ARGOSY - HD363N - Network Storage

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hi,

I`ve been following the comments here and was wondering how users are
finding the quality of the BETA firmware? Any issues worth noting?

I`m in the market for a low cost NAS box so that I can use it to
automatically backup my Win2K box which itself is being used to
backup my other PC`s on my home network. Because what I`m backing up
is so important, I would like to build in redundant backups with this
HD363N being one of two backup services.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I was almost ready to throw in the towel on my HD363N+300GB Seagate
since connecting clients via 802.11g wireless is my only option.
Stock firmware, 04-0317 and 05-0607 versions all caused mid copy
stalls.

fixuser's beta firmware has stabilized
things so I'm writing a 3 GB video file now without a problem. Write
performance could be better. How are others measuring throughput?

Thanks for the firmware, fixuser .

Connected via Linksys WRT54G running Sveasoft Talisman 1.05.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I just tried the beta firmware and all my wireless woes went away!
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hi Guys!

Thank you all for a very informative thread (espacially fixuser)! I
bought my HD636N today and have read your thread here and I have
learnt a lot. Now I have two questions.

1. My device seem to have firmware version NetHDD005-0601, is this a
new version? On Argosy's website the download says NetHDD004-0317,
have they forgotten to update the download?

2. Where do I get the Beta fw? The link posted here doesn't work any
more.

/M
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Maximus:

Depending on which brand you have (Argosy or Tritton) depends on the
firmware you can get. Argosy seems slow, and Tritton seems fast. I
couldn't get the link to work either, so maybe they took it down or
moved it.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I saw somewhere here in the thread that the fan didn't wind down and
stop when the drive went to sleep, I just wanted to tell you that
mine does.

/M
(The man who still can't find the Beta fw)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I've been running the Tritton Beta since I first got it, and it still
has two issues.

1) Outlook
With the Beta, I can access Outlook's PST files, but as
jliss noted it does tend to corrupt them
... requiring repair with the Inbox Repair Tool. Funny thing, I can't
repair the PST file while it remains on the NAS, I have to copy it to
a PC, run the repair, and then put it back onto the NAS before it
will work with Outlook again.
Besides the file corruption issue, there is also a problem when the
connection to the NAS (as viewed from Outlook) appears to disconnect,
generating a system error (can be viewed in the Event Viewer). This
doesn't seem to cause the file corruption, as even with this error I
can continue working in Outlook at times.

2) Moving small directories.
I've tried lots of test cases with the Beta, moving, copying,
streaming files and directories. I have no problems expect when
copying directories from the NAS to a PC. It appears if a directory
having more than 23-24 files will cause the file transfer to lock up,
and eventually report that "The specified network name is no longer
available."
If I revert back to the 05-0607 firmware, I have no problem with these
directories.

winux,
You mention the type (Tritton, Argosy) of device will determine which
firmware you can use. I don't know that there is a limitation. I've
been able to flash all the firmwares we've gotten from both Tritton
and Argosy onto my NAS.

Maximus1234,
Welcome to the discussion. I'm curious about the Argosy 05-0601
firmware. They had sent me a Beta 05-0607 firmware back in the
middle of July which appeared VERY similar to the Tritton 05-0607
firmware release. Can you check if file times and dates are correct
(not rouned to the nearest minutes, and not 100 years added to files
before 2000) on your 05-0601 NAS?
I wasn't sure how long Tritton would leave the Beta firmware available
on the web, as they had also said they expected to release another
Beta soon ... say within a couple weeks (I'm waiting patiently).
But, if you want the 06 Beta, Private Message (PM) me and we can
setup an email transfer.

quisoc,
If you could telnet into your device (see notes I posted earlier in
this thread), and see what the 'sys' command tells you, we might be
able to see if the device you receieve in Europe is different from
those else where. The description of my device said: 000E Speed
125Mhz

Lastly, just a curious note about Argosy, every time I send them
updates on firmware issues, they always report back that they will
forward the issues onto their staff in Taiwan and keep me posted of
any new releases. However, the more I checked into Argosy's other
web sites: Argosy Taiwan,
Argosy Europe, I see no
mention of this product, or any support for it. The product only
seems to appear on the US web site. I'm not sure what this means,
just found it somewhat odd.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

The Tritton beta is no longer available on their site(the link posted
by fixuser), but the downloads page still has the old firmware. Does
anybody know if they're releasing an update? I am definitely having
the wireless issues. Works fine wired, wireless I get disconnects to
the NAS but nothing else.

MC
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

There is no adding of years with my fw, but the truncating of seconds
still remain. I transfered a file stamped 1991-06-05 18:55:56 and it
ended up with the stamp 1991-06-05 18:55:00.

I tried a couple of other files as well with the same result.

I am curious about the new fw that popped up here, the
Argosy-NetHDD006-0804. Has anyone tried it?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I've just finished testing the Argosy 06-0804 firmware for the last
hour. It appears very, very similar to the Tritton 06-0804 with one
improvement ... it appears to properly handle the file creation date.
A previous problem with the firmwares was that the file creation date
would change when being modified. Tritton had thought it was
corrected in their 06-0804 beta, but it was not. It appears the
Argosy version has been updated to no longer change the creation
date.

Otherwise, it appears to have all the other improvements the Tritton
06-0804 beta did. Those include:
1. Administrator name is updated on the Home Page when changed.
2. Passwords to Shared Folders now properly monitor for case
(upper,lower) when mapping a drive and when creating the password.
3. Files dated before 2000 no longer add 100 years when copied to the
NAS.
4. File times are no longer rounded to the minute, they show to the
second. NOTE: FAT32 file system only tracks file times to an even
number of seconds, 2 second intervals, so don't be surprised if you
see a file time of 33 seconds change to 32 or 34 seconds. Anyone
running backup software should allow for +/- 1 second variation.

However, this release from Argosy has the same issues I found with the
beta from Tritton, in that I still have the same issues using it with
Outlook, and when copying folders with more than 23-24 files from the
NAS to a PC, it locks up. This issue with the folders is a killer for
me ... makes it useless for sharing files across the network to other
machines.

Also, these two releases from Tritton and Argosy do not allow the FTP
port to be changed from 21. This was supposed to be an added feature
of the Tritton 5-0607 release. Argosy never formally released a
firmware with this feature.

microchip,
I've only formatted the drive once. I've moved back and forth between
all the firmwares and never been required to format the drive again,
so I can't say for certain, but if you have updated your device to
use the 5-0607 firmware, and formated the drive I doubt you'll have
to do it again. With the 5-0607, the default cluster size became 32
kB (prior to 5-0607 it was an option you could change, now no longer
an option). I believe all firmwares released after 5-0607 will use
the 32 kB cluster size, so there shouldn't be a reason for the drive
to be formatted again.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Finally got my hands on a couple of the Argosy units recently, and I
think I'm beginning to see where some of the limitations come into
play.

SNAS05-0607 (Tritton) is the most recent firmware I've tried so far.

Simple file copying hasn't been bad, as long as there aren't multiple
sessions (simultaneous operations) going - even between the NAS box
and a single client PC. Things can crawl with two or more going
though.

Where performance really falls down seems to be random operations and
rapid short file creation/deletion. I haven't tried PST files yet,
but Jet ("Access") databases can really crawl, especially on query
operations against even a small database.

I haven't experienced data corruption, just some really sad
performance. Some of this can be moderated by keeping database
connections open throughout a session instead of using the generally
more scalable and reliable open-act-close technique. Some
significant performance (responsiveness) penalty is expected with the
latter technique of course... but this is ridiculous.

I attribute most of this to the tiny (or no) disk cache in the NAS box
along with an SMB implementation no better (or worse?) than SAMBA
offers. Basically these devices have to be viewed as "tape drives."

I'd thought people viewing these things as backup devices to be a bit
unsophisticated. The truth seems to be that this may be the only
real target application for these machines.

For comparison I took an old computer here that has a Celeron 400 and
128MB of RAM, and installed and patched up (as much as I can at this
point, support being what it is) Windows 95 OSR 2.1 as a dumb file
server of the type these units represent - share level passwords. I
stripped out (avoided installing) any protocols but TCP/IP and
Windows file/print sharing, and did a few disk cache tweaks but
nothing out of the ordinary.

To really be fair I probably ought to be using a 486 with 16 MB or
something... but realistically that's a doorstop today. Almost
nobody would bother running one, and a machine of the specs I'm
testing is a nearly free item today as a used computer goes.

Needless to say, the Win95 box runs rings around the Argosy/Tritton
box. None of the headaches with Jet either. Response is smooth and
fast, even with NetMeeting RDS running (as a remote-admin tool). It
would be trivial to connect a parallel printer and/or a couple of USB
printers, put in 3 hard drives and an optical drive, etc.

This is an old slimline Dell Optiplex, and runs cool and quiet -
though it is obviously more bulky than these tiny NAS devices.
Windows 95 or 98 are a bit pricier than a Linux/SMB combo for the
same hardware - but with none of the headaches or quirks.


I really wanted these things to work. I had high hopes. Right now I
am having my doubts though. I'll give that beta firmware a shot but
I suspect the real limitation is the hardware (RAM) available and the
resulting lack of disk cache.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Trying the Argosy 06-0804 firmware now.

Still a little sluggish, but much better than prior firmware levels,
even using a lot of Jet I/O. Significantly improved usability.

I have to say they are doing something right now. I'll watch for file
corruption.


By the way, multiple simultaneous activities seem to operate more
smoothly as well (i.e. playing an MP3 from the NAS while performing
Jet operations on an MDB).
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

hI, I am trying to use a program called Allways Sync to keep
directories in Sync, its free and it works great! However, I bought
this thing and with the tritton 607 firmware it could never sync,
with the beta firmware, I now get these errors when trying to copy
files..... any ideas....

thanks

mattp



8/31/2005 11:38 PM, API call error, Network access is denied.
(80070041), Error when copying 'E:\libby\My Music\Sample Music.lnk'
to '\\Homenas\libsbackup\My Music\Sample Music.lnk' using
intermediate
'\\Homenas\libsbackup\_sync.app\temp\4016993C70D38F3D73941A6F89C74A8D.tmp'
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

dilettante:

I believe comparing the NAS to a Windows 95 machine (or any computer)
can give a false comparison. I investigated the SOHO NAS units on the
market, and all have between 4 - 16MB memory with a 100Mhz to 175Mhz
MIPS processor. Plus, the Tritton/Argosy unit is the only one I found
that is not running a Linux kernal; everyone else (Linksys, Maxtor,
Buffalo, etc) are.

I looked at Tom's Hardware Guide, and they have a comparison chart of
the NAS units they tested. The Tritton/Argosy unit actually
outperformed their competition; the only NAS to be above them was for
a mid-size NAS for about $500+.

I think if speed is important here, then a SOHO NAS device is not the
best idea. I also think the SOHO NAS is a great choice for those who
either don't have the technical experience or money to spend on more
reliable backup solutions.

mdp1969

I think it has something to do with the temp filename it is creating.
It looks like it is a long filename that FAT32 doesn't seem to like.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I did a search for more Argosy products and I came up with a company
called Inoi (www.inoi.com). I called them and the same person from
Argosy lifts up the phone. They are the same! However, their website
offers no help for most of their products; maybe because they are
new. I wonder why an OEM such as Argosy would want to compete with
its own business....?

I like the Tritton people better, though, because they seem to help
out more. I hope this doesn't affect them in a big way. I called them
and talked to one of their product managers, asking them if they are
releasing any other NAS units in the future. They said yes, that they
have a couple more to fill the SOHO to midrange to server appliance
gaps. They weren't able to give specs on it, but he made it sound
like they want it to be faster and more feature rich than their
current NAS solution.

I wonder if the above Argosy -- Ioni thing is causing Tritton (and
maybe others?) to quickly find other solutions....?

Just more of what I found in my hunt for the perfect NAS....

I think the latest beta from Tritton (same as Argosy) makes the NAS
work pretty well. I love it for my needs, and until I find something
else, I'm staying with it!
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

winux, I go along with pretty much all
you have said. The one thing I'd disagree with slightly is the
characterization of NAS in general as a backup solution. However you
may well be onto something, since that seems to be the application
most people have in mind when purchasing one. It may also be the
main use the vendors are targeting.

It is true that one can only expect so much from a small, inexpensive
device of this type. I was pleasantly surprised though to find that
the latest beta firmware I was able to try significantly improves the
performance of this device in non-backup applications.

As a matter of fact I'd like to see Tom's repeat their comparison
benchmarks with this latest firmware, perhaps once a regular release
version becomes available. I think even their reviewer will be
favorably impressed.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I really wish they would fix the problem with the xbox browsing. I
cant browse subfolders within xbmc. Has anyone else experienced
this? I have 90 gig's of mp3's on this NAS, that cant be played
through XBMC. 🙁

Otherwise, the device has gotten better and better. Im running
Argosy's latest firmware.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> Sifterwrote:
I really wish they would fix the problem with the xbox browsing. I
cant browse subfolders within xbmc. Has anyone else experienced
this? I have 90 gig's of mp3's on this NAS, that cant be played
through XBMC. 🙁
>
> Otherwise, the device has gotten better and better. Im running
Argosy's latest firmware.

I have the same problem.

MC
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

HELP FTP!

How do I create an UPLOAD folder without giving a user general
ReadWrite permission on all the other folders that they can see. It
looks like RW/RO permission is set per user and not per user per
folder, but I may be missing something.

Thanks
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=297019
Personal folder files are unsupported over a LAN or over
a WAN link

This is why the pst files keep getting corrupted.

if you create a pst file on your local drive, then copy it to the
network drive. you will be able to open the remote pst file using
outlook. However the file keeps getting corrupted every now and then
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Kane81 your post's not directed at me, is it :) I have a different
problem with managing user access to FTP folders for WAN clients
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom