esata larger than 2 TB [Archive]

flava

10-10-07, 07:43 PM

Hi

I have made a few posts on this before, but I've gotten to the point that I have a new enclosure and drives and am ready to build another enclosure. My first enclosure had 3.75 TB configured as RAID 0. (Full details are in the following post.)

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=952617#post952617

It appears that it is only using about 2 TB of the space however.

I have the following recorded, which brought me to that conclusion, based on calculations.
26:23 of HD MPEG 4
226:16 of HD MPEG 2
50:13 of SD MPEG 2
10% available free space

Earl was going to check with the engineers, but I haven't heard back from him yet. I need to know if anyone has truly been successful getting this working. I know there was a claim that someone was using it, but I think that person may have had the same problem as me, he just didn't know it. So, if any of you are using a configuration like this and are absolutely positive that it is using all of the space, please let me know.

I'd like to know a definite answer before I build it, but I think I already know the answer.

Thanks.

houskamp

10-10-07, 08:19 PM

search resources forum for a post named something like"esata this is the one" was a few months ago.. he had a 3.75 running too

flava

10-10-07, 08:41 PM

yeah, that was the one guy I read about but I never heard back from him when I PM'd him and I don't think he's been on the board for quite awhile. I don't think he is actually getting all 3.75 TB, I think he is getting 2 TB out of it and wasting the rest of the space, just as I am probably doing.

armophob

10-10-07, 08:55 PM

Not reading any of the posts but going on HR20 theory. Doesn't it compartmentalize a percentage for showcase and such? Wouldn't that be relevant to the hard drive size? 250G x 10%= 2.5g.(2Tx10%=200g)?

mephisto

10-10-07, 11:14 PM

From the few threads I've read it seems to me as if the HR20 filesystem only supports 2TB.

Earl Bonovich

10-11-07, 07:23 AM

flava:

When I first got your message... I did forward it on...
Your post here has also "caught" their attention.

They are going back to build something similar insize... and test it in lab... to see what the actual "limit" is.

On the surface... first reply... they are positive it is more then 2TB..
But they are going to go and verify... and make sure that it will work with larger sizes.... possibly even 16tb.......

Ken S

10-11-07, 07:49 AM

Flava,

Can you look at the partition sizes on a computer?

flava

10-11-07, 10:15 AM

Thanks Earl. Please let me know if / when you hear anything.

Ken
I was scared to lose all of my recordings on the 3.75 TB enclosure so I haven't connected it to a computer. I have another enclosure that has the same controller card (Sil4726) that I built last night with five 500 GB drives. I recorded a bunch of stuff onto it last night and I can test with that one by connecting it to a computer tonight. I'm not sure if I'll be able to see the partition on the drive or not, but it's worth a shot.

flava

10-11-07, 06:20 PM

OK, this is a little interesting. I have the 3.75 TB enclosure configured as RAID 0. I can see it in the SiI 4726 Manager as a total of 3490 GB. If I go to disk manager, I can't see the disk.

I have another enclosure that I built last night with four 500 GB drives. I configured that in the SiI 4726 Manager as BIG, which isn't technically a RAID at all, but the description is Creates the maximum capacity permitted. If I go to disk manager on this enclosure, I see the drive and the partitions:
518 MB
15.01 GB
1846.48 GB
3 MB

First I am going to reconfigure the 2 TB box as RAID 0 and reconnect to my HR20 and after it configures itself reconnect to a computer to see what I can see.

Then I am going to add another 500 GB drive to the box, reconfigure the enclosure as RAID 0 again and see what happens and if I can still see anything.

Then I am going to reconfigure the enclosure as BIG again and see what happens and if I can see anything.

I'll post my results. These are 2 separate enclosures by they both are using the SiI 4726 chipset card, so I would think that the only real difference is the look of the box, everything else should be the same...

flava

10-11-07, 09:36 PM

Well, I'm just as confused now as when I started. I've configured the drives in this enclosure every way I listed and have unexpected results.

I couldn't see anything in Windows as far as partitions go at 2 TB RAID 0.

