(NAS) D-Link DNS-320L

[albertlee]

Albert, I'm using DNS320 without I version but I've upgraded to firmware version 2.05. So now it's using EXT4. Before this I was using firmware version 2.03 and then it was using EXT3.

I another set of DNS320L With me and it's showing exactly the same eating up a lot of space. It is shown also in the space remaining status in the web interface

When I was with version 2.03 the number of files are the same as I have copied out before I upgrade to version 2.05 that's why I noticed a very big difference after upgrading.

Wonder if there's any work around...

Did you by chance reformat your volume as existing FS doesn't change from firmware upgrade?

As stated before best if you can output the result from du -s as well as df -T otherwise there is nothing to work on. All you need is putty and of course FFP with sshd must installed and running.

 

[albertlee]

Did some testing. Even on EXT3 partition, the result is very misleading.

Volume 1 of 500GB (FS = EXT3)

# df -T /mnt/HD/HD_a2
Filesystem     Type 1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda2      ext3 478681712 305545084 173136628  64% /mnt/HD/HD_a2

Disk summary of /ffp folder which take up 2.6GB space

# du -sh /ffp/
2.6G    /ffp/

Output of ffp Properties in Windows

Size: 2.53GB
Size on disk: 45.6GB

 

[albertlee]

Okay, located the problem, it's due to a parameter set in Samba configuration file. Apparently it was set to a high value (to gain some performance) but resulted in misleading output.

/etc/samba/smb.conf
allocation roundup size = 1048576 <-- Default should be 4096 (disk cluster size)

Edit this to 4096 and did another run on /ffp and got the correct result.

 

[gneseew]

Okay, located the problem, it's due to a parameter set in Samba configuration file. Apparently it was set to a high value (to gain some performance) but resulted in misleading output.

/etc/samba/smb.conf
allocation roundup size = 1048576 <-- Default should be 4096 (disk cluster size)

Edit this to 4096 and did another run on /ffp and got the correct result.

I believe this cluster size setting is not something we can access via the web interface.... And so it means that now currently we are unable to change the way it assign the size then we have to deal with the space wastage ?

Wondering if there's any work around ?

 

[albertlee]

I believe this cluster size setting is not something we can access via the web interface.... And so it means that now currently we are unable to change the way it assign the size then we have to deal with the space wastage ?

Wondering if there's any work around ?

There is no space wastage just that samba pass the wrong info, in this case the cluster size, thus resulting in misleading output on Windows.

Anyway, the "Size on Disk" output give an estimation on how much disk space is require should it get transfer from NAS to PC storage.

In short, I wouldn't be too worry about this, just rely on the total size output instead.

 

[albertlee]

To add further...

Actually it's still possible to change the Samba settings but require FFP and some scripting.

 

[gneseew]

To add further...

Actually it's still possible to change the Samba settings but require FFP and some scripting.

I finally got a confirmation today from my last testing. I reformat the drive in the NAS to be 10GB partition enough to fit my testing files of 9.54 GB.

Previously i know that this 9.54 GB size will take up 23.5 GB as per shown in windows properties.

So i only make a partition of 10GB, not large enough to fit in 23.5 GB. Then i copied the same set of files into this 10GB partition in the NAS. at the status it is showing utilization of 9.48 GB and not 23.5 GB.. so its correct as per what you mentioned that it's not actually eating up the space but the reporting is wrong due to the cluster size.

So consider case close for this .Thanks.

 

[albertlee]

I finally got a confirmation today from my last testing. I reformat the drive in the NAS to be 10GB partition enough to fit my testing files of 9.54 GB.

Previously i know that this 9.54 GB size will take up 23.5 GB as per shown in windows properties.

So i only make a partition of 10GB, not large enough to fit in 23.5 GB. Then i copied the same set of files into this 10GB partition in the NAS. at the status it is showing utilization of 9.48 GB and not 23.5 GB.. so its correct as per what you mentioned that it's not actually eating up the space but the reporting is wrong due to the cluster size.

So consider case close for this .Thanks.

You're most welcome.

