4100 and 16MB Cache Drives: Any point?

[Harbinger]

I have a 4100 that, given some new info I'd read in the 'Confusion' thread, I thought I'd try to get to recognize a 300GB drive. (If so, I'll buy 3 more.) I'm sticking with Seagate as they have a 5-year warranty, but I see I now have a choice between one with 8MB cache and a model with 16MB cache.

I believe the 4100 only has a 10MBit network interface, is this correct? Given that limitation, would it provide a performance increase to use drives with 16MB cache memory?

Just curious... :confused:

[blue68f100]

4100 DO NOT SUPPORT LARGE DISK >137gig.

Save your money, install 120 gig and be happy.

Many have tried. There is a bug in the promise controller, that needs a BIOS upgrade. SnapAppliance has not and will not for sure now that Adaptec owns them, issue a fix/update.

[Harbinger]

4100 DO NOT SUPPORT LARGE DISK >137gig.

Save your money, install 120 gig and be happy.

Many have tried. There is a bug in the promise controller, that needs a BIOS upgrade. SnapAppliance has not and will not for sure now that Adaptec owns them, issue a fix/update.

Hmm...Post #9 in the "Snap 4100 Confusion" thread suggests that it might be possible, albeit a pain, to make large disks work. I thought I'd try, at least...and if it didn't work I'd have a 300 gigger for my TiVo or MythTV box. :)

[re3dyb0y]

Well, you can try if you really want, and i suppose, at least, you have a use for the large drives if needed

But no one has really done it!

[esh]

let me know if you are successful with that, would love to upgrade mine past 137GB :-p

The 4100 does have a 10/100 NIC, you might also want to think about upgrading the RAM.

[Harbinger]

Thanks to all for the replies. esh, thanks for the info about the 10/100 NIC. I thought it was 10 only.

That still leaves my original question, though...would I notice the difference in 8 vs. 16MB cache on RAIDed drives in this application? Since they cost more, I'd like some info/opinions on that before plunking down the $.

[esh]

I'm sure there will be some difference but I doubt it would be that great.

*edit just make sure you report back on large drive w/4100 :-D .. i'd really like 4*500GB lol

[blue68f100]

If would select the smaller ram in this case. With the ram in the 4100 doing cache too. I would doubt if there will be any difference. Faster seak times to help.

[jontz]

I'd have to agree with pretty much everyone else on this...I don't think that the extra cache on the hard drive is going to do you any good. If it does, the speed difference would be so slight that it wouldn't be worth the extra cash. In reality though you won't see any improvement. Save your money...in order to finance your next snap server :drool: