Humax & Twonky

Thanks everyone. I have added the IP address of the NAS, but am just waiting for both the units to become free before I reboot them.
 
af123 said:
You need to put the IP address of the NAS in the file. The full file contents should really include the line that tells the kernel to run it as a shell script too, so something like:

Code: 
#!/bin/sh
 
route add -host <IP address of NAS> reject

You can always edit it in the webif->diagnostics->editor once it's created.
Click to expand...
Just to confirm, the first line of code in message #15 would (as written in that example), create the file 'S22nasroute' in folder /mod/etc/init.d/ containing the following line:
Code: 
route add -host 192.168.0.1 reject
and this should be edited to give the following contents:
Code: 
#!/bin/sh
 
route add -host 192.168.0.1 reject
with the IP address modified to be that of the NAS (192.168.0.103 in Wallace's case). Please comment if my summary is not correct.
 
You don't have to reboot. Just run this from the telnet prompt:
Code: 
humax# /mod/etc/init.d/S22nasroute
 
af123 said:
You need to put the IP address of the NAS in the file. The full file contents should really include the line that tells the kernel to run it as a shell script too, so something like:
Click to expand...
Are there any limitations to adding a static route to reject packets to the NAS? Wiki Note HERE
 
af123 said:
You need to put the IP address of the NAS in the file. The full file contents should really include the line that tells the kernel to run it as a shell script too, so something like:

Code: 
#!/bin/sh
 
route add -host <IP address of NAS> reject

You can always edit it in the webif->diagnostics->editor once it's created.
Click to expand...
With af123's addition to the above code we now have the whole shebang! Apologies for the Unix pun:rolleyes:
 
Thanks and and all.

No more reboots since I enter the above and the media server has been enabled.
 
Would it be possible/useful to fine tune the filter from a generic reject of all packets to something that filters out just the DLNA traffic? That way people might still be able to mount the NAS. Not sure if/how this could be done, though. Something in my mind says it should be possible, though.
 
I think you're probably into the realms of iptables there, but it doesn't exist for the T2 (AFAIK).
 
Ah maybe I was recollecting iptables syntax. I could probably do that on my router as I have custom firmware on that (Gargoyle based on OpenWRT on a TP-Link WR1043ND router, which is a marvellous upgrade from the original BT hub). Sorry for dragging this off-topic.
 
I have iptables on my Humax but haven't yet built it into the custom firmware. I've been intending to but now we need the updated kernel source code for 1.03.xx which Humax are obliged to publish but haven't yet uploaded AFAIK.
 
af123 said:
I have iptables on my Humax but haven't yet built it into the custom firmware. I've been intending to but now we need the updated kernel source code for 1.03.xx which Humax are obliged to publish but haven't yet uploaded AFAIK.
Click to expand...

If it was an option perhaps shorewall might be good - I've just configured that on a VPS site and it seems pretty good.
 
Having decided to donate my WD MyCloud NAS to a relative, I have bought myself a new Synology DS214+ NAS and a couple of WD Red 3TB HDDs. Thus far I am very pleased with it. I have noticed that it is considerably faster than the WD MyCloud unit.

As the DS214+ does not run Twonky but does have the same IP address as the now defunct WD MyCloud NAS, I would like to remove the 'work-a-round' that I entered previously to stop the HDRs crashing and rebooting.

The script was posted back on post number 15 of this thread.

What command/s do I need to enter to remove it completely please?
 
Black Hole said:
Anybody confirm this observation? People who have previously had to downgrade Twonky??
Click to expand...
I have twonky 7.3 running on my network and none of my Humax's are crashing... May have to try an earlier version if I can get one, but it looks like Humax may have fixed this on the quiet.
 
Did Barry ever confirm what the 'fix' that was implemented by Humax that went un-noticed ? maybe it was Twonky - Humax compatablity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top