong drive being formatted and data lost with the smaller DNS-323.

As a practising professional, you probably followed the procedure you would normally use to replace a failed drive in a RAID array (pull the failed drive out, put the new one in - I've done it myself, lots of times), and which have worked for you over the years, however this is software RAID (and linux based software RAID at that ) and as such requires a different procedure.

Also - if I'm not mistaken D-Link tracks the drives by serial number, so re-inserting a removed drive has the risk of it not being recognized as a new drive and not being properly synchronized upon reinsertion.

[escrawford]

Hopefully we'll see the new firmware soon, we have multiple clients that expected one thing based on D-Link's specs on the DNS-343 but got something else.  We just mirrored for now, and granted that only gives 3TB of storage but at least it gets the device functional.

This smells strangely familiar to the iPod battery issue...

[JaLooNz]

I already got my Seagate 1.5TB drives in anticipation for the new firmware (next year the warranty is shorten to 3years). Now just waiting for the software to catch up.

[CyberTron]

hmm..some consolation at least the firmware supporting 1.5tb for dns-323 is out today...so hopefully dns-343 is next...

[pzy]

I knew it would be 2009 before we got the new firmware

[azz710]

Dear D-Link Media,

I, too, used to be in technical support, having spent thirty years as Systems Programmer and Systems Programming Manager for a number of large corporations using huge IBM mainframes.  My users were mostly Application Programmers and other staff, so the required level of sensitivity was actually lower than the level I'd expect support personnel who work for a large, global corporation would use when dealing with that corporation's customers (who are always right, you might recall).

What I believe you are forgetting is that D-Link severely misrepresented this product and that misrepresentation on this scale, at least in the USA, is both actionable and, in many cases, a felony.  And, no matter what the intent, to avoid accusations, D-Link simply must issue some sort of public statement and must train its telephone support personnel.

For example, before I thought to try this P2P forum, I called phone support when I discovered, this morning, that my four 1.5Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 drives aren't supported.  The phone support person, who said his name is Harold but who has such a heavy accent that we both had a great deal of trouble understanding each other (and I generally have no trouble with the many accents of the Indian subcontinent).  But I was, after many repetitions, able to get the idea across that I had four 1.5Tb drives.  He put me on hold for a few minutes, after making me run up and down a flight of stairs two times, first to fetch the SN and then to fetch the HW version (even though I'd registered my DNS-343 and included the full SN), and told me that, categorically, the DNS-343 is and always will be limited to SATA drives with a 1Tb capacity, maximum.

Now, this is clearly not what the D-Link marketing material states, not what the D-Link web site states and not what the shipped documentation states; all sources state "The DNS-343 requires installation of a hard drive before it can be ued.  The hard disk must be a 3.5" SATA Hard Drive of any capacity."

Any capacity means, uh, um, uh, any capacity.  And that includes 1.5Tb drives.

So, when you say that you don't want to update the web site with a warning, you should realize that it's really not up to you, for when a company is informed that it is misrepresenting a product, it must change that product's representation, nevermind that the product, itself, is in some flux.

In other words, even if new firmware to support drives in excess of 1Tb capacity is due out next week, the web site must point out that, until the new firmware is installed, one's new $800 set-up is a boat anchor.

Regards,
Jeff

[Bhavik]

I just got my D-Link 343 knowing that the 1.5TB drives were not compatible with the device, but after researching enough I found these forums and D-Link staff working on a fix so I brought the device anyway and currently using the "workaround" that was posted on here.

If you read the compatibiliy list I'm fairly certain you should of known that a specific set of drives have actually been tested with this device.

Here is the link. ftp://files.dlink.com.au/Products/DNS-343/REV_A/SetupGuides/DNS_HDD_and_USB_Compatibility_List.pdf

[azz710]

Dear NeoNZ,

I forgot to mention that, before I purchased my DNS-343 at the end of December, I called D-Link for pre-sales support.  I asked if there was an upper limit to the HD size and was told, just as the documentation states, that there is no size limit.  I was told that the only compatibility issues involve older SATA drives.  Oh, and that's "should have known" and not "should of known", not that the compatibility list is meant to be definitive as the device was not designed with particular drives in mind and, as D-Link keeps telling us, it should work fine with any reasonably new SATA drives.

