Snap OS 3.4.805, anyone?

[blue68f100]

I guess no one read's NOTICES any more.

The 4100 can handle 300gigs @ 137gig. So yes your 120 will work. or any thing you want to put in it. But match the drives.

You will be blue in the face talking to adaptec, unless you have a maintance contract with them. Then your face will be RED , after words.

[MadMorgan]

yes, I read notices, and I also realize that if someone takes pity on me, and contacts me off the board, then that's between them and I. I can hope, anyway.

As far as capacities, Why are all the M4100 replacement drives 160GB capacity?
4x160 raid 5=480gb if I still remember second grade math and raid fundamentals.
P/N 5325301671 is what I'm referencing.
Was snap playing games with formatted capacity? Does the 160 format down to 137, and thus your 480 is really only 411?

I know to match drives.. I've been building raids since 1985, and worked with MFM / RLL / ESDI long before that.

[Hallis]

There is a 137gb cap on the drive no matter how large it is, you could put 4x400gb drives and each one will still only read 137gb. which sucks. I dont think it has to do with wierd things happening with the file system.

Shane

[Phoenix32]

Originally Posted by MadMorgan

yes, I read notices, and I also realize that if someone takes pity on me, and contacts me off the board, then that's between them and I. I can hope, anyway.

All well and good, but let's not get the forum in trouble in the process eh? In other words, not be so blatant about your request to people.

Originally Posted by MadMorgan

As far as capacities, Why are all the M4100 replacement drives 160GB capacity?
4x160 raid 5=480gb if I still remember second grade math and raid fundamentals.
P/N 5325301671 is what I'm referencing.
Was snap playing games with formatted capacity? Does the 160 format down to 137, and thus your 480 is really only 411?

Because in a lot of cases, 160 GB drives are cheaper than 120 GB drives. Anyone who has been building RAID arrarys since 1985 and working with MFM/RLL/ESDI since long before that should know this. It's called economics. See? I can be condescending too.

Bottom line, since you are an old hand, the 4100 DOES NOT support LBA 48-bit. Which means data above 137 GB. So yes, they use 160 GB drives, but they format down to 137 GB each (well, close).

Originally Posted by MadMorgan

I know to match drives.. I've been building raids since 1985, and worked with MFM / RLL / ESDI long before that.

Me too...

[MadMorgan]

Originally Posted by Phoenix32

All well and good, but let's not get the forum in trouble in the process eh? In other words, not be so blatant about your request to people.

easeplay otay indfay ethay atestlay iverdray orfay ethay MAY
4100 eriessay atthay upportssay Indowsway 2003 ADWAY. Iway
inkthay isthay aymay ebay vay4.0.860


there, better?

Or even the latest free update. I'm on 3.4.790 (US)

It's called economics. See? I can be condescending too.

I honestly had no idea that was condescending to anyone. Definately not the intent.
I was pretty much trying to get an understanding of the 4100's nomenclature, not piss in your cornflakes.

4 120's in raid 5 = 336,731 ( I'm looking at it now)
a Snap 4100 /300 I have only has 4 70 gigs, which would be raid 0. ( and cheezy at that)
Snap 4100 / 120 appears to have 4 30's. again raid 0
So, I expected the snap 480 to contain 4 120's in raid 0 configuration. ( and I just built one like that)
But then I ran across the factory 160 part number and thought, ah ha! It's really 4 160's in raid 5! which totally blew my previous understanding.

So, I guess that factory 480 was designated 4x120 at R/0? or is it 4x160 at R/5 and damn the fact we didn't include LBA-48?

I would personally NEVER put data I cared about on a striped array, unless it was mirrored as well. 0+1

Bottom line, since you are an old hand, the 4100 DOES NOT support LBA 48-bit. Which means data above 137 GB. So yes, they use 160 GB drives, but they format down to 137 GB each (well, close).

Wouldn't it be 134.2? Isn't the actual calc ((2^28)*512)/1024
Again, just asking.
I certainly didn't want to come into a new forum and start shit. I just need to know the capabilities of these servers, and any hacks that might make them more useful.

Like, wouldn't it rock if we could reflash the bios to include the LBA support for the PDC20265 ASIC's? 1.5 TB R/5 Snap!s would kick ass.
Then throw on some delicately soldered Realtek GB chips, lol. awesome.

further thought on that, does the promise op code reside in flash, or is it on the 70700102-001 chip located by the power supply connector? if it's in the flash, I suppose it would be possible to desolder, read the flash and do a comparison for the old flawed promise code, insert the revised code, and reflash / resolder. then of course recompile the OS, lol. yeah yeah, I'm dreaming, but the thought of cheap terabyte 1u's is irresistable.

[Phoenix32]

Getting the 4100 to do LBA 48-bit has been talked about many many many many times here on the forum. Problem is, not enough information and too much "just talking".

Converting to Gigabit has been mentioned, not near as much as the LBA 48-bit, but still. Same problem though, not enough information and no actual attempts. Very few people are willing to risk their SNAP servers on experiments. I know I'm not due to my low fixed income.

I myself do not have a 4100 (because of the LBA 48-bit limitation). I have 3 SNAP 4000's and a SNAP 1000. But, as near as I can tell from reading the info passed back and forth here, nobody knows for 100% sure if the problem is in the controller or in the flashram etc. It has been suspected that the controller will support it (based on what controller is used), but not for 100% sure. It has been speculated, just as you said, that the code could be re-written and get the 4100 to do LBA 48-bit and break the barrier. Now I am not being a smart ass here, but I have to ask. Are you willing to do the work and risk one of your SNAPs for this hack? If you are, it would most assured be welcomed with open arms here.

As for the Gigabit hack, it may very well be as simple as replacing the realtek chip. Some of the SNAP (and I am not talking Guardian units) did have Gigabit LAN, so the OS should support it if it is the right controller. Are you willing to hack your SNAP to test this out? This one would be well worth it too if someone was to make it work.

[MadMorgan]

The PDC20265 will definately support lba48. Original promise driver was bugged but they released fixes for it later.
I'm rusty but could probably extract the updated op code if I had two flash images that I could diff. MB or fasttrack, and our bios. IDAPro FTW.
I'm fairly certain snap just used the bugged promise code, and then for whatever reason neglected to update when the fix was finally released.

As far as tearing up a system, I have one system giving 60000 errors, which someone stated is a mb. if that unit isn't usable anyway, I could care less.
Don't have the supporting hardware available any longer though. I think I'm limited to eproms lol.

I definately wouldn't be comfortable doing it unless I could get in there and emulate the NVRAM, or access that diag port so I would get more than one attempt at the bootloader. I'd have to send it out to the board house and see if they could even pull that flash and put a breakout in. SMT sucks at that density.

Then there would be the issue with recompiling the OS. I haven't touched 'make' in, oh.. too long. Besides, where would I get the source to even begin to recompile with the fixed driver.
This would be simple for adaptec to fix. but I doubt it can be accomplished without the source for the existing kernal. Adaptec won't because it would hurt revenues.

gigabit is probably a pipe dream. even if the pinout is the same, I'd have to imagine some of the supporting circuitry has to be different. same problem with a driver anyway.

So, I've just talked myself out of attempting this, lol. Probably the same ending as every other discussion regarding this subject. damned shame is all I can say.

Unless of course they updated the OS driver in one of the later releases, and the only problem is the bootloader still running the bugged code.
hmmmm.

[Phoenix32]

The Gigabit is a better odds deal IMO. Sometimes the support components are different and sometimes not. The only way to know for sure it to swap the chip and find out... My SNAPs are in use and I cannot afford to attempt the hack, but if you have a unit (MB) you can play with, then...... It would help to know what GB chip was used by Adaptec in the GB SNAP (not guardian) servers. Sorry, that I do not know.

David, I forget, which of the SNAP servers was Gigabit that was not Guardian? The 4400 and 14000 are both Guardian right? 12000? I know I saw one was, I just can't remember which one it was....

[jontz]

I am in the process of aquiring another snap 4100 just to play with, 'cause like you said I am NOT going to risk my production unit. Hopefully in the next few months I will be able to start working on some of the snap 4100 limitations.

[blue68f100]

I have 1/2 of the flashram for a 2000. The other 1/2 is soldered in. I have a programmer with the apporiated TSOP Socket.

The sup file may shed more light. But every thing I was in Intel HEX. So with out a decompillers and complier we are SOL, No Source Code.

I do not recall any SnapOS NAS having gigaports. Only Guardian Units. It's possiable the HW is but SW is NOT. Just because a Gigaport chip is used, does not mean they have to provide code for it. They may have bought a truck load and just used it due to cost.

[asknine]

The original 75-Gb hd in my 2200 died after 4 yrs of hard work, and the second one is obviously ready to follow. I bought two Seagate 250-Gb replacements (very quiet unlike the original Maxtor junk!). The OS 3.4.772 refused to format the new disk beyond 137 Mb. Seems like OS 3.4.805 is the way to go.

Installed 3.4.807 - worked like a clock! See the wiki for mirror rebuilding instructions:
http://wiki.procooling.com/index.php...air_for_Orphan

Seagate drives however generate more heat. Will need to install a new fan with bigger CFM.

[MrSmith]

I would love to get a copy of 4.x.x, if anyone has it?

email: johnsmithna AT yahoo.com

[bug1124]

Me too? I am trying to track down 3.4.803 for my 4100. Since I read the entire thread I now know 3.4.805 or 3.4.807 wouldn't do me any good.

Software - 3.1.618 (US)
Hardware - 2.2.1
Serial# - 502391
BIOS - 2.4.437

bug1124 at gmail dot com

[asknine]

Originally Posted by bug1124

Since I read the entire thread I now know 3.4.805 or 3.4.807 wouldn't do me any good.

bug1124 at gmail dot com

You didn't read it carefully enough, bug.
Either 3.4.805 or 3.4.807 are necessary, but also sufficient to work with large-size drives. The real benefits of version 4.x are only marginal.

[Hallis]

Actually he read it well enough. The 4.0 would just add more bloat to the system so unless he needs AD2003 support then he doesnt need 4 for sure. And since the 4100 doesnt support >137gb drives then os 3.4.805 or greater wouldn't offer him anything that he doesnt have in 3.4.803.

Shane

[FirebirdTN]

Two questions real quick guys:

1) Can the Snap OS be "downgraded" from V4 to V3?

Reason I ask, is I swore I would never buy another Snap server again due to adaptec buying them out, and I sold all the ones I had, minus a 1000 and an 1100 (can't ignore the convenience of this tiny footprint). I now find myself in a pickle, and am looking to pickup another 1100, but would rather stick with v 3.4.805 since I am used to it. I took my existing Snap 1000 and 1100s and "imaged" the drives and did a drive upgrade, and tucked the origional drives away in case of disaster. So....I have v3 OS, but I am conerned about using a V3 OS in a Snap server that came with V4 OS (do they make any firmware changes???) I don't need AD support, and really even large drive support isn't necessary for what I need to do.

2) How many active connections does the Snap server support in a Windows File Sharing environment? I recently hit the 10 concurrent connection limit in 2K/XP, and need a quick workaround. I am not familiar with any true Server OS configuration, and the Snap Server is about as quick a workaround as I can think of since I am already very familiar with them.

Thanks!

[re3dyb0y]

Unfortunately, using just the v3 OS will not let you downgrade from V4.


The 10 simultaneous connections i thought were only XP SP2, never heard of anything for 2000



With V4 there would be some bug fixes and such, but the main addition was AD support in a Server 2003 Domain environment

With Adaptec releasing a 3.4.807, im presuming with such a small revision, that would be just bug fixes in the OS

[FirebirdTN]

Yeah 10 connection limit I am 100% positive is in Windows NT workstation, 2000, and XP. Not sure about DOS or Win9x though. (Thats why they sell Windows NT Server, 2000 SERVER, 2003 SERVER, etc).

Okay, so I'm stuck with v4. I guess that is okay. -EDIT- Maybe you misunderstood me; I know that using Snap Assist and just trying to apply the 3.4.805 update won't work; that I know. But what I am wondering is, lets say I take my image of one of my 1100s that is running 805 and and slap the drives into a brand new 1100 that's running v4. Will that work? If a v3 to v4 upgrade only happens on the hard drive, I'm golden, but if it does something to the BIOS, then I'm kinda screwed. -END EDIT-

Also, What about the max concurrent connections; does anyone know?

We don't have an AD environment, PDC, or anything like that. Just a simple peer-to-peer (Workgroup) environment. Problem is, I have about 50 machines, and have almost 2 dozen connections that need to be made to a "central" file share. Things were working great using a Windows 2000 Professional PC sharing a few folders, but once I had user #11 connect, that is when the trouble started.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/122920/EN-US/

-Alan

[frankb3910]

Hello - could any one PLEASE send me the update files for 3.4.805 or 3.4.807? I am truly grateful. the email address for this is:

printperfectinc AT aol dot com

Thank you!!!

[blue68f100]

Firebird,

1) Can the Snap OS be "downgraded" from V4 to V3?

If you have a version 2 1x00's you can by loading a different image file. So if you currenly have a v4 use then istruction in the wiki section and copy the bott tracks to a file. Do the same with the v3 if you need large disk support.

The v2 models run fine with v4 os. So I don't see the need to down grade to v3. The ram requirments are slightly higher the v3, but minimal. V4 support Large disk and AD2003 support.

[wallonthefly]

I have an m4100 that I'm willing to run experiments on to get LBA48 support.

Let me know.

[wgong]

Originally Posted by MadMorgan

Wouldn't it be 134.2? Isn't the actual calc ((2^28)*512)/1024

Why the /1024?

2^28 sectors * 512 bytes/sector = 137,438,953,472 bytes = 137GB (gigabytes)

137,438,953,472 / 1024 = 134,217,728 KiB (kibibytes)
134,217,728 / 1024 = 131,072 MiB (mibibytes)
131,072 / 1024 = 128 GiB (gibibytes)

Hard Disk Drives are sold in GB not GiB sizes.
Windows XP reports disk sizes in GiB despite labeling them GB hence my PC has a 160GB drive and Windows reports it as 149.01GB.

[oldjetdriver]

I have a Dell 701N (SnapServer 2000) with one dead drive. While I am replacing the drive I would like to go larger capacity drives. My current info is

Model Software Hardware Serial# BIOS
701N 3.1.603 (US) 2.0.0 55190 2.0.282

Could someone point me to version 3.4.805 of the OS.

TIA

Tom

[wgong]

The most recent 701N firmware is 3.4.790 (freely available from Dell at http://ftp.us.dell.com/utility/sup34790.exe ).
You also need the v3.4.790 version of assist http://ftp.us.dell.com/utility/ast34790.exe.

To upgrade any further you need to:

1) convert your unit from a Dell OEM model to a standard Snap model (instructions have been posted on this forum in the past) - easy.
2) legally obtain a copy of SnapOS 3.4.805 - hard (no longer freely available from Adaptec/Quantum/Snap).

Good luck in your efforts.

[jtammo]

Hi,

I just aquired a 4100 from my old company. It contained 2x60GB, and 2x80GB WD drives. I upgraded all four drives to 120GB seagate 7200rpm drives. All drives format to 112GB, but when I attempted to do RAID5 the total I got out of the three drives (not counting the spare)was 224GB. Shouldn't I get a total of 360GB or approx 360GB?

Here is my M4100 Spec.

Bios = 2.4.437
OS = 3.4.790

I am new at this, and any help is appreciated.