Looks like you are right. After uninstalling internal_backup editing config.xml starts to be persistent.
Just did, pulled the lever on a DS1821 while PR4100 will be re-tasked as a data backup. Which is unfortunate since I brought the PR4100 less than a year back.
True, I considered DS920 for some time but one soldered RAM, unshielded core and 1gbe was hard to overlook. 1821 with AMD was too difficult to pass over. I already have a 10gbe switch so hoping to put in a 10gbe card in my PC and up the networking game once 1821 is here. Its still a bit weird Synology makes one pay for 10gbe card while it includes useless SSD cache slots.
Hi dswv42, good to know you, your post really resourceful. could you help me, i have a noob question.
I have OS5 running on PR4100. I did ssh access and installed logmein vpn deb package using dpkg -i.
When I try to reboot the system, my installation package is not persistent. It just entirely gone.
I believe this is the WD security system to prevent from bricking the machine.
Do you know what is the best way to do this ?
good find on the time out
older firmware on PR4100 series had a problem that after a firmware install the re-boot would hang and needed a plug pull to finish the reboot.
I remember a note in newer firmware that this was fixed but I has same problem a few times.
Also interesting information about the eMMC flash memory.
At least we don’t have to look for a UV light to erase the EEPRAM memory chip any more
How does this work? I imagine you get to the NAS via a port on your router. . . .and then you connect the VPN using the NAS brain for the encryption.
SO. . .dumb question. . . .what’s performing the DHCP function?
I am only asking because I run OpenVPN. . . but that is running on my router; which I suppose already has DHCP functionality built in?
I’m not getting it. If I am accessing a NAS remotely. . . . sure the dashboard is important. . .but the real thing you probably want is the data that is on the NAS. In which case. . . why not establish a real VPN connection? (i.e. at the router level)
Web 2.0 specifics. Your approach with app-specific prefix is one of the options, but in general it is now considered bad practice to have functions, defined in global namespace.
Welcome to the new shiny AJAX world :).
Why would you bother with apps when you can install Docker and have everything one might need running inside a container (including VPN).
It’s not that the WD is not tested. . . .it’s the fact that conceptual flaws that require changes in functionality are not fixed.
Example: A copy function that deletes files is a bug (and fixed). MISSING the copy function entirely is a conceptual flaw (that has not been neither acknowledged nor fixed)
Well, seems like their initial intent might be to make their os5.mycloud.com/cloud application work from both internal and external networks in the similar way. Just checked - when you are accessing it from your internal network it generates device-local-GUID.remotewd.com address, which is resolved to your WD’s internal IP, while when you access from outside of your network it generates device-GUID.remotewd.com which is resolved to your router’s public IP.
Ok dude, sorry, you lost me.
It was amusing for a while watching you limp around the MyCloud OS5 install in various vain attempts to remove functionality and add others via “apps”, documenting your fumblings along the way, but I’m done.
WD is as slippery as a bag full of eels and
I’m getting sick of dealing with WD bullshit do nothing to advance your cause, are self-serving, and clearly show you’d rather show how “smart” you are versus actually work within the OS5 parameters the provider has set.
If you’re genuinely this worried about OS5, sell it, and go buy something else. Otherwise use docker which trivially enables “ALL” the functionality you’re slowly trying to accomplish, do it within the design choices of WD, and don’t resort to name-calling.
But hey… I seriously doubt you’re either self-aware enough or not attention-seeking enough to do it.
Jeez, some people…
Some valid points here both on technical content and presentation.
Remember. . . .don’t be quick to attribute to malice what can be adequately be explained by incompetence.
From my view. . . . .at some point one just has to say “it doesn’t work” and move on. At that point, you head towards either a “roll your own” or a store bought solution.
A number of users are pursuing a “store bought” solution. That is quite an attractive option if you reuse the hard drives.
For roll your own. . . . I don’t see why anyone would start with the WD software as a basis. . . I mean it was pretty clear early on that there were some major issues with critical aspects such as “Indexing”. Why start with something that doesn’t work? If I was so inclined to roll my own; I honestly would look at open source software such as “FreeNas” or “OpenMedia Vault”.
Although I would probably play on a spare PC or Raspberry Pi before wiping a WD NAS.
For me, the breaking point was the HTTPS redirect. . . .while we did get a response on the “why” and “How”; those responses were far from satisfactory. Not sure there has been ANY improvement in the awful web apps.
Based on the slow response to problems last year (and the non-response this year); I have basically written off OS/5. I will continue to use my OS/3 machine for daily use (probably only online 50% of the time and internet blocked). The OS/5 machine will get infrequent use. . .when I need to expand I will re-evaluate my hardware/software options.
Thanks for catching that in the KBA.
Will get it fixed. Should be 5.10.122
Well - - - if you read the release notes; I think you will find instructions for both upnp both enabled AND disabled. What they are saying makes sense to me. . .
. . .if you enable UPNP, one does not have to mess with ports. If you disable UPNP, then you must mess with ports. Most users don’t want to mess with ports. In earlier version of OS/3; I found I had to mess with ports (multiple devices on my network wanted 8543). . . . .so YES. . .I see the logic.
There are many pitfalls here. . . .I don’t even know them all. . . . .the two biggest ones I see are;
- You really don’t want to establish a connection like this unless you are using a VPN.
- WAN IP addresses for most users is not fixed and subject to change.
Well. . . .if you are going to have internet access; then you have to have internet access.
If there are no ports open. . .then you don’t have internet access.
Now, some ways to open ports are better than others.
uPNP has issues. . . .opening ports direct to the NAS also has issues; but smaller ones.
VPN has its own flaws - but is probably one of the better ways to go.
wow you are a rockstar, that OS5 upgrade was an absolute downgrade on my EX4100 and your work looks stunning. Thank you for what you’re doing!
Not even sure that @Tfl was a developer on this. I know at times he messaged me that he was testing different components of OS5 to help WD, but that might be the extent of it.
Hi guys, these are just group members of the page on the WD community site.
I already owe you a beer, man. Just let me know where to send it. You’re doing amazing work.