I couldn't see the enclosure at all configured as RAID 0 with five 500 GB drives. I tried on two separate HR20-700s and then reconfigured it and tried again. No luck. Then I changed to BIG and the HR20s could see it but I couldn't see any details in Windows. Now, I have it connected to my HR20 with 5 drives as BIG but it appears to only be using one of the drives.

So, 4 drives seem to work okay, configured as 2 TB (or 1862 GB to be more accurate). 5 drives doesn't seem to work, no matter how I configure it.
These tests were all done on this enclosure.
http://www.cooldrives.com/harasaiipomu.html

The other enclosure I have with five 750 GB drives is partially working, to the best of my knowledge it is using all of the drives (because I see all of the lights for the drives flashing regularly), but it is only using 2 TB of the available space.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817256018&Tpk=N82E16817256018

svcguy

10-11-07, 11:21 PM

What OS are you using? XP SP2 only supports drives up to 2TB (pretty sure, but someone correct me if I'm wrong). Your RAID card will present the array as one drive to Windows and Windows will happily only use 2TB. That explains your problems on the PC side, unless you're not using XP. As far as the HR20, I don't know the details of it's file system, but something tells me its probably based on Windows's file system.:nono:

flava

10-12-07, 10:10 AM

I'm using XP SP2, however, NTFS supports up to 16 TB. FAT32 only supports 2 TB. But really Windows file systems don't come into play at all. All I need Windows for is to configure the 4726 card as a certain RAID level. Whatever I specify is programmed to the card and then it presents all the drives to whatever OS you have the drives connected to.

The only reason I was looking in Disk Manager was to see if I could see the size of the partitions. I don't need to actually partition the drive, just see the size for troubleshooting purposes. Unfortunately I couldn't see the partitions in most cases.

cartrivision

10-12-07, 12:02 PM

flava

10-12-07, 12:28 PM

Well, if I can trust the activity lights on the enclosure (and I think I can based on it only showing activity on one drive when I first set it up and knowing it was only using one drive), it writes to 4 drives at once. Then sometimes, it writes to 4 other drives at once. Usually only 4 drives are being written to at a time, but it uses and sees all 5 drives. But it may be capping each drive at a certain size and not using the entire 750 GB of each drive.

1948GG

10-12-07, 01:36 PM

Say, I tripped across your thread here, mine is at:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=102840

where I started out trying to 'review' some of the folks in the past that have tried to get 'multi-terabyte' systems to work; most that got around to where you seem to be generally dropped 'off the planet' in responding to how things were working out.

Keep at it! There seems to be two routes taken, either boxes based on the SIL4726 and the other on an unknown chip in what appears to be a Mobilraid box (but rebranded or something, into the SATAVault SR6600), very expensive (~$1300 less drives), but once again, the folks trying it out have dropped off the map and don't respond to any emails.

Another person, erp2863, is trying to develop a 4drive box, is 'in' the thread link I put at the top.

IMHO, the HR20 remains a 'toy' at best, without decent storage capability. The 1TB drives (still a bit $$) give a bit of breathing space, but now that the amount of HD material has 'exploded', and with upcoming VOD (who wants to redownload things because of sparse space? Not me!). So, I keep looking for some basic verification that 'real' storage is possible...!

flava

10-12-07, 01:48 PM

I actually read your post a few nights ago but didn't have a ton to add because mine isn't really working correctly yet. I started this in late May, and was content to have the 2 TB of storage at that time, mostly because I didn't have the money or time to invest in any more digging. Now that I have a second enclosure with the same chipset, I can play around more with this one.

I think it would be really helpful if DirecTV added space seen by the HR20 instead of just % available / used. It wouldn't have to be on the list screen, but maybe on the Setup / Info screen. At least that way I could easily tell how much space the HR20 was seeing without having to record things and try to calculate & estimate it myself.

I'll let you know if I can figure anything else out. I may be waiting on some help from someone though because I am almost out of things to try.

cowart

10-12-07, 03:02 PM

I don't need to actually partition the drive, just see the size for troubleshooting purposes. Unfortunately I couldn't see the partitions in most cases.

Maybe you do need to partition the drive - you could use FDISK, which does not have the 2 Tb limitation

Radio Enginerd

10-12-07, 03:17 PM

It appears that it is only using about 2 TB of the space however.

I have the following recorded, which brought me to that conclusion, based on calculations.
26:23 of HD MPEG 4
226:16 of HD MPEG 2
50:13 of SD MPEG 2
10% available free spaceI don't have your answer but I wanted to comment and tell you, WOW. Very cool. That's A LOT of programing. How much did this setup cost you?

erp2863

10-12-07, 03:19 PM

You don't need to partition the disk array.

I've found that when going back and forth between the HR20 internal disk, the external disk, and the PC, sometimes the disk array just doesn't want to be recognized by the HR20. My theory is that the quick format the HR20 performs when the external disk array is connected the first time does not always do a great job.

When I've encountered this, I connect the array to the PC and use the SII4726 Disk Manager software to return the array to a JBOD. Then I reboot the PC and enter the RAID setup software that can be executed when the PC bios is booting, usually have to press F4 when you see the RAID controller come up. All of the drives should be shown. I then perform a full format on each disk. Once that is done, go back to the SII4726 software and create the RAID0 array again.

Hope this helps...

1948GG

10-12-07, 04:01 PM

A basic question has been rattling around when I found this thread.

I think that erp2863's largest box is 4/500GB drives, so 2TB total. I have seen NO posting of any array's larger than this, in fact, the few that have had larger array's are those who have 'gone missing'. I'm particularly interested that the ONE 'commercial' HR20 solution, the Tenbox, is 1.5TB (twin 750's), and that I have seen a couple of folks with twin drive setups working, again with 2/750's.

I think it may come back to a 'problem' with the HR20 not being able to 'address' more than 2TB. It would be 'nice' if ERP had at least one 1TB or 750GB drive to put in the 4drive box (that worked fine with the 4/500) just to see if things got a little 'shaky' with something just over 2TB (it would, with a 750, be of course 2.25TB total in a Raid0 array).

It all sounds a bit 'suspicious' to me, but I don't have the hardware in front of me, don't see the gyrations everything tries to go through. But...

jkast

10-25-07, 11:36 PM

bump

gully_foyle

10-26-07, 01:16 AM

As far as the HR20, I don't know the details of it's file system, but something tells me its probably based on Windows's file system.:nono:I seem to recall something about the HR20 and Linux....

P Smith

10-26-07, 10:01 AM

Search for GNU and HR20 here.

flava

10-26-07, 05:26 PM

Well, I had some problems with the card in the computer and the 4726 controller in the enclosure that I didn't know how to fix. No matter what I would do I could no longer see the drives in Windows (both Vista nor XP SP2). After getting a new 3132 card and figuring out that wasn't the problem, I re-flashed the firmware of the 4726 controller with the same version it had. That fixed my problem and now I can see all of the drives in Windows again.

So, I'm back to my 2 TB limit. An interesting thing I've found in Vista though: even though I configure my 4726 as either RAID 0 or BIG, Disk Manager shows the total size of Disk 1 as 2327.50 GB, with an automatic 2048 GB Unallocated partition as well as another 279.50 GB partition (I have five 500 GB drives connected right now). I don't recall seeing XP saying that but I'm going to check. I wouldn't think that the HR20 would care about these partitions, but it may be seeing it. I really have no way to tell.

I'm going to do some more testing and see what I come up with. I'm really still hoping that a future software release for the HR20 will have a way to see how much space of the external drive it's seeing.

flava

10-26-07, 08:21 PM

So I've come to the conclusion that no matter what, if I have an enclosure connected to Windows XP that is larger than 2 TB I cannot see it in Disk Manager. I can see the entire enclosure's space in Windows Vista Disk Manager however, but even though Vista can see the entire space, it looks like Vista can only access the space in 2 TB partitions.

Now that I know that I can see various configurations in Vista, I reconnected my 3.75 TB enclosure to Vista to see what I can see. This is what I have, according to Vista.