 

[cochran]

anyone know use wat software in order for windows 7 system to read the data out from a EXT4 format hard drive from NAS on raid 1 setting?

 

[albertlee]

anyone know use wat software in order for windows 7 system to read the data out from a EXT4 format hard drive from NAS on raid 1 setting?

Someone mentioned this a few post back, whether it work or not you have to try it out.

 

[tenzine]

Need help on DNS320L as newbie on NAS. Thanks in advance.

Running Win8.1 with DNS320L as networked share drive mounted with volume 1 for storing data for a long while and using well.

Updated firmware on my Asus AC68U router and power off/reset after update and DNS320L IP address changed from 192.xxx.x.114 to 48.

After that I can get into webUI homepage on DNS320L but cannot get into Volume 1 and all my data. How to recover this?

 

[terry1]

At this price it's not attractive since brand new set cost of $99 with full 1yr warranty.

Ok thanks then I am selling the preown but still new dns320 for only $50. I only have one so act fast to avoid disappointment

 

[albertlee]

Need help on DNS320L as newbie on NAS. Thanks in advance.

Running Win8.1 with DNS320L as networked share drive mounted with volume 1 for storing data for a long while and using well.

Updated firmware on my Asus AC68U router and power off/reset after update and DNS320L IP address changed from 192.xxx.x.114 to 48.

After that I can get into webUI homepage on DNS320L but cannot get into Volume 1 and all my data. How to recover this?

The best practice is to set static IP address on the NAS using range outside the range.

How did you access to Volume_1 previously?

 

[albertlee]

Ok thanks then I am selling the preown but still new dns320 for only $50. I only have one so act fast to avoid disappointment

Is it DNS-320 or DNS-320L? The former is already EOL whilst the latter have a number of issues with its stock firmware.

 

[tenzine]

The best practice is to set static IP address on the NAS using range outside the range.

How did you access to Volume_1 previously?

Albert,
Thanks a lot for your help. The experts and gurus like you in these HWZ forum makes life better.

Found out one of my 2x2TB HDD in RAID0 is faulty. Lucky the one still working has the data still intact and recoverable. Will buy another HDD to rebuild. Can I buy a new 3TB to rebuild from the working 2TB or both have to be same capacity?

If I want to assign static IP address to DNS320L, do you mean have to be outside the range 192.168.1.1 to 192.168.1.254? What is usual static IP address used by most?

 

[albertlee]

Albert,
Thanks a lot for your help. The experts and gurus like you in these HWZ forum makes life better.

Found out one of my 2x2TB HDD in RAID0 is faulty. Lucky the one still working has the data still intact and recoverable. Will buy another HDD to rebuild. Can I buy a new 3TB to rebuild from the working 2TB or both have to be same capacity?

If I want to assign static IP address to DNS320L, do you mean have to be outside the range 192.168.1.1 to 192.168.1.254? What is usual static IP address used by most?

If you rebuild RAID using a higher capacity HDD, in this case 3TB, only 2TB will be utilized. You can use the balance free space to create a standard volume.

Sorry for not being clear, what I meant was to use the range outside the one use by DHCP. For example, if 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.200 in the address pool is allocated to your devices, use any address after 192.168.1.200 for the NAS.

 

[sam@bp]

At this price it's not attractive since brand new set cost of $99 with full 1yr warranty.

Can I ask where can I get it at $99? Hope you don't mind my asking.

 

[albertlee]

Can I ask where can I get it at $99? Hope you don't mind my asking.

@Challenger, member price.

 

[breakdown]

Upgrade firmware

Hey guys i just saw that i can upgrade the firmware with 1.04b12.Current firmware version is 1.02.

Thing is i have installed fun plug and transmission if i upgrade the firmware will i lose all my settings and/or will "destroy" my system?

 

[terry1]

Is it DNS-320 or DNS-320L? The former is already EOL whilst the latter have a number of issues with its stock firmware.

it is the former. too slow for me. that is why i am selling. as mentioned in another thread, after using some other nas, these dlink nas are too slow for me. no offense