Pro/Forums - View Single Post

Phoenix32 · 09-20-2006, 12:23 PM

Okay, but you asked...

For starters, we are back to the time to build or rebuild a RAID 5 array. With 250 GB drives, it takes 5 or so hours. With the 320 GB drives, it takes 24 hours (without doing any copying or use). This is an indicator something "strange" is going on. It just doesn't add up. Does this mean the the SNAP is having a difficult time with the build/rebuild? If so, what kind of difficulty? Is it actually working, or does it just "look like" it is working properly? Nothing for sure here, just an indicator.

Next, We KNOW FOR SURE there is an OS limit of somewhere between 1TB and 1.2TB. How? Because people who have used drives of this size and larger have gotten weird errors and error messages like "proposterous sector count" or something like that. We also know that the OS the SNAP OS is based on has these limits. Where exacly is the limit? Don't know for sure, but it is right in that ballpark. Now let's see, 320 x 4 = 1280. Hmmmm, interesting. Now with the 7200.10 drives there may be a slight difference in the sector counts and be just under the wire, or maybe it just "seems" to be under the wire. However, there was at least one guy using Seagate 320 GB drives who could not get it to work at all (I think they were 7200.9 drives if I remember right).

Next, several people have tried 320 and larger drives before and it either did not work, or it seemed to work until they tried to do a rebuild and it went to crap. Was the problem somethign else? Maybe. But still...

Does the OS from 3.4.805 to 3.4.807 or to 4.0.860 make a difference? Does the revision of the board in the 4000 make a difference? How much memory is required? Does the Seagate 7200.10 make a difference? Were these other people having other issues with their SNAPs? These are all unknowns, but as you see, there is enough to at least say there "might be" an issue and to be suspicious.

In my opinion, I suspect with Seagate 7200.10 drives, enough memory (at least 128 MB), OS 3.4.805 or above, and the drives formated initially with the same OS, then the 320 GB drives will work fine in a 4000. But this is just an opinion. That's what we are trying to find out. You and DC4 both have 4000s, one of you using 3.4.807 and the other using 4.0.860 (I think that was what you said you were using), both have at least 128 MB of RAM, and both using the Seagate 320 GB 7200.10 drives. If you both can build the arrays with plenty of data and FOR SURE be able to break it and have it rebuild, then that will tell us something. If one of you can and the other can't, then we have a place to start to see what the difference might be.

Hey, you asked...

09-20-2006, 12:23 PM	#341
Phoenix32 Thermophile Join Date: May 2006 Location: Yakima, WA Posts: 1,282	Re: Snap OS 3.4.805, anyone? Okay, but you asked... For starters, we are back to the time to build or rebuild a RAID 5 array. With 250 GB drives, it takes 5 or so hours. With the 320 GB drives, it takes 24 hours (without doing any copying or use). This is an indicator something "strange" is going on. It just doesn't add up. Does this mean the the SNAP is having a difficult time with the build/rebuild? If so, what kind of difficulty? Is it actually working, or does it just "look like" it is working properly? Nothing for sure here, just an indicator. Next, We KNOW FOR SURE there is an OS limit of somewhere between 1TB and 1.2TB. How? Because people who have used drives of this size and larger have gotten weird errors and error messages like "proposterous sector count" or something like that. We also know that the OS the SNAP OS is based on has these limits. Where exacly is the limit? Don't know for sure, but it is right in that ballpark. Now let's see, 320 x 4 = 1280. Hmmmm, interesting. Now with the 7200.10 drives there may be a slight difference in the sector counts and be just under the wire, or maybe it just "seems" to be under the wire. However, there was at least one guy using Seagate 320 GB drives who could not get it to work at all (I think they were 7200.9 drives if I remember right). Next, several people have tried 320 and larger drives before and it either did not work, or it seemed to work until they tried to do a rebuild and it went to crap. Was the problem somethign else? Maybe. But still... Does the OS from 3.4.805 to 3.4.807 or to 4.0.860 make a difference? Does the revision of the board in the 4000 make a difference? How much memory is required? Does the Seagate 7200.10 make a difference? Were these other people having other issues with their SNAPs? These are all unknowns, but as you see, there is enough to at least say there "might be" an issue and to be suspicious. In my opinion, I suspect with Seagate 7200.10 drives, enough memory (at least 128 MB), OS 3.4.805 or above, and the drives formated initially with the same OS, then the 320 GB drives will work fine in a 4000. But this is just an opinion. That's what we are trying to find out. You and DC4 both have 4000s, one of you using 3.4.807 and the other using 4.0.860 (I think that was what you said you were using), both have at least 128 MB of RAM, and both using the Seagate 320 GB 7200.10 drives. If you both can build the arrays with plenty of data and FOR SURE be able to break it and have it rebuild, then that will tell us something. If one of you can and the other can't, then we have a place to start to see what the difference might be. Hey, you asked...