WD MyNet N750 - Disappointing

[bmyton]

I took a chance on a MyNet N750 and thought I should swing by here to let you guys know I was disappointed.

The first few days were fine but not amazing. The signal strength was no better than an old Rosewil Router I had. The USB storage functioned ok on larger files (10MB/s), but took a crap when it tried to handle a folder full of small ones (250kB/s).

The real problem is that after the first week I started getting random internet drops. At first a couple times a day, and then every couple hours. I updated firmware and still had the problem. Nothing in the log files looked suspicious so I decided I didn't want to fight with it.

I returned it for a Cisco EA-4500 and couldn't be happier.

-Ben

 

[stevech]

I took a chance on a MyNet N750 and thought I should swing by here to let you guys know I was disappointed.

The first few days were fine but not amazing. The signal strength was no better than an old Rosewil Router I had. The USB storage functioned ok on larger files (10MB/s), but took a crap when it tried to handle a folder full of small ones (250kB/s).

The real problem is that after the first week I started getting random internet drops. At first a couple times a day, and then every couple hours. I updated firmware and still had the problem. Nothing in the log files looked suspicious so I decided I didn't want to fight with it.

I returned it for a Cisco EA-4500 and couldn't be happier.

-Ben

It's normal for speeds for moving lots of small files to be a small fraction of the speed for very large files. Overhead.

I prefer to not ask my WiFi/router to also be a file server. It'd be OK for very light use.

 

[mediatrek]

I too do not recommend using a router to handle network storage. Get a low-cost NAS device instead.

As far as the WD N750, I had issues with the unit as well. The U.FL connections are all super glued to the board. I had to go through 6 units till I got a router that did not have it were the connector was loose and just floating in the superglue.

After that was strengthened out, I had numerous problems with download speeds whether just over the local network or from outside the network. I worked a long time with WD tech support and we tried a number of things over the course of two weeks. No results and they were not willing to do another exchange at Best Buy for me, so I sent the router into WD and got a unit back that works better and also a free refurb 500GB Passport hard drive for my problems.

Personally, I would wait till WD matures more in the router market till investing in using one of their router’s has my personal unit at home.

 

[tipstir]

Something like this I would never get. WD is a very good company for HDD since that's what they do. But WD Network Storage Devices, WD Media Player, WD Network Player and now WD WiFi Router and also WD WiFi Storage Router. They do try but stick with company that only makes network gear. When they venture into other development ideas is where they run into glitches.

 

[stevech]

Quality NAS manufacturers w/software developers include Synology, QNAP, Thecus. They do one thing well.

 

[thetoad30]

Get a low-cost NAS device instead.

Forgive me, but this kind of made me chuckle.

Any true NAS device is upwards of $500-$1000. And that's without drives.

Now if you're speaking of cheapie "it has a network port" devices, then you are looking at far less, but also far less performance and flexabilities.

I'm not saying that the cheapies are worthless - merely that you need to define your requirements before spending the money.

For me, a NAS would be wonderful. But my requirements (4-5 bay, RAID 5 for parity, and a decent speed) put me at a QNAP Pro device which is $1000 with no storage. The smaller, cheaper "NAS" devices just won't cut it for what I'm trying to do. So for now, I'm utilizing a server as a NAS device and using it's onboard RAID 1 for redundancy. Not ideal, but definitely fits right between the cheaper NAS devices and the super-expensive device I really want.

 

[stevech]

I have a great Synology NAS. Two-drive is all I need. Most NAS vendors have SOHO/home products such as these. Look at DS212j

Costs far less than mentioned above. Especially since I had the two 2TB drives on hand. And they're not from the same drive vendor.

 

[mediatrek]

Forgive me, but this kind of made me chuckle.

Any true NAS device is upwards of $500-$1000. And that's without drives.

Now if you're speaking of cheapie "it has a network port" devices, then you are looking at far less, but also far less performance and flexabilities.

I'm not saying that the cheapies are worthless - merely that you need to define your requirements before spending the money.

For me, a NAS would be wonderful. But my requirements (4-5 bay, RAID 5 for parity, and a decent speed) put me at a QNAP Pro device which is $1000 with no storage. The smaller, cheaper "NAS" devices just won't cut it for what I'm trying to do. So for now, I'm utilizing a server as a NAS device and using it's onboard RAID 1 for redundancy. Not ideal, but definitely fits right between the cheaper NAS devices and the super-expensive device I really want.

Of course one needs to meet their needs vs costs. I was being simplistic about it. The original poster was using the router for network storage. Having a low-end Seagate BlackArmor 110 NAS is going to be better performance-wise than using a USB drive plugged into the WD myNet N750.

For me, a Netgear ReadyNAS Duo v2 meets my needs.

 

[thetoad30]

I was being simplistic about it.

I understood exactly where you were coming from. I wasn't laughing at your point; I was laughing at the fact that I've done everything I could to try to get one of those cheaper devices to fit into my requirements... all to no avail.

It's a shame that some companies still haven't embraced the "prosumer" market in PCs - that is, a person who's more than just a gamer, but also has things like a full-blown Windows Server and data needs that normally would be labeled as a small business user. Except that they don't have small business user funds.

I can't stand it when companies provide a $50 piece of software for Windows client editions, and then for a server jack it up to thousands of dollars. I don't need to back up an enterprise! I just need to back up that one server!

Anyway... I digress.

 

[tipstir]

I have a great Synology NAS. Two-drive is all I need. Most NAS vendors have SOHO/home products such as these. Look at DS212j

Costs far less than mentioned above. Especially since I had the two 2TB drives on hand. And they're not from the same drive vendor.

Don't forget Zyxel NSA line-up they're not bad and don't cost so much. Don't get me wrong I would have gotten what you got, but didn't see the need to. Every needs are different. My NSA325 with two WD Blue SATA III 6.0gb/s TB total 2TB more than enough for now. I was trying to max it out to 6TB. Later on..

