+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Hardware Thread, Buffalo TeraStation TS-RXL - The worst NAS ever? in Technical; We bought an 8TB Buffalo TeraStation TS-RXL a few months back for use as backup/general storage etc... Over the past ...
  1. #1
    Nick_Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dainfern, South Africa
    Posts
    437
    Thank Post
    95
    Thanked 18 Times in 13 Posts
    Rep Power
    17

    Buffalo TeraStation TS-RXL - The worst NAS ever?

    We bought an 8TB Buffalo TeraStation TS-RXL a few months back for use as backup/general storage etc...
    Over the past few months I have battled with silly little things and I thought I would post them on here to see if any of you have experienced the same issues and if you overcame them, and to warn other potential buyers.

    Firstly, I had linked the TeraStation to our Active Directory, however:

    Access Permissions 2.png

    The TeraStation will not allow you to log onto it using any AD credentials if you try and access it using its IP address. You are only able to log onto it if you are using it's DNS name ("TeraStation-01" in this case).

    Secondly, I setup a folder called "Software_Images" which I use to store ISOs etc...
    I want anybody in the "Domain Admins" group to be able to write to this folder (to delete old ISOs and add new ones) and I want anybody in the "Domain Users" group (i.e. Any AD authenticated user) to be able to read from the folder but not make changes. Simple? Wrong.

    These are the permissions I set:

    Access Permissions.PNG

    And this is the result when I try and copy and ISO into the folder while logged on as the Domain Administrator (a member of the "Domain Admins" group):

    Access Permissions 3.PNG

    It seems to be ignoring the fact that I am in the "Domain Admins" group (which would give me write access) and instead sees that I am part of the "Domain Users" group and denying me write access.

    Thirdly, there is no "Deny" access restriction. For example, I would want to add "Domain Users" as a read only group (which would allow all Authenticated users) but deny a small group. No such feature.

    Another issue I had involved auto-updating, I would tell it to update and I would receive a message that says "Updating, do not close this window" - which would sit like that for 2 days. In the end I had to power off the TeraStation from the front panel, tried again and the same thing happened. In the end I had to manually download the Update & Updater from Buffalo's site.

    Does anybody have any ideas on how to get around these faults?

  2. #2
    mmoseley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    752
    Thank Post
    109
    Thanked 105 Times in 80 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    43
    I have had 2 TeraStations (both at seperate jobs) brought by other people...IMO, worst NAS ever...if you get it stable enough they work fine, but the software/firmware on them is just PANTS!

    Have you looked at this: OpenTera

    Did it with a Linkstation I had a good few years back and it improved it 100%! if you can get into Debian it works well!

    Mart

  3. #3

    Steve21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Swindon
    Posts
    2,696
    Thank Post
    335
    Thanked 515 Times in 483 Posts
    Rep Power
    179
    1) Never had any issues accessing terastations via IP, I'm assuming all the settings have been setup (aka netbios etc etc, and the clocks updated, as they generally need to be near to DC timer etc).

    Can you check all the netbios/dns/WINS settings etc are setup even if you're not using some of them.

    2) It always uses most restrictive permissions:

    If a specific user is assigned both Read Only and Read & Write, they will have Read Only access. The most restrictive
    access is always used.
    But that's the way Windows generally works too, If you put someone in two groups with different permissions it'll take the lowest?

    Surely you want to make a "NAS ISO Write" and "NAS ISO read" group, and assign people to that, rather than using generic groups. Thus only putting the admins in one group, not both.

    3) Same as above really. Instead of giving everyone access permissions, and then denying some. Just don't give them permissions in the first place. Sticking with the above example, don't put them in either "NAS ISO Write" or "NAS ISO read" groups, then they have no access.

    Steve

  4. #4
    Nick_Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dainfern, South Africa
    Posts
    437
    Thank Post
    95
    Thanked 18 Times in 13 Posts
    Rep Power
    17
    Thanks very much @mmoseley, I will give it a try!

  5. #5
    Nick_Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dainfern, South Africa
    Posts
    437
    Thank Post
    95
    Thanked 18 Times in 13 Posts
    Rep Power
    17
    Thanks for your suggestions @Steve21,

    1) I have checked the networking settings and they all appear to be correct. The time on both the TeraStation & DC are sync'd to the same time server and are both accurate.
    2) This seems like a huge amount of effort given that I'd have to create groups specific to each folder. In Windows I would say "Authenticated Users" have access and "Domain Admins" have write and that works perfectly for me everywhere else?

    Auth Users.png

    3) Again, doesn't seem like the most efficient way to do things. For example, we have a folder full of photos which we want all staff and students to be able to access, but not guests. On a Windows Server I would give "Authenticated Users" read access and deny to "Guests".

  6. #6

    Steve21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Swindon
    Posts
    2,696
    Thank Post
    335
    Thanked 515 Times in 483 Posts
    Rep Power
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick_Parker View Post
    Thanks for your suggestions @Steve21,

    1) I have checked the networking settings and they all appear to be correct. The time on both the TeraStation & DC are sync'd to the same time server and are both accurate.
    2) This seems like a huge amount of effort given that I'd have to create groups specific to each folder. In Windows I would say "Authenticated Users" have access and "Domain Admins" have write and that works perfectly for me everywhere else?

    Auth Users.png

    3) Again, doesn't seem like the most efficient way to do things. For example, we have a folder full of photos which we want all staff and students to be able to access, but not guests. On a Windows Server I would give "Authenticated Users" read access and deny to "Guests".
    I may be mistaken, but isn't that only becuase you're doing it "locally" as such?

    Example:

    NTFS permissions:
    Staff (Including Admin): Read
    Admin: FullControl

    Share Permissions:
    AuthUsers: Read

    Locally, (or not via share) it'll give the admin Full Control as that's his highest permission.

    Via the share, the admin will get Read only, as that's the most restrictive of the NTFS vs Share permissions.

    When you combine NTFS permissions and share permissions the most restrictive effective permission counts. For example, if you create a folder with files and assign them Full Control NTFS permissions to Everyone and share the same folder and assign the share permission Read to Everyone, users connecting through the network will have Read permissions.

    Probably the most common mistake made when combining share permissions and NTFS permissions is to add them all to a single pile and then take the most restrictive. Instead, you need to determine the effective share permissions amd the effective NTFS permission before taking the most restrictive.

    So to determine what the permissions are for a user connecting through a shared folder to a local folder protected with NTFS permissions you need to do the following:

    1. Determine the ‘effective’ NTFS permissions
    2. Determine the ‘effective’ share permissions
    3. Take the most restrictive of these two.
    Steve

  7. #7
    DocHouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    brum
    Posts
    715
    Thank Post
    152
    Thanked 82 Times in 74 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    yes they are, work fine for a few months and then die for no reason support is useless as well

  8. #8
    Nick_Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dainfern, South Africa
    Posts
    437
    Thank Post
    95
    Thanked 18 Times in 13 Posts
    Rep Power
    17
    @Steve21, Let me do some tests

  9. #9

    m25man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Romford, Essex
    Posts
    1,625
    Thank Post
    49
    Thanked 460 Times in 336 Posts
    Rep Power
    140
    Do look at my previous post here Problems accessing NAS from Windows 7 clients

    If you find that you can access using the IP rather than the Netbios name of the Terastation this may help.

  10. #10

    synaesthesia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    5,970
    Thank Post
    583
    Thanked 1,020 Times in 785 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    464
    Never had any problem with hours but they barely do anything.

    Anyway, title of "Worst Nas in the World Ever" for me clearly goes to the frankly diabolical WD Mybook drives (both mac and PC incarnations) with the myworld 2 software. Not sure if the more recent ones are any better.

  11. #11
    Nick_Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Dainfern, South Africa
    Posts
    437
    Thank Post
    95
    Thanked 18 Times in 13 Posts
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by m25man View Post
    Do look at my previous post here Problems accessing NAS from Windows 7 clients

    If you find that you can access using the IP rather than the Netbios name of the Terastation this may help.
    Thanks very much, I had a read through your solution except mine seems to be the opposite. I can talk to it via DNS name and not via IP address. I will still do some tests and see if maybe it is linked to the same sort of authentication problem.

  12. #12

    3s-gtech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    2,775
    Thank Post
    146
    Thanked 564 Times in 508 Posts
    Rep Power
    153
    We have four Terastations, bought by both me and my predecessor. They have a fun habit of forgetting their AD credentials so backups don't work, logging into the interface and re-joining them fixes this (same thing happens on everything from a Terastation Pro to Linkstation to TS ES). Problem is, I don't always notice they've dropped off the domain, so my backups sometimes don't work for a while! A couple of them also seem to kill HDDs a little quicker than they should (two in three years isn't too bad though).

    I won't get any more. We have an Iomega Storcentre which I got in as the latest unit which I much prefer, still has AD integration but without the fail.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. [Android] Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 - The worst Android tablet ever made?
    By Arthur in forum Netbooks, PDA and Phones
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22nd August 2012, 01:34 PM
  2. [For Sale] Buffalo 4TB Terrastation TS-X4.0TL/R5 NAS
    By Mr.Ben in forum Classified Adverts
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 19th July 2011, 05:06 PM
  3. [Website] What is the worst piece of design ever done?
    By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20th May 2011, 10:01 PM
  4. [Video] The worst Crystal Maze contestant ever.
    By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 3rd November 2009, 12:25 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •