After attaching a WD MyBook drive via USB3 port to the EX2, I realized the whole drive becomes a share and that too a public share, allowing all my users coming in from outside to delete stuff there.
1. I would like to create shares from specific root directory folders on the USB drive and not the whole USB drive to become a share.
2. More importantly, I would like to configure permissions on this share from the attached USB drive. I have friends coming in from outside and I would like to be able to configure who has what access on this share. Without at least this level of permissions, this USB facility on the EX2 is really not secure for most users.
3. Finally, I would like to be able to turn ftp ON or OFF on this USB share - just like the shares on EX2 where I can turn ftp ON/OFF individually on the shares. For example, I chose to turn ftp off for the Public share but kept ftp ON my other EX2 shares, and would like to do the same to the USB attached drive share.
FYI - I am using a Windows formatted USB (My Book) drive for the USB share.
byjimmyfwalker01-11-201407:38 AM - edited 01-11-201407:43 AM
I would like to have the ability to backup my enitre EX4 to an external USB drive. I know the feature is already in the unit, but you have to schedule one folder at a time, so it would be nice to schedule the whole unit, and then only have it backup the files that have changed, and not the whole unit. It could be kept in one folder on the USB drive, instead of creating individual folders with dates and times. Also would like to see the ability to remove permissions from the USB backup share so that you can restrict who sees all the data from the EX4.
I think that almost everyone would like to be able to set the maximum size for each share, here are a few examples...
1. Parents want unlimited share size(s), but for each of their kids they wish to limit the share size for each of them so that it doesn't get spammed with stuff that doesn't need to be there. I know a few parents would be very happy if their children's homework etc was stored on the HD rather than just their computer as a back up.
2. Freaks like me will want to set specific share sizes just to allow us to keep things organized and up together.
3. A lot of people have Macs and currently the timemachine will use up the entire drive, it is one heck of a hogger. Since Apple have yet to fix this, and may never do...this may be great for users so they can set a limit on their timemachine share.
I can think of loads of reasons why this would be a great feature, and to be honest it is the only feature (or rather lack of) which is preventing me from buying myself one; though I know a lot of people who already own one or more of these, and therefore I am very interested in at least one for myself.
PS: It may be an idea to also allow some shared "No Limit", thus can use whatever free/usable space is remaining, but those with limits can only use up to the limit(s) set.
PPS: Might also be worth concidering whether or not to have share limits per user as well as per share. This could be a max limit for a user regardless of which shared they are using, or it could be a max limit for them within a specific share.
I think at the end of the day, I could be happy to create a share for each person and set a limit on those shares, leaving mine with 'No Limit'.
after reading through this forum, it seems as if the Sharespace RAID-5 is really touchy and not very reliable. So I would like you to create a thorough help page on data recovery from crashed RAID-5 array.
I assume there must be a software tool that can be used to recover the data of a crashed sharespace raid-5 array, right?
Many users have access to a "regular" PC and could hook up the 4 drives to it, boot it from a DVD and operate a data recovery tool.
So please provide the software tools (may be the image of a self-bootable DVD with linux and the preconfigured software tool) as well as detailed instructions.
This would enable your users to help themselves so they don't have to contact your support which - in return - would lower your support cost. So providing this software and information would be a win-win.
The TwonkyMedia sever (v.5.1) built in to the My Book World Edition NAS drive is not allowing media streaming with a number of DNLA enabled devices. The server software sees the devices are renderers, but the devices cannot see files on the NAS drive. This is a 'feature' of v.5.1 of the server software, which is fixed in later releases of the server software (checked by downloading trial versions of the server software on my PC, and using it to share the NAS files). Without an urgent update (current version is 6.0), the ability of the My Book to act as an effective DNLA media streaming device is impaired for a number of users (though it will work with some equipment).
It is obvious that the next firmware must contain the new version of Twonky Server 'cause the current version (5.1.9 i think) has lots of bugs.
My example is the very old and well-known issue with a "UPnP timeout messages" which leads to Twonky stop after 30 minutes of video streaming making simply impossible to use the device as media server. I've contacted Twonky Media support and they say it is the new version which can resolve my (and not only my) problem but there is no way to easily install it on the NAS.
