Where is everybody? I still waiting here for an official reply from WD.
Whilst I’ve taken my ShareSpace back for a refund, which will forever cast doubt about buying another WD NAS device, I have been researching the nature of these devices.
First and foremost, a NAS devise is not a server. Performance will always be an issue to greater or lesser degree. My own experience was that the SHareSpace was unable to sustain more than one user at a time. That is, when two or more users wanted to watch a video file, the ShareSpace would start to stutter. A three users it would stop. This is not what one would expect on a properly working network, nevermind a gigabit network.
IN regard to the ShareSpace, a quick google reveals that it is a sloth. Of all the NAS device out there it is probably the slowest.
The hardware specs are not encouraging and, I suspect, have some serious design flaws. It is encumbered by a propietory OS, so end user tweaking is limited.
All of this suggest to me that no amount of updated firmware will resolve the performance problems. Which is, of course, why WD is not responding to the pitiful cries for help from these forums. Corporate policy will state never admit liability, and only state the positive. There is nothing positive about the ShareSpace.
So, my advice is, get a refund if you can. If you can’t, rip the HDDs out and use them in a proper NAS device or build yourself a FreeNAS box with leftovers.
Finally, in regard to the WD specifically, I came across this warning. I don’t know if it applies to the SHareSpace, but I’d be switching Twonky off!!
This is an issue where I would advise that you contact our phone support, you will be able to troubleshoot this issue over the phone better than through our email support due to the nature of the problem. Our list of toll free numbers is here: http://support.wdc.com/contact/index.asp?wdc_lang=en
What nonsense; google WD ShareSpace and see how endemic this problem is. And, if as you seem to be suggesting, the problem can be solved on a one to one basis, explain why the WD SHareSpace I returned to the store barely managed transfer speeds of 7mbps, yet the Qnap I replaced it with reports 10 times the the throughput without any tweaking, any adjustments, any assistance from “support”. On exactly the same hardware the SHareSpace was plugged into! Moreover, I am certain that even if the WD support had been able to solve the slow performance for just a few users we would have heard. All I’m reading from those who have contacted WD support directly that there is no hope.
This is crying out for a general solution, not having us all call yet another modern version of customer support telling us how important we are and then keep us on hold for the next hour or two, only to get a foreign accent we can’t understand anyway. Let’s face it, the ShareSpace does not perform as promoted by WD.
thats cant be true… Yesterday i whant to watch a movie via my Xtreamer over the WD ShareSpace 4tb and it wasnt possible the. I cant watch movies wich are on the WD ShareSpace 4tb. No DVD ore Divx Movies all movies have lags and cant be watch. The Support also told me to call the hotline number but for what ? There is an Big Issuse with the firmenware.
But another question is there a way to install openfiler ore free nas und this box to get a better network speed ?
I think the WD ShareSpace 4 TB box trhoug to ebay.
After a long time not posting and reading these very interesting posts, the only i could say is:
bleep! What a bleep box is us offered from WD!
Maybe you do the only possible and call all ShareSPace devices back! All automobile vendors do this in such cases. Maybe it is better as to loose all credit.
Or, offer a firmware which is not overload with mainly unused features. Only a fast and properly working network access, maybe domain integrationa, NFS and FTP support!
WD Support, where are you???
P.S.: I know this are three ways of answering this post from WD.
Intresting reading this: “Whenever you copy a media file to the device (photo, video, etc) Twonky creates a thumbnail image for connected devices to display. WD have configured Twonky so that these cached images live on the system partition, and have not configured any maximum size for the cache. The Twonky cache can grow without limit to eventually fill the system partition.”
That happend to me, i filled my 8TB to 20% and still ive got that the where no more space left for free…
I diddnt know what was wrong then…now i know.
Im sure other ppl had/have the same problem.
As i said, any many others here, return the ■■■■ and get your money back, there is a 2 years warranty on the ShareSpace, dont miss that!
We will never get any help from the support, belive me. If they dont bother even giving ONE answer here, they will not do it in the future either.
Even if it, against all odds, comming an update, the speed will go back to “nomal” 11-12mb/s…and that far away from what WD advertise on theit site.
1st time poster, but been following this forum over the last months. I have 3 of these units; 2 off 4TB and 1 off 8TB.
The 8TB and one of the 4 TB are both running latest firmware 2.2.9 and throughput is just hopeless at 5-6MB/Second on a Cat.6a network with gigabit switches. My last 4TB has a very old firmware 1.0.5 from 2008 (before twonky and itunes) and this gives the throughput one would expect at 30-32MB/Second.
Just wanted to post to let whoever monitors this forum to see that there are many of us with the same issue.