Regards,
Jeff

If you read the compatibiliy list I'm fairly certain you should of known that a specific set of drives have actually been tested with this device.

[escrawford]

Is it just me or does it seem like NeoNZ may happen to be related to D-Link?  I'm just saying that his/her first post ever on the forums supports D-Link 100%...

And NeoNZ, your statement about 'compatibility list' is actually incorrect.  The documentation (tech specs, owners manual, quick setup guide, and D-Link's website) on the DNS-343 state that it is compatible with 'Any capacity SATA drive'.  I have yet to see a document released by D-Link (other than the internal one you provided a link to) on the 343 stating that it is only compatible with certain drives.

As AZZ710 mentioned, it will be interesting to read about D-Link in the news when they get drawn into court over this for false advertising and selling a product that doesn't meet the advertised specifications.  Looks like on the iPod battery issue it only took eight people.  Too bad it cost Apple about $100m.

http://www.macuser.co.uk/news/73483/apple-facing-100-million-ipod-battery-life-settlement.html

I just got my D-Link 343 knowing that the 1.5TB drives were not compatible with the device, but after researching enough I found these forums and D-Link staff working on a fix so I brought the device anyway and currently using the "workaround" that was posted on here.

If you read the compatibiliy list I'm fairly certain you should of known that a specific set of drives have actually been tested with this device.

Here is the link. ftp://files.dlink.com.au/Products/DNS-343/REV_A/SetupGuides/DNS_HDD_and_USB_Compatibility_List.pdf

[azz710]

Dear E. S. Crawford,

Actually, I doubt that NeoNZ has anything to do with D-Link beyond being a customer.  Perhaps his defensiveness is due to brand loyalty.  I've found that many people seem to equate their choices with themselves and, when a company whose products they've chosen is attacked, they become defensive.

In fact, I, too, have a great deal of brand loyalty toward D-Link, especially following my experiences with Draft-N routers a couple of years ago when the then-current D-Link high-end model (DIR-635) was in short supply and I bought and rejected in turn three high-end routers from Linksys, Netgear and Buffalo, all of which were very badly flawed and, when I finally got my DIR-635, returning to D-Link was a relief.  My first D-Link product, purchased in 1999, was the ground-breaking DI-704, the world's first four-port home router and the product which defined the genre.  I purchased seven DI-704s in total and many of them are still being used by friends and family members.  My home network now includes a DIR-855, a D-Link 5-port gigabit switch and a D-Link USB hub.  As I say, I'm most loyal, mainly because I truly believe that D-Link products are generally superior to the competition in most ways.

But this doesn't mean that I support all D-Link behavior.  Specifically, my personal experience would indicate that D-Link customer support has slipped badly in recent years to the point that, now, D-Link customer support is about as bad as everyone else's, which is certainly not a compliment.

And no matter what anyone may think of D-Link, they most definitely do not have a license to misrepresent their products, and the fact that their online marketing material still states that there's no hard drive capacity limit for the DNS-343 is most definitely misrepresentation, especially as D-Link has been formally informed that they are misrepresenting.  The next step, I suppose, would be to submit an electronic complaint to the FTC, something I've found to be very effective.  Still, I will delay doing this until I see if D-Link has the corporate presence of mind to respond (non-defensively, please), to say that the marketing claims will be changed, that they will train their telephone support personnel actually to help, rather than to do whatever they can to get customers off the phone, and that support for drives larger than one terabyte will be forthcoming, sooner rather than later.  Statements such as "it'll be done when it's done" are, frankly, unacceptable.

Regards,
Jeff

Is it just me or does it seem like NeoNZ may happen to be related to D-Link?

[Bhavik]

The D-Link 343 is the first product of D-Link I've brought, but happy with it for the time being, and there are features that are in the 323 that I would like to see in the 343. But I am  patient enough to wait for a tested version of the firmware.

