What I have not mentioned before is I happen to own 3 WD NAS devices, 2 MBWE (white light) and the WDSP. All 3 would stream DVD ISO’s to my media centre, I have two of them a hacked apple TV running XBMC and a hacked Xbox 1 running XBMC.
My network is Gigabit using Cat5e cables and a ProSafe 8 port Gigabit switch. Up until the firmware update on the ShareSpace all worked the same - i.e. all would stream all of my content perfect, sometimes to many devices all at the same time. After the firmware update my ShareSpace can’t stream a single DVD ISO to just one Media Centre now without buffering and stuttering.
My MBWE (whitelight) remain un affected and so I conclude that its not any of my equipment at fault and IS defiantly the new firmware. The thing is what is WD doing about it ??? I get the impression that they think its sorted with the new firmware patch they released, but as we keep saying this is not the case.
I have tried everything to fix it, except a full restore to factory settings because this is a ridiculous suggestion - no-one can back up 5 TB of data without another NAS of this size and if I had one I would simply use that one instead and sent them my old one back !!!
I would like to go back to my original firmware of 2.1.92 as this worked for me. I don’t understand the problem of going back to an older firmware, this is my device, I paid for it, its only a large hard drive, Its not like a phone nor is it tied to a contract - so WHY ???
If not being able to go back is the big issue why the hell don’t you just release the “old” firmware as a “new” update and this fix the issues with this piece of ■■■■…I swear these people are clueless!!
“The 40 MB/second is achievable in an ideal network setup and is more theoretical”
Between two machines connected to the same switch I’m able to easily break 45 MB/s. Blaming my network simply convinces me that WD doesn’t care about the customers it has falsely advertised to.
The marketing material for this product still states “Provides data transfer rates up to 1000 Mb/s when used in a GigE network. Gigabit networking and transfer rates are five to six times faster than other network storage systems. This performance is comparable to USB 2.0 direct-attached storage. Tests based on comparison between a 1 TB dual-drive system using 7200 RPM drives and a 1 TB dual-drive system using WD’s GreenPower drives.”
WD, could you please share with us the results of this test you are claiming to have run? I find it hard to believe that a 200mhz risc processor ever performed that well.
So like alot of guys here I’m convinced that the biggest factor contributing to the poor data transfer issues that so many are experiencing is *NOT* down to anyone’s setup; their network configuration or other individual circumstance, but is *ACTUALLY* an issue with the firmware.
The fluctuations in transfer speeds that have been widley reported between the firmware versions confirms this (and the issue of the patch to “correct” the 2.2.9 version would support this assumption too). Trying to side step this issue is really not playing ball. You must know that you’ve gaffed somewhere along the line, if you don’t recognise this then it serious calls into question your basic competance. Debating this further is a waste of time. The firmware/unit is at fault.
So, as a paying customer, and a UK resident, I have legal recourse to Trades Descriptions legislation to challenge a manufacturer who is mis-selling their product. I haven’t read of ANYONE getting the claimed transfer speeds in any tests they’ve made, and WD have been quoted as saying t hat the transfer speeds are more ‘theoretical’ than factual, despite the fact that the markettng blurb suggests that this “theoretical” figure is backed up with a practical test. The fact that WD refuses to allow older firmware, which seemed to perform better, to be reinstated suggests that the solutions lie well within their reasonable means to implement.
So - could we have a straight forwards answer to the question of what exactly what WD proposes to do to rectify the apparent mis-selling of their product, and to show a willingness to face up to the performace shortfall?
Suggestions I could make would be:
Issue an apology for the mis-leading marketing
Retract the misleading marketing on future units
Make downgrading of firmware possible (or at lest re-release older versionas) to give users the choice to try different configurations and get the best transfer speed they can without risking a journey of no return
The most obvious suggestion might be to start from scratch with the firmware and build it around the idea that additional fuctionality is only interesting once the basics are working properly.
I find it shocking that a commercial organisation with WD reputation would risk so much bad feelings by the kind of users that, by their early-adopter nature, are probably more techically minded than most, and would potentially be opinion influencers for substatial portions of WD’s business.
Given the commerical risks, WD should recognise this as a much bigger issue, and the team in charge of this product/problem should be given more resources to fix this QUICKLY, and PLEASE give us more information about the progress/status!!
