The model of Stora I bought is the MS2105, containing one 500Gb hard drive. This was offered for a short time by Dabs.com for 69.95, quite a bargain considering the cheapest 500Gb hard drive was 35. This particular model seems to be a UK only option, as netgear.com only lists the MS2110 (1Tb) and MS2120 (2Tb).
netgear stora setup cd
Download Zip: https://tweeat.com/2vGUxM
An e-mail sent to NETGEAR elicited the response:Regarding your concern, please note that as of now Linux operating system is not supported by NETGEAR, thus, we would not be able to setup the device on your system.
Measuring 6.90 x 5.91 x 5.74 in, the Stora is housed in a simple black plastic case wrapped around a sheet metal chassis. The front panel has a power LED that doubles as a status indicator, as well as individual LEDs for each drive. A single USB 2.0 port, which can be used to attach additional storage or a USB printer, rounds out the front panel.
The Stora can also double as an Apple Time Machine storage device. A separate wizard, launched from the Stora Desktop Applications folder guides you through a simple seven-step setup process (Figure 14). Once configured, my Mac (Snow Leopard) had no problems backing up to the Stora. Of course, the initial 66 GB took quite a while, even with a Gigabit Ethernet connection.
These drives are no NAS drives. If you use them as NAS drives 24/7, you'll risk of reducing lifetime of the disks. This is another issue, not related to the access aspect you raised. And a NAS used as network storage isn't a backup. So you'll have your backups anyway and keep them current and validated so that you're prepared when a disk becomes defect.
If you are not NAS familiar and don't understand RAID - consider a Qnap USB-C DAS (Direct attached storage), consider them multiple disk USB enclosures, or simply skip all of this and look for a cloud backup.
Yes, it is a good idea to integrate a NAS into a backup concept. But I fear that you don't know yet enough about backup concepts although you're already doing better than many home users which don't backup at all. A backup concept includes more than just creating data copies. It takes risk resp. vulnerabilities into consideration. It is also called backup and recovery concept as it keeps the restoration in mind too. Such a concept has technical and organisational aspects. It is no good idea to create backup copies of your data on a NAS INSTEAD of backup copies on your external USB devices. BUT it is a good idea to create backup copies of your data on a NAS in ADDITION to your external USB devices.
There is no good, bad, worse nor better backup. There is no backup, invalid backup, valid backup and unchecked or insufficiently checked backup. Some users or organisations decide to validate each backup, some validate no backup, and many have not taken validation of backup into consideration. For validation, it is not sufficient to check that all what shall be included is indeed included and complete. An additional test restoration may be helpful. (My practice lacks behind.) With that combination you can validate if a backup achieves what it is intended for. If you're not able to restore, or if you're not able to use restored data, it is better to detect as soon as possible in order to still be able to fix such deviations. That's the purpose of validation to detect such insufficiencies in the process of backup instead of awaiting an event when restoration is (urgently) needed and have to realize that it is incomplete or encrypted by ransomware or complete but still not able to put back into operational service (in case of applications).
Where was I ? Ah yes, my hardware setup. Internally I have C: which holds all program files etc. DVD RW E:. then Internal Disk F: Years ago, F: was the main files/data holder. But after a couple of major computer crashes necessitating a new F: and hours of setting up as I like it. I then did the following. I added a 3.63TB Seagaite external expansion drive (G:). and copied all of F: onto it. From then on, until now I have never saved to F: Instead always saving to my "F Drive BU folder on G: Probably faulty logic, but I felt that if the desktop ever totally crashed again, I could always plug G: into my laptop and carry on. And just in case G: failed as well, I always duplicate saves to drive H: (another external 3.63TB Seagate), and again to a 931GB external (Drive I:), and for good measure, yet again to a third 2.72TB Seagate (Drive J:).
OK, Yes! well OTT!!! But I have a highly structured folder setup and it has taken me many days in the past, (twice!), to re-build that structure, when the blasted hardware blew up. I'm doing all I can to avoid that this time. All four of those external USBs can go in my laptop if necessary. Hopefully at least one of them will be in good working order if I ever get struck again.
Anyway, having root access to the default netgear firmware is not a priority. The good news is I was able to load and boot the given kernel (Linux version 2.6.22.18-Netgear (root@ubuntu-desktop) (gcc version 4.2.1) #1 Tue Feb 16 10:54:25 PST 2010) on the neatgear stora. The next step will be to build and load (and boot) an openwrt kernel from RAM. But to be honest, I have no idea why 2.6.22.18-Netgear boots but not any stock openwrt kernel.
Compiling the netgear kernel with V=1 does not show any peculiarity. I've build manually made a U-Boot image from vmlinux it boots and works (up to the kernel panic "Unable to mount root fs"):
I tried to boot thel custom-build netgear kernel using the factory rootfs still present in flash. I used what I think is the same boot command as used by netgear, only loading my kernel throught tftp instead of using the one found on flash.
When comparing the netgear provided kernel tree with the corresponding 2.6.22 from kernel.org, the most obvious difference is the presence of a lots of marvell specific targets:
Definitively! I made a "quick" survey this afternoon. Building several kernels from 2.6.20 and 3.0.3. It appears that it's only starting with version 2.6.39 that it boots out of the box on my netgear Stora. Maybe the support for that board is simply incomplete or broken until that.
I have successfully backported some patches to support the Netgear Stora/MS2110 on 2.6.37.6. I have added target/linux/kirkwood/patches/201-stora.patch,profiles/201-Stora.mk in order to incorporate those patches in the build process of OpenWrt. The build went smoothly - visibly incorporating the required patches - but the resulting U-Boot image (bin/kirkwood/openwrt-kirkwood-uImage) does not boot. It hangs after the message Uncompressing Linux...
After many hours trying and testing different Kernel configurations, I went to the conclusion that the sources provided by Netgear are those of a different version than those found on my hardware. While booting, my stora reported U-Boot v15 whereas on the netgear SDK, I only have U-Boot labeled v14. 2ff7e9595c
Comments