Print

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

[JavaLawyer]

. . . What you considdered a bug (anonymous guest access on the disks using CIFS) was my best feature.
. . . Or maybe you guys could make it a feature... selectable wether i want to allow anonymous acces using CIFS ..

I will add this to the Firmware Wishlist.

[BiNaiRiX]

@ JavaLawyer: Any change of taking the source from 2.00 and recompiling it to a higher revision say 2.03. I think the main reason of not being able to go back is a revision check in the firmware.

Tried it with a hex editor.. but was not able to find the revision number..

Shouldn't be to much effort and given te latest 100 replies.. most people ask for a way back ... The wishlist and new features are for future use... no hurries with that... but being able to go back should be a top priority given the feedback on this site.

[JavaLawyer]

@ JavaLawyer: Any change of taking the source from 2.00 and recompiling it to a higher revision say 2.03. I think the main reason of not being able to go back is a revision check in the firmware.

Tried it with a hex editor.. but was not able to find the revision number..

Shouldn't be to much effort and given te latest 100 replies.. most people ask for a way back ... The wishlist and new features are for future use... no hurries with that... but being able to go back should be a top priority given the feedback on this site.

I do not know why the firmware does not permit regression to an earlier version. Your proposed approach "assumes" that the firmware was intentionally programmed to prohibit using older firmware. If the reason for the update failure (to an older verion) is due to a true bug, then version number would not matter.

[BiNaiRiX]

@ JavaLawyer: I understand the reply you gave me.. however i've seen strange things working with libraries to be included from 3rd party and sourcesafe systems. There could however be a simple lib included that works with only higher revisions in updating... Reverting back to other versions (e.g. 1.00) also didn't do the trick so there is a point where a revision will be checked...

I also looked in some of the firmwares for DNS-320 and in most cases i run into a line that says DNS-323 instead of DNS-320... maybe a mixup in compiling??

[Nitro785]

Did you try to flash lower than 2.0 firmware?

[JavaLawyer]

Did you try to flash lower than 2.0 firmware?

The latest beta firmware does not permit downgrading, nor are there any techniques that have proven to work. This bug is known and repeatable.

[Nitro785]

i see.... on a future firmware.. is it possible to downgrade?

[JavaLawyer]

i see.... on a future firmware.. is it possible to downgrade?

The bug/issue was added to the firmware wishlist.
D-Link has not provided any information on how/when this bug/issue will be dealt with.

[Equinger]

I have been having a persistent problem that I would like to add to the "Wishlist."  Thanks for maintaining this JavaLawyer.

The FTP server does not understand the ALLO command very well, and this command is required by ftpput (the only way to ftp from my VMWARE server). Apparently, ability to understand the ALLO command properly is a standard.   The last firmware update resolved many of these errors (though unfortunately not all).  In particular, I receive an "ALLO: 552 Disk full - please upload later" error when uploading large files.  I know this sounds like my mistake, but I have confirmed that my 2TB drive can, in fact, take the same 2GB files when transferred via normal command line ftp (see http://forum.magiksys.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=104#p450).

[JavaLawyer]

I have been having a persistent problem that I would like to add to the "Wishlist."  Thanks for maintaining this JavaLawyer.

The FTP server does not understand the ALLO command very well, and this command is required by ftpput (the only way to ftp from my VMWARE server). Apparently, ability to understand the ALLO command properly is a standard.   The last firmware update resolved many of these errors (though unfortunately not all).  In particular, I receive an "ALLO: 552 Disk full - please upload later" error when uploading large files.  I know this sounds like my mistake, but I have confirmed that my 2TB drive can, in fact, take the same 2GB files when transferred via normal command line ftp (see http://forum.magiksys.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=104#p450).

Added...

[Equinger]

Thank you!

[JavaLawyer]

Thank you!

No problem. Feel free to post your suggestions directly on the Firmware Wishlist thread and I'll update the master list accordingly. 

[dns320-user]

3TB drive WD30EZRS from Western Digital seems to work fine now.  


But WHY is this drive is in the compatibility list??... I wouldn't have bought the DNS-320 if I had known that I have to use a beta firmware. ftp://ftp.dlink.se/Products/dns-products/dns-320/Documentation/DNS-320_Compatibility_List-20111004.pdf

[JavaLawyer]

3TB drive WD30EZRS from Western Digital seems to work fine now.  


But WHY is this drive is in the compatibility list??... I wouldn't have bought the DNS-320 if I had known that I have to use a beta firmware. ftp://ftp.dlink.se/Products/dns-products/dns-320/Documentation/DNS-320_Compatibility_List-20111004.pdf

The original beta firmware v2.02b01 contained support for 3TB HDDs prior to the firmware being removed from circulation. This original beta software release predates the HDD compatibility list, explaining why the aforementioned 3TB HDD was placed on the list.

[FloridaMatt]

The original beta firmware v2.02b01 contained support for 3TB HDDs prior to the firmware being removed from circulation. This original beta software release predates the HDD compatibility list, explaining why the aforementioned 3TB HDD was placed on the list.

I believe the point is that the compatibility list does not in any way disclose that some drives can only be used by installing beta firmware which is both UNSUPPORTED and IRREVERSIBLE.  This is sufficiently misleading as to be deliberate deceptive marketing -- e.g. false advertising.

By the way, the re-released beta firmware appears to be identical in size and date to the originally released firmware.  Does anyone know why d-link pulled it, and then decided to release it unaltered?