ARGOSY - HD363N - Network Storage

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.

[b:5544d14702]mdp1969[/b:5544d14702]

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Foxtail:

When you create the users you have to assign them the folder you want
access to. You can create a folder called UPLOAD and then assign a
user to it with R/W.

Any other folder you give to him will also have R/W, so yes it does
not do a per folder permission.

thanks winux, my fears confirmed

is next best giving each user two different logins, one RW and one RO
then assigning folders accordingly?

thanks