I said it only lists what the 343 has actually been tested with. Not what will work with it, there are obviously more disks and devices that it will work with. That isn't a internal link I found those by going to the AU d-link site (Im from New Zealand).

There is a difference between what the tech support and engineers know, D-Link is a big company and information doesn't travel as well/fast in big companies to people who should know about things.

Did you know about these forums before you brought the 343 Jeff? If you did then you should of known about the issue before you brought the device. I think it's just lack of research and then people complain.

Also for you information, it's not false advertising, since it does actually support disks of any size, albeit needs a firmware upgrade to support the new drive capacity. The ipod case is different since it cannot be fixed with a firmware upgrade.

[azz710]

Dear Neo,

Actually, it most definitely is misrepresentation on D-Link's part.  For when they designed this device, they assumed that 1Tb would be the upper limit, a perfectly reasonable (but incorrect assumption) at the start of the development cycle a few years ago when 300Gb drives were considered huge and none of the players in the 3.5" drive game had yet come remotely close to 1Tb.  This information was given to D-Link marketing, but they saw no reason to state the limit as no drives were yet available with capacities near, let alone over 1Tb.

I jumped on the DNS-343 after 1) reading a number of good reviews and 2) receiving an e-mail from Newegg.com to the effect that the brand-new Seagate Barracuda 7200.11-series drive with an astounding 1.5Tb capacity (which, of course, we will think of as inadequate when the 1 Pb drives come out in three years or so) were on sale at Newegg for US$129.99 each.  I found excellent reviews for the drive, as well, assuming the current firmware level, so I purchased the DNS-343 and four 1.5Tb Barracudas.

And, no, although I did, indeed, know about this (beta) peer-to-peer forum, I also trusted D-Link implicitly.  I assumed that the claims 1) in the marketing e-mails that D-Link sent me regarding the DNS-343, 2) on the D-Link web site and, most important, 3) made by the D-Link sales representative I spoke to on the phone before spending over US$800 on this bunch of hardware, currently blinking D-Link ad infinitum but doing nothing much else, to the effect that 1.5Tb drives were supported were true.

And it's still "should have" and not "should of", and, considering the conscious 1Tb design limit, and D-Link's current awareness of the issue, it's still most definitely misrepresentation.

Jeff

Did you know about these forums before you brought the 343 Jeff? If you did then you should of known about the issue before you brought the device. I think it's just lack of research and then people complain.

Also for you information, it's not false advertising, since it does actually support disks of any size, albeit needs a firmware upgrade to support the new drive capacity. The ipod case is different since it cannot be fixed with a firmware upgrade.

[Bhavik]

Actually, it most definitely is misrepresentation on D-Link's part.  For when they designed this device, they assumed that 1Tb would be the upper limit, a perfectly reasonable (but incorrect assumption) at the start of the development cycle a few years ago when 300Gb drives were considered huge and none of the players in the 3.5" drive game had yet come remotely close to 1Tb.  This information was given to D-Link marketing, but they saw no reason to state the limit as no drives were yet available with capacities near, let alone over 1Tb.

Q: Does the device support larger disk size?
A: Yes

Q: Does the device support these larger disks in RAID?
A: No

Q: Does it require firmware upgrade for 1.5TB RAID?
A: Yes

Q: Will it require a firmware upgrade for 2TB RAID?
A: Most probably, as these drives don't exist yet.

The DNS-323 has gone through the same process, when it came out it only support 500GB as the largest size, then 750, and now 1.5TB.

This is why your argument is flawed, because technicial it does support these bigger drives in RAID configuration, it just requires a firmware upgrade. It already supports these 1.5TB drives in JBOD fine.

As one of the engineers mentioned in a previous thread, they did not recieve these 1.5TB drives and therefore could not bring out the firmware before the release of the drives.

I am pretty sure, the DNS-343 will have the same issue with Seagate 2TB drives when they come out this year, unless D-Link receives them ahead of time.

But I would like a update from the engineers if possible, on the new firmware.