D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => Routers / COVR => DIR-655 => Topic started by: www23 on February 04, 2010, 07:57:53 AM
-
Dear D-link please make accessible to the people of SDK Ubicom
To be able to use firmware from other manufacturers
Open-WRT, etc.
hardware is well done soundly and securely from my point of view
Thanks
-
Dear D-link please make accessible to the people of SDK Ubicom
To be able to use firmware from other manufacturers
Open-WRT, etc.
hardware is well done soundly and securely from my point of view
Thanks
Nice request, but you seem to forget that by opening up the Ubicom platform you will be depriving a company of it's business. It's like asking Microsoft to make Windows OpenSource.
-
It's like asking Microsoft to make Windows OpenSource.
Nice idea ;D
-
Nice request, but you seem to forget that by opening up the Ubicom platform you will be depriving a company of it's business. It's like asking Microsoft to make Windows OpenSource.
I understand you but Ubicom produces chips and SDK them
explained to those who will buy chips if the SDK problem
except you of course ;)
See examples here that I am referring NETGEAR WNR3500L
Now think that people will choose
SDK Ubicom can buy about $ 3000
for this money to buy to correct others' mistakes?
to other chips easier to get SDK
Now is the time open source
If you do not understand now, then start to lose money
then it will be hard for buyers to return
if you do not believe it themselves and then see
but Microsoft did not release the hardware things
so that is not appropriate comparison
Forgive google translator :)
-
My DIR-655 of hardware but like Software leaves much to be better :'(
-
you will forgive me that I have made you a lot of problems with the downgraded firmware
but you'll also need to understand when I flashed the firmware 1.3x, and surprised
that the router was suitable only for the garbage I was very upset
most interesting thing that has to heap downgraded the firmware is not possible
you think that this is true?
and you do not block for the future is not stable firmware
fewer problems create for ourselves and for consumers :)
google translator
-
from you D-Link consumer wants to hear that it will solve the problem as soon as possible
golden rule of business customer is always right even if it is not right
not you pick the user, he chooses you :)
-
I know this is going to upset some, but I'm going to state it anyway.
Yes Open Source is the way things are going. In SOME markets. Fact is D-Link sells to a LARGE community with a diverse user base.
I'd wager that less then 3% of d-link users are even aware of of these forums. I'd wager that even less know what open source is.
We purchased the Ubicom platform because they offered the performance we wanted at the right price. We will have Open Source products in the future, I mean look at the DIR-825_B or any of the DNS products.
-
I know this is going to upset some, but I'm going to state it anyway.
Yes Open Source is the way things are going. In SOME markets. Fact is D-Link sells to a LARGE community with a diverse user base.
I'd wager that less then 3% of d-link users are even aware of of these forums. I'd wager that even less know what open source is.
We purchased the Ubicom platform because they offered the performance we wanted at the right price. We will have Open Source products in the future, I mean look at the DIR-825_B or any of the DNS products.
Thank you for your response
I will not argue Ubicom chip is good but as it turns that the newer SDK so more problems are easier to fix an old SDK?
But you also understand that the consumer does not matter at what SDK firmware is made
and no matter how often it is important to go to a router worked and was reliable
-
Notice I did not say that the products of D-Link bad, problems and other companies have enough, in my first router was the DI-604 I was very pleased with it worked like a clock
bought the DIR-655 too but everything worked ,flashed firmware and started problems
agree that such a future should not be repeated
Google Translator
-
I agree...it seems like all the home router companies have issues from time to time.... The marketing people blow smoke and the consumers expect it to work like the marketing people hype it.
When the technical people (enthusiats) try to make them RUN not just walk, thats when the real flaws get exposed and you see about them in these forums....
Then the Marketing people get back involved and try to cover up the mistakes they made before.... Folks like Lycan get caught in the middle and get their ears burned....
Dlink should just come clean and fess up about the no downgrading thing.... It really smells bad.
Dave
-
We purchased the Ubicom platform because they offered the performance we wanted at the right price.
and the stability SDK they offered right price ;D
-
True.
The downgrade thing is a beast of it's own. Fact is that we're still not even sure why the lock was in place. I mean someone had a reason.
If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that because we've had so much trouble with firmware lately they didn't want to deal with older firmwares that were a problem for sure. So place a downgrade lock so that we know everyone is using the right kernel.
Which would have been fine if the code had worked.
But we have newer firmware with solid performance and it seems to work for almost everyone.
Now that you know you can downgrade, try the new stuff out. Tell me what you think.
-
True.
The downgrade thing is a beast of it's own. Fact is that we're still not even sure why the lock was in place. I mean someone had a reason.
If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that because we've had so much trouble with firmware lately they didn't want to deal with older firmwares that were a problem for sure. So place a downgrade lock so that we know everyone is using the right kernel.
Which would have been fine if the code had worked.
But we have newer firmware with solid performance and it seems to work for almost everyone.
Now that you know you can downgrade, try the new stuff out. Tell me what you think.
I had enough to read this so that all understand
http://developer.ubicom.com/documents/ubicom/ultra/sdk_help_full.html
ipBootDecompressor
ipBootDecompressor implements a stand alone executable that has the ability to decompress data that has been compressed using squish or ARJ compression methods. The selection of the compression method is made while configuring a project. The compressed data is resident in the flash and it is decompressed to the SDRAM. The compressed data is the executable image of a project that has been linked to be resident and runnable from the SDRAM. The extry point for this executable is always the first location in the SDRAM. Once BootDecompressor has expanded the compressed data to the SDRAM it transfers control to the first location in the SDRAM thereby transferring control to the project. Selecting the ipBootDecompressor package in the configuration tool automatically triggers the generation of compressed images of project code. The advantage of this is reduced flash sizes. The disadvantage is that boot times will increase as time is spent decompressing the image.
If ipBootDecompressor has been included in a project it is suggested that in ipFile the Compressed Filesystem box should be unchecked. This helps create somewhat smaller flash images.
Article: In-Field Upgrade Control
The SDK supports reliable in-field upgrading of project firmware through a network connection. Four key components are involved:
Upgrade image (the new firmware image).
This must be constructed to include not only the basic firmware, but also additional functions to control the upgrade process after the firmware is uploaded. This file, whose default name is upgrade.bin, is a compressed self-extracting image.
Upload mechanism.
The upgrade image can be transferred to the target device by any mechanism. TFTP is fully supported by the SDK and the Ubicom Device Manager. HTTP requires application-level support in the form of CGIs, examples of which are available in example projects. Any other upload mechanism can be implemented by applications code.
Upgrade mechanism.
The current firmware is effectively replaced by the upgrade firmware in a single atomic operation; i.e. there is no possibility that an error could result in a partial overwrite of the original firmware. If any errors do occur, the original firmware is left intact. To ensure reliability of the upgrade process, the SDK includes checks to avoid these classes of errors:
Power failure during upgrade.
Corruption of image during storage or transmission
Attempts to upgrade to firmware intended for other type of device
Support for reliable upgrading is spread across several SDK and project components: ipHAL, ipUpgrade, upgradec, optionally ipTFTPServer and ipWebSystemUpgrade, and the Ubicom Device Manager tool, UbiDevMan.exe.
Upgrade Configuration
To make a project upgradeable, set the following configuration points:
ipUpgrade:
The ipUpgrade module must be included to enable upgrade support. It is possible to use either the external flash or the external memory as scratch pad area to store the incoming upgrade image.
Under ipUpgrade there is an "Application Identifier" option (UPGRADE_APPLICATION_IDENTIFIER). Set this to a 32-bit number that uniquely identifies the product. This value is stored in the <project>.elf and upgrade.bin file images.
You also need the .elf file from the original factory programming. The path/filename should be specified in the "Reference elf file" node under ipUpgrade. Note: to create the first factory image, "Reference elf file" must be left blank.
If you want to store the self extracting upgrade image in external memory then enable "Use Extmem" check box under the ip3k node in ipUpgrade. Storing this image in external memory does open up the possibility of losing the upgrade image because of power failure. Enable the "Emergency Upgrade Web Service" node under the "Use Extmem" node if you want an "Emergency Upgrade Web Service" encoded into the <project>.elf and upgrade.bin file images. Refer to In-Field Upgrade Introduction for more details.
During a firmware upgrade, ipUpgrade functions compare the UPGRADE_APPLICATION_IDENTIFIER of an upgrade.bin with the UPGRADE_APPLICATION_IDENTIFIER of the current firmware to ensure that the upgrade is compatible with the current firmware. If the identifiers do not match, an error is raised, and the upgrade fails without changing the current firmware. ;D ;D ;D
-
I understand that you are not personally blocked the firmware
blocked programmers D-Link or Ubicom :)
I will wait for new firmware version
1.33 multicast does not work for me
;)
-
Man Lycan coming out with the truth now is a little late. What about 2 months ago? All we heard from EddieZ and supported by you was that we somehow misconfigured our router that was causing the constant instability. The proof shoved in everyones face was EddieZ used 1.32 and it worked fine for him. Now we know that the downgrade myth was a bold face lie, it was infact possible and also the 1.32 firmware was screwed completely up. Why did D-Link and you ruin all your credibility with people on this forum?
-
Cool down, man. 8)
Worry about poverty, the environment oryour health. It's only a router.
You're not addressing the same issues with your statements.
Firmware version 1.2x was a big miss, although not every part of it was disfunctional. But the major enhancements compared to 1.1x were. That's what Dlink tried to prevent: people downgrading to these versions. Because that would revive all hysteria about the 1.2x once again. And yes: misconfiguration is still the most common cause of issues with routers. You can ask any expert.
The 1.3x series is a big improvement and looking at the forum only a couple of issues remain for some users, which are caused by either defective devices (radio part primarily) or misconfiguration. It is so easy to mess up a router config. You really have no idea.
The fact is that when a firmware is really no good, this will result in generic issues with thousands of users, not just with <100 users. And yes: if my firmware/features works 100%, a malfunctioning device cannot claim that the firmware is lousy. There might be a hardware issue, but configuration is the first in line. Even 1.2x acted terrible on my router, but that will depend on the features you use (I use probably most of them).
-
Hmmmmm......
If, and I say IF, the majority of people's issues are due to defective hardware as you suspect Eddie, the maybe DLink should issue some sort of special factory warranty "amnesty" program and get all those bad radio units off the street....just a thought.
I think, and I say I, as I can only speak for myself.... One of the main things that has been going on in here these past several months is this:
Most folks who have this router probably never upgraded their firmwware from when it came from the store. However, if the router defaults to pop up a message to the user that a formware upgrade is available, the average user will do so out of fear that something is amiss, or why would that message have popped up ?
Now throw in to this mix the big "red" message(s) about not being able to downgrade after the user just got a pop up message implying that an upgrade was available (and thereby "required", even tho WE power-users know it is NOT REALLY required).... It can't help but create confusion in the users mind. I would suspect that many of us power-users had to step back for a moment and re-read the messages we were seeing....
I think www23 is pretty-much right on target with his concerns.
-
I am unable to see what concern has been raised by www23. Could be the Google translator is not conveying the message properly, but which concern do you refer to?
-
The 1.3x series is a big improvement and looking at the forum only a couple of issues remain for some users, which are caused by either defective devices (radio part primarily) or misconfiguration. It is so easy to mess up a router config. You really have no idea.
tell me the price of this step, the first versions of the firmware 1.3x not working at all
and they came almost a year ago firmware 1.33 appeared only now ;D
not only the DIR-655 and DIR-855, DGL-4500, DIR-825A1, DIR-628
-
...
Firmware version 1.2x was a big miss, although not every part of it was disfunctional. But the major enhancements compared to 1.1x were. That's what Dlink tried to prevent: people downgrading to these versions. Because that would revive all hysteria about the 1.2x once again. And yes: misconfiguration is still the most common cause of issues with routers. You can ask any expert.
The 1.3x series is a big improvement and looking at the forum only a couple of issues remain for some users, which are caused by either defective devices (radio part primarily) or misconfiguration. It is so easy to mess up a router config. You really have no idea.
...
I'm sure that 1.2x has its bugs, but what I can say for sure is that with the exact same settings, the wireless radio on my 655 does not blink out on 1.21 but does blink out multiple times a day on 1.32 and 1.33. Why are you such a fanboi?
-
Perhaps each of us has different experiences with different firmwares.
And each of us has different weights of what he needs from his device in his personal home area.
For me the 1.33 is the best firmware since I bought the DIR-655 (Rev A2 / FW:1.02)
It is most stable running without any hickups.
Wireless performance is that what I ever expected to get from 11N.
With 1.11 and 1.21 which a lot here post as best firmwares, I had only troubles.
I used 1.12 and then 1.22 until I updated to 1.3x series which ran for me.
I did not want to downgrade.
You may also call me fanboy because I have a lot of D-Link equipment and a lot of positive experiences.
Up to now my network is running most reliable and that is what I need because I'm working a lot from home office.
If a firmware that runs for most other does not work for you, look for the causes in your home and do not blame the router or firmware first. Wireless is a very sensitive connection and often only needs some small corrections in the settings or change of device location to turn bad into good.
However don't expect it to be a 100% replacement for a wired gigabit line.
...but what I can say for sure is that with the exact same settings, the wireless radio on my 655 does not blink out on 1.21 but does blink out multiple times a day on 1.32 and 1.33...
If you use a different firmware, you can't expect the same behavior with the same settings. If nothing had been changed, it would not be a new firmware. So try out different settings.
1.33NA firmware is the most performant for the DIR.
(for EU readers : 1.31EU is the sameSDK/kernel version but has different shareport version and some different functions enabled in the web interface)
Yesterday I made some performance tests with different DIR routers and who is interested:
http://lizzi555.dyndns.org/655/SpeedCmp855_825.html (http://lizzi555.dyndns.org/655/SpeedCmp855_825.html)
or
http://lizzi556.dyndns.org/655/SpeedCmp855_825.html (http://lizzi556.dyndns.org/655/SpeedCmp855_825.html)
Edit: some typos
-
nice test, Lizzi555! :-*
In addition, the wired Gb part will do much better without your ION connected. I can get the max for my Synology Diskstations (that's about 100 MB/s), so with a Gb PC attached you will see even more performance.
Nice to see that anyone with an opinion (which even includes criticism towards Dlink) that does not support the Dlink bashing is labelled 'fanboy'. You always make me laugh, thanks for that ;D
-
You crack me up as well. I have never told anyone to avoid using any firmware or implied that anyone didn't have sufficient understanding to make their router work effectively.
lizzie555, to follow up on your suggestion, I tried a variety of settings with 1.33NA before giving up on it. The first two sentences in your post sum it up.
-
I have never told anyone to avoid using any firmware or implied that anyone didn't have sufficient understanding to make their router work effectively.
I have :D
-
Nice, showing your true colors. :-\
-
Nice, showing your true colors. :-\
We are much alike... ;D
-
nope. :-\
-
You're absolutely right: you're even worse. I read you're remark and comparison with Nazi's on another thread.
-
OK.
Time to LOCK.
Thanks for the useful testing info Lizzi once again you prove to be a true asset.
-Lycan.