WD tried to go the way from their competitors and it seems they had done a bad work. Want to offer a lot of features which, so this is my conviction, not more than 5% of the user REALLY need. Not quantity, quality is what users want. Don’t look always what others do! Be strong and go your own way.
Again: offer a firmware which provides a maximum of network speed. Maybe in a way the customer could choose if he wants to install.
WD, I (and all others here) wait for ANY statement !!!
After this incident I will return the SlowSpace to amazon. Should they deal with it.
Hi again,
I contacted WD support a couple of days ago. I had the issue escalated to “Level 2” very quickly. The Tech told me they are aware of the criticism of the ShareSpace and are blaming the latest firmware. They are working on it, but no ETA. We spoke about the general performance of the unit and he told me that they generally expect throughput of 80 megabyte s/per second! Make what you will of that, but nothing I’ve read convinces me that the ShareSpace will even go close to that.
Anyway, do as I did and return the thing on the basis that it does not perform as claimed. Get a Qnap and you’ll feel much better.
NB: read this quickly, I offended one of the more sensitive moderators here, He/ she has threatened to have me banned. :stuck_out_tongue:
I had one of those “I will bann you” mails too. The thing is: I need to restore all the data plus the folder I can’t open with extremely important photos. I hope that someone hears my scream and will help me soon. The backup where the pics were, i had to format 2 weeks ago and now this incident.
I had one of those “I will bann you” mails too. The thing is: I need to restore all the data plus the folder I can’t open with extremely important photos. I hope that someone hears my scream and will help me soon. The backup where the pics were, i had to format 2 weeks ago and now this incident.
I cannot believe the person/ moderator that’s posting me privately re my consumer involvement on this issue. If he is an example of the caliber of people employed by WD, no wonder the ShareSpace is giving problems. I
PS: Now watch this get pulled & me getting banned. Nice knowing you, DerSiedler.
I also contact support and they escalated my request on 2-level. But after week they wrote that i need to reset my box to factory defaults. If this dont resolves issue then i need to replace my box…
“Please try a factory reset and if that does not resolve the issue then the sharespace will need to be replaced.”
Restoring to factory defaults erases all of data. This is not a good idea to do that.
No, I’m not going to pull it. But, if you want to take this public we can.
My job as a moderator is to make sure that you, as the user, obey the useage guidelines that you agreed to when you registered in this community. When you flamed me for making the recommendation to a poster to contact WD’s technical support group, you violated the useage guidelines. I’m no different than any other user on this forum. So, I pulled the post and warned you to obey the guidelines, or it would lead to you either being put on probation or being banned. That is a standard response that I send to everyone that violates our user guidelines. So, you need to understand that I wasn’t targeting you with a “special” response.
Now, if you want to challenge my caliber as a person, I have 49 Accepted Solutions and 334 Kudos (both are 3rd all-time highest). When you can match that, let alone pass it, then you can start talking about my caliber as a person.
i did not quite understand what you mean to challenge you as a caliber.
I am happy that you read our posts, but i did not understand that there is NO response to any post asking to answer or give any information.
If i get it right, this forum is only for users to post infos, meanings and NOT for help from WD.If this is true… we should send our questions direct to WD support?
I will not post these sad communication with the support…believe me, i am doing hotline and customer support for 18 years. I know where the money comes from. No from the bank. It comes from satisfied customers. One satisfied customer brings no new clients but one disappointed customer cast out many other potential clients.
I think we are old enough that this not hot enough to escalate.
bill_s: Is there something new to us about this problem?
I recently updated from 2.1.92 to 2.2.9. Network read performance increased dramatically, from 5MB/s (Bytes, not Bits), to almost 9.75MB/s.
Since then I have changed switches from Fast Ethernet to Gigabit Ethernet, now having Gig all over. No real effect on transmission speed. The rate is fluctuating more, 7.5MB/S-10.3MB/s, but aveage speed is the same.
I recently updated from 2.1.92 to 2.2.9. Network read performance increased dramatically, from 5MB/s (Bytes, not Bits), to almost 9.75MB/s.
Since then I have changed switches from Fast Ethernet to Gigabit Ethernet, now having Gig all over. No real effect on transmission speed. The rate is fluctuating more, 7.5MB/S-10.3MB/s, but aveage speed is the same.
It is strange that experiences vary this much.
Hi Spock,
easy reason. The speed is depending on what services you start. If you disable all features and services you will get nearly 9MB/s…
Cabling may be an issue here. I have Cat 5e and Cat 6 all over except for one link. Cat 5 is built into the house and not easy to change. Cat 5 does not support Gigabit Ethernet bandwidth - effectively crippling all the Gig interfaces to Fast Ethernet (100Mb/s).
