Print

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

[nonex]

I've been using my 323 for about a year now, with two 1 TB WD green drives set in RAID1. One of the drives failed about two months ago and I managed to rebuild the RAID and it was working fine until recently. Now it occasionally gets bogged down to a crawl when it's in the middle of a transfer. The RAID still seems fine, but I figure the one drive that failed is probably getting ready to fail again.

All that being said, I am planning this: I buy two Seagate ST2000DL003 Barracuda 2 TB drives (They are Advanced Format 4K) and upgrade the firmware to the latest beta. I'm going to set them up as a RAID1.

Does anyone forsee any issues with my upgrade plan? My data is all backed up on another machine.

Thanks guys

[nonex]

Damn, looks like I'll be revising what I'll be using for drives after seeing this in another thread:

"The DNS-323 will not support the SATA III drives. The NAS will only support SATA and SATA II drives."

It's too bad, I was going to pick up those Seagates for 70$CAN a pop.

[dosborne]

Lots of other choices for SATA II AFT 2TB drives for under $70 to choose from. The WD20EARS I got were only $65Cdn a couple of months back.

[nonex]

Best I could do was find two WD20EARS drives for 77 bucks each. I'll be picking them up and installing them tonight.

[007james]

I was under the impression that all SATA drives are backwards compatible.....The DNS-323 would run SATA III drives at SATA II speed. No? Anyone?

[nonex]

I was under the impression that all SATA drives are backwards compatible.....The DNS-323 would run SATA III drives at SATA II speed. No? Anyone?

The thread that I quoted saying that the SATA III drives were not compatible the DNS-323 was from an e-mail from D-LINK support.

I'll be a bit bummed if it's not the case since the 2 WD20EARS I've just got up and running were referbs. I hope I won't regret it! But so far so good. The only hiccup was after the format. The machine rebooted but then wasn't responding. I had to shut it down manually and restart it.

I'm just transferring all my stuff onto it now.

I formatted it using EXT-3 (was this an option in earlier versions of the firmware? I don't remember having that choice when I first set it up a year ago)

So, get this, the drives I decommissioned turned out to be 1TB WD10EARS with AFT, which as I understand it are not completely compatible with the 323. I'm wondering if one of them failed because of this fact. I was approaching 900 Gigs of use when it started acting wonky.

You'd think the guys who originally sold me the drives and 323 would have known

[Newbie06]

I guess you didn't look at the sticky links above, but those drives you put in will only work in the long-term under a "standard" or "JOBD" format.  They will ultimately fail under a RAID format.

I had two WD20EADS drives in my DNS-323 and one failed last week.  They were formatted in a RAID 1 similar to your formatting.  The drives were still under warranty (less than a year old) so I received a new drive from WD.  Unfortunately, they sent me a  WD20EARS.  I configured the formatting under standard and will use another method to backup the critical data.

If you used RAID be prepared for one of the drives to fail on you...

[dosborne]

I guess you didn't look at the sticky links above, but those drives you put in will only work in the long-term under a "standard" or "JOBD" format.  They will ultimately fail under a RAID format.

Not if you format using the 1.10 beta firmware.

[Newbie06]

 

Hmmm....I'll try it.

[domi]

I guess you didn't look at the sticky links above, but those drives you put in will only work in the long-term under a "standard" or "JOBD" format.  They will ultimately fail under a RAID format.

I'm not sure if I could find the info you refer to in the sticky. What exactly do you imply? That RAID will cause the drives to fail faster / increase the likelihood they will fail?! Is this a general issue with RAID, or a specific one related to the DNS-323?

I'm considering purchasing a DNS-325 and putting two 2TB Barracuda Green in it. Would such a setup be affected by the issue you mention?

[JavaLawyer]

I'm not sure if I could find the info you refer to in the sticky. What exactly do you imply? That RAID will cause the drives to fail faster / increase the likelihood they will fail?! Is this a general issue with RAID, or a specific one related to the DNS-323?

The HDDs referenced in the "sticky" (raised by the prior poster) will work fine under RAID or JBOD, but in the long term, RAID configurations with these particular HDDs will fail in the DNS-323. This issue is specific to the HDDs listed in the sticky and is not a general statement applicable to all HDDs.

[domi]

The HDDs referenced in the "sticky" (raised by the prior poster) will work fine under RAID or JBOD, but in the long term, RAID configurations with these particular HDDs will fail in the DNS-323. This issue is specific to the HDDs listed in the sticky and is not a general statement applicable to all HDDs.

Thanks for your reply! However, I'm still not sure what to make out of it: the sticky has a long list of drives, some flagged with an asterisk ("tested and approved by D-Link"), some without an asterisk ("currently being used by end users, but haven't been internally tested or verified by D-Link"). Does it mean the drives with an asterisk will withstand the stress caused by RAID, while the ones without an asterisk won't? The list was last updated more than one year ago. The drives I'm considering (Seagate Barracuda Green) are not included (probably because they were introduced after the list was last updated). I guess this means I'm on my own and only time will tell how the drives will fare? The Seagate blurb does list "Network Attached Storage devices" under "Best-Fit Applications".

[JavaLawyer]

If you want to play it safe, use HDDs that are not "advanced format drives" (AFD) for RAID. The different addressing used by AFDs is one of the primary causes for the RAID issues. You can also scan through the DNS-323 board to read user experiences with particular HDD brands/models configured in RAID.

[domi]

If you want to play it safe, use HDDs that are not "advanced format drives" (AFD) for RAID. The different addressing used by AFDs is one of the primary causes for the RAID issues. You can also scan through the DNS-323 board to read user experiences with particular HDD brands/models configured in RAID.

Thanks, good to know! Problem is, it seems to be very difficult to find large (I'm interested in 2 TB) drives today that aren't AF. There's only one 2 TB drive in the sticky: the Western Digital Caviar Green WD20EADS. It appears to have been replaced by the WD20EARX and the WD20EARS, both of which are AF according to the specs. Does anyone know what non-AF 2 TB drives are *currently* available at a reasonable price?

[JavaLawyer]

Good luck on your quest. This issue isn't unique to the legacy D-Link DNS series. When HDD manufacturers adopted AFD to deal with HDDs larger than 2TB, all of the NAS manufacturers were hit with the same issue. Most NAS manufacturers developed firmware fixes with varying levels of success. New NAS models typically support the larger HDDs without issue.