If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
thanks winux, my fears confirmed
is next best giving each user two different logins, one RW and one RO then assigning folders accordingly? thanks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SAN (Storage Area Network) Security FAQ Revision 2004/10/30 - Part 1/1 | Will Spencer | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | October 30th 04 08:35 AM |
SAN (Storage Area Network) Security FAQ Revision 2004/06/23 - Part 1/1 | Will Spencer | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | June 23rd 04 07:04 AM |
SAN (Storage Area Network) Security FAQ Revision 2004/04/11 - Part 1/1 | Will Spencer | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | April 11th 04 07:13 AM |
SAN (Storage Area Network) Security FAQ Revision 2004/02/16 - Part 1/1 | Will Spencer | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | February 16th 04 09:02 PM |
SAN (Storage Area Network) Security FAQ Revision 2004/02/12 - Part 1/1 | Voyager | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | February 12th 04 04:31 PM |