518 MB Partition
15.01 GB Partition
1426.49 GB Partition

606 GB Unallocated Partition
1442 GB Unallocated Partition

So, of my 3.75 TB, 3.5 is really accessible by the OS. My HR20 allocated about 1.5 TB and 2 TB are sitting unused. That's even more odd than a 2 TB limit. This box was configured as RAID 0.

I think if I just make an enclosure 2 TB, it uses all of the space. Beyond that, it does some weird stuff and I haven't gotten consistent results yet. I'm going to test more yet to see if I can get anything more consistent.

I'm guessing the HR20 is treating the space the same as Vista would. It can create partitions but the largest it can create seems to be 2 TB.

1948GG

10-26-07, 10:55 PM

It can create partitions but the largest it can create seems to be 2 TB.

I've kept an eye on this thread ever since you started it, I notice that Earl never got back with a 'final' tumbs up or down on array's larger than 2TB, and that was a couple of weeks ago...:confused:

So, I've got a 2TB array 'in shipping' as we speak, should get it by the mid-end of next week (hopefully will have the newest HR20 s/w download by the end of this weekend as well).

My 'multi-terabyte' thread is still there in the other forum, I decided because of your problems and other that reported the same with >2TB arrays to 'punt' for now; IF eventually some 'offical' work comes down, I'll either move the 'smaller' 2TB unit to another HR20 (supposing that MRV is still not operational at that time), or move it over to my DV editing system (which is already > 2TB, but could always suck up some more HD space...!).

But that should hold me for a while at least with the HR20.

Oh, I was going to post the 'news' that one of the drive manufacturers had announced single drives in the 4TB range, will probably be in the 2009 time-frame as far as consumer shipping. The 'curve' in HD space continues to ramp up and up.

raw121

10-27-07, 07:51 AM

As far as I know, you will never be able to see the correct information in windows. The drives should be formated for linux by the hr20. If it is anything like the file system that TiVo uses, putting it in a windows box is generally a bad idea. You could try to get a cd bootable version of knoppix or some other linux variant to check the sizes that way.

flava

10-27-07, 08:39 AM

I understand that I wouldn't see the correct information in Windows, however, I have been testing to see partition sizes and I can see the partitions accurately in Windows.

Last night I also tried to extend the size of the partitions that were created using Acronis DiskDirector. Unfortunately I could not extend any of the current partitions. I am now testing using the same software to copy all of the partitions from a 3.75 TB enclosure to a 2.5 TB enclosure. Since it's not using all of the space, I might be able to copy all of the data this way and not lose so much space. After the copies of all partitions get done, I'm going to hook the new enclosure back up to the HR20 and see if it sees the new enclosure with the programs from the other one.

If this works, it will be an easy way to backup my shows and move them to other disks. Not hacking anything, not seeing or extracting individual shows. Just copying all of the contents to different disks, that's all.

ITSec_Guy

10-27-07, 04:55 PM

These tests were all done on this enclosure.
http://www.cooldrives.com/harasaiipomu.html

Like many technies on this forum, I am still perplexed by the use of Port Multiplier versus hardware... I understand the difference ;), but can a Port Multiplier be used?!?! I've read different things, to include the product in the link above (which uses PM). Does it depend upon the chipset involved?

I'm still trying to find a reasonable solution to 2TB RAID-0 using the 1TB hitachi drives.

P Smith

10-27-07, 07:19 PM

Have you find any post where real facts posted about PM support in HR20/HR21 ?

Like many technies on this forum, I am still perplexed by the use of Port Multiplier versus hardware... I understand the difference ;), but can a Port Multiplier be used?!?! I've read different things, to include the product in the link above (which uses PM). Does it depend upon the chipset involved?

I'm still trying to find a reasonable solution to 2TB RAID-0 using the 1TB hitachi drives.

ITSec_Guy

10-27-07, 07:22 PM

Have you find any post where real facts posted about PM support in HR20/HR21 ?

It's difficult to determine who knows what when you're reading three different things at all times ;)... so "real facts" is a bit subjective, depending upon which post you're reading.

I certainly don't know... or else I wouldn't be asking ;)... I'm open to learning from anyone who feels that they can make this make sense. I don't understand why JBOD (PM) won't work given it is hardware based...

I'm open to recommendations!

erp2863

10-27-07, 11:21 PM

Rathmir

10-28-07, 08:31 AM

awesome thread. you guys just saved me a couple hundred bucks

flava

10-28-07, 09:31 AM

In order for the PM to work on the HR20, the HR20 would need to have a Silicon Image SATA controller chip that supports PM. The HR20 software would also need be able to use multiple drives to store data. We already know it can't since it uses internal or external drives, not both.

If you go to the SII website, they list the compatible chipsets. You will need a PM host adapter to setup an enclosure that uses the SII4726 chip to run in RAID mode. It then looks like a single drive to the outside world.

Technically, PM does work on the HR20. However, you need to set it up on a computer, using a specific esata card (I have the Silicon Image 3132 chip on mine). You install the 4726 software in Windows or on a Mac and configure the 4726 for however you want the drives presented. In order for it to work on an HR20, you have to configure the drives to all be shown as one, since that's all the HR20 can access. Configuring the drives as RAID 0 accomplishes this, and I guarantee that the HR20 accesses all of those drives. I can tell by all of the access lights on the front of the enclosures which drives it is writing to, and all the lights blink. Also, I know based on the amount of storage I had and the amount of recordings that they wouldn't fit on one 500 GB drive.

So, really, PM using the 4726 card works, you just have to configure it with a computer. Once you have configured on a computer, the type of RAID is stored on the 4726 and the host adapter is no longer used.

flava

10-28-07, 09:45 AM

Also, no matter what I do, I cannot get the contents of one enclosure copied to another and in a working state. I copied all partitions using Acronis DiskDirector and they show up exactly the same as the source, but when I plug it back into the same HR20 that the source material came from, it either just ignores the esata connection or repartitions the drives and I lose everything.

I was looking for a nice way to gain back my 2 TB that are not in use by copying all of the contents to a 2 TB enclosure but no luck. I guess if I want to use that space elsewhere I have to lose all of my recordings. :mad:

P Smith

10-28-07, 10:10 AM

I would recomend you use proved method: http://dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1082843&postcount=21.

flava

10-28-07, 10:18 AM

Thanks, I'll try that!

1948GG

10-30-07, 07:48 AM

It appears that it is only using about 2 TB of the space however.

I'd like to know a definite answer before I build it, but I think I already know the answer.

So, it's been three weeks since the original question was asked: Does anyone have an array LARGER than 2TB up and working, with the full space available to the HR20
(say, 3 or 4TB)?

Again, the 2 or 3 postings where folks had Raid0 or better array's in the 3TB+ range (or, had working 2TB ones and were 'upgrading' their HD's to add to > 3 dropped off the map. It would be nice to know IF this is actually workable, or......

ITSec_Guy

10-30-07, 01:23 PM

I'm with 1948GG... People come on here, ask all these open-ended questions, and never report their findings! Sadly, I guess the old adage "if you want something done right" may actually be true afterall ;)

I promise to report the results of my crazy experiments on the MS2UT enclosure AND the RS-M2TS enclosure.

1948GG

10-30-07, 09:40 PM

I promise to report the results of my crazy experiments on the MS2UT enclosure AND the RS-M2TS enclosure.

Unfortunately, aren't both of those enclosures 2-drives only, so the max at the present time is 2TB as there is no drives yet >1TB...?

erp2863

10-31-07, 10:01 AM

Technically, PM does work on the HR20. However, you need to set it up on a computer, using a specific esata card (I have the Silicon Image 3132 chip on mine). You install the 4726 software in Windows or on a Mac and configure the 4726 for however you want the drives presented. In order for it to work on an HR20, you have to configure the drives to all be shown as one, since that's all the HR20 can access. Configuring the drives as RAID 0 accomplishes this, and I guarantee that the HR20 accesses all of those drives. I can tell by all of the access lights on the front of the enclosures which drives it is writing to, and all the lights blink. Also, I know based on the amount of storage I had and the amount of recordings that they wouldn't fit on one 500 GB drive.