 

[tipstir]

I understood exactly where you were coming from. I wasn't laughing at your point; I was laughing at the fact that I've done everything I could to try to get one of those cheaper devices to fit into my requirements... all to no avail.

It's a shame that some companies still haven't embraced the "prosumer" market in PCs - that is, a person who's more than just a gamer, but also has things like a full-blown Windows Server and data needs that normally would be labeled as a small business user. Except that they don't have small business user funds.

I can't stand it when companies provide a $50 piece of software for Windows client editions, and then for a server jack it up to thousands of dollars. I don't need to back up an enterprise! I just need to back up that one server!

Anyway... I digress.

I guess you didn't start with with Windows NT 4.01 Server days before that was WFG. I've had all the Server editions but a lot of money and what you need to keep it running it cost. Clients acting like mini Servers too. I didn't care for WSMB version.

 

[thetoad30]

I guess you didn't start with with Windows NT 4.01 Server days before that was WFG. I've had all the Server editions but a lot of money and what you need to keep it running it cost. Clients acting like mini Servers too. I didn't care for WSMB version.

Windows NT was my first intro to servers, unfortunately.

Then was Windows NT 5, 2003, and then 2008/R2. I think that the price for running servers is dramatically dropping, since these OSes can now run on client hardware, and include all the same kinds of virtualization features of their higher-powered brethren.

The problem is that the software price and third-party hardware prices haven't followed this set. It's still very much an attitude of "big corporations can afford it". It's sad when I can get a workstation for half a grand that competes with an entry-level server for several thousand, and does most things as good as that entry-level server, but I cannot afford to get a NAS for equivalent pricing, or anti-virus for cheap, or backup software for cheap.

I'm just saying, I think there is a market for software and "power user equipment" that they haven't considered yet.

 

[bmyton]

I understood exactly where you were coming from. I've done everything I could to try to get one of those cheaper devices to fit into my requirements... all to no avail.

Tons of great feedback on this thread, thanks guys. I was painfully aware of the NAS ≠ USB Enabled Router. Unfortunately what I had available to me was one spare 2tb drive in a USB enclosure, a limited budget, and a desire to share media through the house.

With that in mind, the USB works fine for me assuming it can support adequate read bandwith and isn't too bottlenecked on the write to prevent adding new content through the LAN. The EA-4500 is working great for this function so far and has been 100% reliable. Unfortunately the WD unit just did not cut it.

When I have the time/energy/cash I am going to put together an actual NAS backup. Hopefully in a couple years a reliable 4-bay NAS box will drop under $300.

Thanks everyone for their feedback!

-Ben

 

[cyberzeus]

All user based wifi reviews are highly subjective compounded by the simple fact that all wifi installations are plagued with highly dynamic sets of issues not seen with wired networks.

The MyNet 750 is a solid router if used in a proper wifi setup which I classify as either one where there is zero chance of interference and competition from other wifi installations OR one where cat5\6 cable is run to all areas where you expect to have wifi service. Of course, in either case, range relative to frequency band needs to be addressed accordingly especially the effects of floorplan geometry and building material absorption effects.

All that said, after spending a dedicated 3+ weeks testing several different manufacturers and models, I have found the MyNet 750 to be a fast and solid router. It does have some feature gaps (lack of complete wireless settings, partial compliment of IP-based diagnostic tools, minimal logging, no syslog, no force-https-only, no custom users, etc.) and a couple of features do have potential defects (static routing, mac-filtering, admin password persistence, etc.) but overall, it is a high performer from a throughput perspective.

Conversely, one of the present darlings - the Asus 66U - I found to be a heap of crap for primarily two non-wifi and one wifi reasons: 1) the gui is trash, is slow, and is prone to locking up; 2) support sucks with Asus - no response on forums nor from issue submissions for well over 10d; 3) The repeater functions simply don't work properly. So net-net, if you put the Asus in a non-competitive wifi environment, are cool with gui lockups, don't need support, and don't need a repeater, then the 66U is a demon - but honestly, not that much more than the MyNet model and the latter is about $100 cheaper.

The quality of any wifi device always depends on the installed environment and the expectations of the users...

PS: Forgot to add that I have no feedback on the NAS functionality but I agree that this is probably not the best use of any wireless router. If you happen to have an old PC lying around, you can easily build your own NAS for nearly the cost of the drives + $100. As an example, my NAS setup has 5+ TB of data storage in 8 ESATA bays, mounted with AFP, NFS, FTP, SMB, & RSYNC, has uptime for over 1 year, is linux based (no - not full sevrer - more embedded-esque) and supports RAID1-5 (but I only use RAID1) - all this cost me about 200 + the drives + spare old PC (486-class or better).

 

[cyberzeus]

Forgive me, but this kind of made me chuckle.

Any true NAS device is upwards of $500-$1000. And that's without drives.

Now if you're speaking of cheapie "it has a network port" devices, then you are looking at far less, but also far less performance and flexabilities.

I'm not saying that the cheapies are worthless - merely that you need to define your requirements before spending the money.

For me, a NAS would be wonderful. But my requirements (4-5 bay, RAID 5 for parity, and a decent speed) put me at a QNAP Pro device which is $1000 with no storage. The smaller, cheaper "NAS" devices just won't cut it for what I'm trying to do. So for now, I'm utilizing a server as a NAS device and using it's onboard RAID 1 for redundancy. Not ideal, but definitely fits right between the cheaper NAS devices and the super-expensive device I really want.

Your set of requirements can be met with the cost of a low-end PC, 4-bay esata enclosure (125), esata interface card (80), software (40)...far below the $1000 from QNAP...email if you are interested...