My Book Live is positioning as "DLNA compliant" device, so it will be the very good idea to update the program which makes MyBook dlna compliant. Maybe the solution is to open for conventional users (not linux-professionals) the possibility to install Twonky Server from the MyBook web-interface (If it's to hard to WD to support it).
I would love to see a 32 Bay NAS from WD. This would finally allow me to store my entire home video collection on a single drive (at least once 4+ TB drives come out) and would be an amazing thing to have. Right now the largest bay from other hard drive manufactuers (who shall not be named) only go up to 8 and 16 bays and are still too small for my needs- as I am sure they are too small for many other peoples as well.
WD My Book Live and Live Duo should implement a direct USB copy from an attached USB drive.
This will improve user experience when copying large amount of data hrough an high speed channel (USB) compared to network transfer. It's worth noticing that other WD products (such as WD TV Live Hub) already implement this feature.
There is a 4GB limitation when attempting to remotely transfer files (after mapping a drive using the wd2go.com website interface and java applet) from the WD My Book Live Duo Personal Cloud Storage device due to the limitations of WebDAV. Granted you can enable FTP as a potential workaround, that is not a secure file transfer protocol and security of device logon information could be compromised as a result. With Secure FTP capability, even though WebDAV is unusable for remote large file (>4gb) transfersyou could use a secure FTP protocol to transfer files in between the cloud storage unit and your laptop, PC, etc. to circumvent the limitations of WebDAV. I am surprised that WD markets this product as being able to share and access your files from anywhere when that is not entirely true. You can do so only if your files do not exceed the size limitation of 4gb which, per my research, is not disclaimed in any documentation (user manual, product sheets, etc.) that I have thus far seen.
on 01-31-201111:51 AM - last edited on 09-06-201111:05 AM by Bill_S
I would like to suggest that with the next firmware update, the Linux kernel inside the WD Mybook Live should include the non-hardware related modules such as encryption and loopback device modules which are available by default on normal Linux systems.
My goal is to encrypt the /DataVolume volume using the built-in Linux 2.6 full disk encryption and provide a way to unlock the volume once after boot. For me personally, a SSH login would suffice (using libpam-mount), but for most people, providing a way via e.g. WD Quick View would of course be more user friendly.
This way, all data is readable after unlocking it once, but becomes inaccessible once the device loses power (and has to be unlocked again). The Linux 2.6 crypto API provides ways to unlock using multiple passwords, so each user could (theoretically) use his own password to unlock the drive.
I have exactly this set up running in a G4 Mac Mini running Ubuntu, which was my former backup server, but this machine is limited to 250G of storage, and I would LOVE to see WD NAS disk encryption get enabled, with the low power usage it has it would be my definite future backup disk!
I miss the feature that I my WD My Book World Edition can say. The hard disk should, for example, every day, switch off automatically at midnight and then turn on again on 5 clock automatically or only every Monday and Friday / Schedule.
For the next firmware release of the WD Sharespace NAS, I would like to urgently request that you improve the built in backup feature by letting users choose MULTIPLE shared folders to be backed up (instead of limiting them to just one).
Being limited to only one folder makes this function almost entirely useless.
In my opinion, a fairly good backup system would have the following features:
a) it allows the user to choose MULTIPLE shares that should be backed up
b) If an external hard drive is attached and the button is pressed, these folders should be transferred to that external drive by some reliable software like RSYNC
c) After the backup, the backup system should perform a BITWISE COMPARE
d) After the entire procedure has been completed, the user should be able to access a sufficiently detailed log of the last backup run in the web gui.
As a business user, I MUST back up some of my data.
But my data is located in several shared folders - not just one.
However, a simple "copy" function is not enough. I need to be able to fully trust a backup - so a bitwise file compare is absolutely essential!
The above mentioned features would keep backups simple (plug in external drive + press button) but would make them reliable so one could trust a backup created by sharespace.
What do you think?
Who else would like an improvement of the backup feature?