So, really, PM using the 4726 card works, you just have to configure it with a computer. Once you have configured on a computer, the type of RAID is stored on the 4726 and the host adapter is no longer used.

Evidently my explanation was not clear while also coupled with throwing the term PM around like it covers any situation where multiple drives are connected using a single cable to the host. This is not true. Port Multiplication allows multiple drives to be controlled independently over a single connection to the host. If you configure a set of drive as a RAID array, you no longer have multiple drives being controlled by the host. The host only sees and writes to a single drive. The RAID controller (in this case the SII chip) is controlling the set of drives and presenting it as a single drive. There is no use of PM technology in this situation, which is why the HR20 can work with it in RAID. The HR20 does not support PM.

Also, try setting up your SII RAID by connecting it to a non-SII ESATA host adapter on your PC. You will not see all of the drives.

bhelton71

10-31-07, 08:21 PM

So I've come to the conclusion that no matter what, if I have an enclosure connected to Windows XP that is larger than 2 TB I cannot see it in Disk Manager. I can see the entire enclosure's space in Windows Vista Disk Manager however, but even though Vista can see the entire space, it looks like Vista can only access the space in 2 TB partitions.

...Cut...

I'm guessing the HR20 is treating the space the same as Vista would. It can create partitions but the largest it can create seems to be 2 TB.

Thats weird - the 48bit drive addressing is *supposed* to support 144 petabytes (in english I think 144 million Gigs)

I do know that drives (including spanned) that contain the boot or system partitions are limited to 2TB but I have never seen a published limit for data only and no love on M$ofts site.

"Recommended practical maximum for volumes is 2 terabytes. Much larger sizes are possible."

http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/5025760b-0433-4ba1-a2f4-9338915fdb4b1033.mspx?mfr=true

I am dying to hear the results of the 16TB experiment Earl mentioned.

noncreative

11-01-07, 07:03 PM

flava, i beleive the reason you can only access 2tb partitions in vista is becuase the drive is set to use an MBR partition table. volumes greater than 2TB must be made on disks using a GUID partition table which is only available in XP-x64, 2003 SP1, and vista (not certian about x86)

my guess is starting the drive in XP or even an HR20 made it in MBR.

also, what of the idea that only 2TB total space spanned across internal and external volumes is supported? so in a 2TB setup you're at best using 1.75TB, has this been disproven?

P Smith

11-01-07, 10:08 PM

MBR has been discovered long time ago - on both internal and external disks is the same.
No span between int/ext disks - the Linux working with ONE SATA channel and one logical disk what support by disk or external controller using MBR scheme.

[We posted a lot of info and still repeat it again].

noncreative

11-02-07, 06:36 AM

thanks P. so the limit is unquestionably 2TB and this thread is dead

mickaloha

11-16-07, 03:01 PM

I believe the HR-20 is linux based like the HR-10 was. If so, it was probably compiled with kernel 2.4.x for 32 bit architecture which will not support more than 2 terabyte for a single software volume.

If it was complied from kernal 2.4.x for 64 bit it will not support greater than 2 terabytes for a single volume.

If it was compiled from kernel 2.6.x it can support greater than 2 terabytes of data for both 32 and 64 bit architecture if it used with a partitioning tool. Fdisk will not work but other tools may such as GNU parted command will create a partition larger than 2 terabytes.

Judging by what people have stated, it seems like the HR-20 is either compiled from the 2.4.x kernel or if it is compiled from 2.6.x then it is formatted by fdisk which only allows 2 tb of drive space. A possible workaround is to possibly format it via linux with the GNU parted command and hook it up to the HR-20 to see if it sees more than 2 TB.

I plan to buy a second HR-2x at the beginning of December. I will play around with the settings to see if I can get it to see more than 2 TB as well as see exactly what kernel it uses. I'll check back on this thread with my findings in mid-December.

michaelyork29

11-16-07, 03:09 PM

I believe the HR-20 is linux based

Can that be confirmed?

Earl Bonovich

11-16-07, 03:10 PM

Can that be confirmed?

That has been confirmed multiple times already

P Smith

11-16-07, 04:31 PM

Good guess for a just joined member.

I would add to that an ole proposal to use Search - and you'll find posted year ago info : http://dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=767046&postcount=37

I believe the HR-20 is linux based like the HR-10 was. If so, it was probably compiled with kernel 2.4.x for 32 bit architecture which will not support more than 2 terabyte for a single software volume.

If it was complied from kernal 2.4.x for 64 bit it will not support greater than 2 terabytes for a single volume.

If it was compiled from kernel 2.6.x it can support greater than 2 terabytes of data for both 32 and 64 bit architecture if it used with a partitioning tool. Fdisk will not work but other tools may such as GNU parted command will create a partition larger than 2 terabytes.

Judging by what people have stated, it seems like the HR-20 is either compiled from the 2.4.x kernel or if it is compiled from 2.6.x then it is formatted by fdisk which only allows 2 tb of drive space. A possible workaround is to possibly format it via linux with the GNU parted command and hook it up to the HR-20 to see if it sees more than 2 TB.

I plan to buy a second HR-2x at the beginning of December. I will play around with the settings to see if I can get it to see more than 2 TB as well as see exactly what kernel it uses. I'll check back on this thread with my findings in mid-December.

svcguy

11-16-07, 10:58 PM

1948GG

11-16-07, 11:47 PM

thanks P. so the limit is unquestionably 2TB and this thread is dead

Apparently so, and the thought that sizes much larger had been tested was/is, just a thought.

There are at least a couple other folks in other threads here that are beating themselves up trying to get arrays (Raid0) >3TB to work (mostly 750GBx5 or so), and had gotten the same mis-information about large systems being supported by the machine. I'll try and get some of them to take a look at this thread.

Thanks to the Linux types chiming in, all the mis-information on Windows I didn't want to get involved with, as it's more a 'religious' issue. And since I have TWO W2K machines with >4TB of drive space, the arguments there left me a scratching my head a bit with 'where did they get this idea....?'.

So, I guess my decision 3+ weeks ago to go with a 2TB array was the right decision, at least for now. And maybe for several months/years, depending on how the s/w on the HR20 is improved (or not).

Of course, they really need to start working on a better scheme of indexing the saved recordings, just simply by the 'date when recorded' becomes almost unworkable well before the array (at 2TB) is even 30% used. Anybody who actually has even a 750GB drive should see that....

thekochs

11-19-07, 11:01 AM

Just to stir the pot.............here is the animal that the AVS Forum HTPC-ers are moving to in order to bypass alot of the RAID/OS complications talked about in this thread. Unfortunately, it is not a solution here since the access to this unit/OS is thru Ethernet versus the eSATA of HR20. It's very cool and would be ideal if D* would implement their RJ45 for external storage. :D

http://www.lime-technology.com/

gregaskew

02-21-08, 04:58 PM

Apparently so, and the thought that sizes much larger had been tested was/is, just a thought.

There are at least a couple other folks in other threads here that are beating themselves up trying to get arrays (Raid0) >3TB to work (mostly 750GBx5 or so), and had gotten the same mis-information about large systems being supported by the machine. I'll try and get some of them to take a look at this thread.

Thanks to the Linux types chiming in, all the mis-information on Windows I didn't want to get involved with, as it's more a 'religious' issue. And since I have TWO W2K machines with >4TB of drive space, the arguments there left me a scratching my head a bit with 'where did they get this idea....?'.

So, I guess my decision 3+ weeks ago to go with a 2TB array was the right decision, at least for now. And maybe for several months/years, depending on how the s/w on the HR20 is improved (or not).

Of course, they really need to start working on a better scheme of indexing the saved recordings, just simply by the 'date when recorded' becomes almost unworkable well before the array (at 2TB) is even 30% used. Anybody who actually has even a 750GB drive should see that....

So the answer is definitively no storage greater than 2TB? If so, that's ashame-

I have a 5TB array built w/ 5 Segate 1TB ES hard drives & a Sil4726 hardware RAID controller and would have loved to use it on my HR20.

I guess I'll build a 2TB and use the 5TB for something else.