Snap 12000 info / help?

[admin69]

From blue68f100:

The info I know on that model is that their were 2 different sleds for some model. It also did a shift for the IDE header, so it would align up, a small offset.

Your limit is actually proably the Snap OS, is capped around 1.2T. Ran in to this on 4000 models. The guardian OS does not have this limit.

[snap-tech]

There wouldn't be an issue if Western Digital drives had the same alignment for the ide and power connector.

Snap does have both versions of the adapter which just screws onto the end of the sled.

I am going to try and get my hands on some this week.

Luckily my friend that still works in snap support department sent me an email telling me that one of his friends has a 4000 and 2 drives are now being shown as bad. I told him I would recover the data at no charge, in exchange for ?, ?, ?.

So I will make the request this week.

Douglas

[admin69]

Originally Posted by snap-tech

There wouldn't be an issue if Western Digital drives had the same alignment for the ide and power connector.

Snap does have both versions of the adapter which just screws onto the end of the sled.

I am going to try and get my hands on some this week.

Luckily my friend that still works in snap support department sent me an email telling me that one of his friends has a 4000 and 2 drives are now being shown as bad. I told him I would recover the data at no charge, in exchange for ?, ?, ?.

So I will make the request this week.

Douglas

Sweet!

Would you have some insight on the limitations of RAID5 array size on Snap! OS 3.4.8xx and higher on the 12000? I have a 4000 with 250GB drives RAID 5 working fine and one 4000 with 300GB RAID5 that works OK (no file save issues - 2+ years) but always emails an error to me on restart.

[blue68f100]

Will tell you what we know. The snap OS seams to have a problem when the array is greater than 1.2T. 4 x 250 gig drives have never been a problem. 4 x 300 have been a different story. As long as the power supply is good, and the HW version is 3+ it seams to work. But a lot of users get the error message that you are refering to. Most (50/50) have reported errors every time it is rebooted and the snap goes through a resync. This has been tied back to a bad/weak power supply, and/or hardware v1 & 2. This is where the 12000 shines with it's robust power supplies. Now we do not see very may 12000, 12 drive model. So I do not know on how the arrays are built, meaning if you have the option to select 4 or 12 drives for the array. My guess would be 3 4 drive arrays. We had one user try to build a raid 0 with 2 x 750 gig in a 2200. The Snap OS refused to do it reporting some numbers was too large. One user that I recall tried 4 x 400gig array in a 4000. The size was cut down to 1T ( or slightly under), but had problems. After looking back we thing most of his problems ps related. But then he did not get the expected 1.2T. But I can confirm that my Guardian OS unit only created a 1.09T usable raid 5 array with 4 400gig drives. He also reported a problem with OS version on the 12000, could not upgrade to v 3.4.80x on it. Totally crashed the system and had to get Snap-Tech to bail him out. Snap-tech may be able to shine more inshight on the 12000, because he has one.

Thats my 2 cents or nickel's worth.

Phoenix32 may correct me on the 4000's issues.

[Phoenix32]

Originally Posted by blue68f100

Phoenix32 may correct me on the 4000's issues.

Hmmmm, what can I add? Okay, here goes...

Much like the 4100, there is some stupid crap going on inside the 4000 that makes no sense. There is no binary reason I can figure out why there should be a limit at 1 TB (or 1.2TB) with the 4000. It would make a lot more sense if it was at around 2.1 TB (I think it was 2.1, I just don't feel like doing the math right now).

Now with that said, you yourself are reporting errors with 4 x 300 GB drives? Why? Can you tell me? Probably not. There is a good chance it has nothing to do with the size itself, but it could be. Why? Because there are some who say 4 x 300 works fine with no errors. There are some who say 4 x 320 doesn't work at all and yet others who say they have 4 x 320 with no errors or problems. To the OS, a RAID 0 or a RAID 5 should make no difference (concerning size) and the SNAP 2000 (some of them, but not all) are based on the same type board and a 2000 user tried 2 x 750 (1.5 TB) and it gave him errors saying it was a proposterous number. So you tell me. So is it a power supply problem? Is it an OS problem? Is it a hardware limitation? Is it just a bone head user making assumptions? Is it certain brands of drives? Certain revisions? Etc Etc Etc... Too many questions and not enough answers...

Here is what I can tell you.

Looking at the different revisions (and I have seen all 4 of them), there seems to be no real difference in the chips or chipset being used or anything that should affect one doing a size larger than another revision. Please note I said should, but there is some evidence to back it up.

Two of the revisions use M/S (master slave) and two of them use CS (cable select). There is a stupid issue with the 4000 and it's hardware that when a drive in a M/S setup, depending on how it dies (if it is electronics, not physical head or disk) or if you power the unit up without it's partner, will drop the partner drive out as an orphan also. We all know what happens when you orphan 2 drives (the bad one and it's partner) in a RAID 5 array. If you don't, then ignore the rest of this message. The cure is to use CS, but this brings in a new problem. Sometimes, even with the proper cables etc, if you put the drives in CS, you will get random drive errors and dropping drives in and out of the array (which is useless). Now the interesting part of this is that it never does this with the set of original quantum 30 GB drives I have. This causes me to believe that it has to do with the drives themselves, not the 4000. Why? Because as a tech, I know for fact that some drives, when in CS mode, will not automaticly drop their interface speed down the current PATA/IDE interface speed being used. Meaning an ATA100 drive dropping to the ATA33 or ATA66 your controller might be using. I strongly suspect that is what happens here. You put the drives in CS, and with all the newer drives being ATA100 or ATA133, some of them do not downshift to the 4000 controller speed, so you get random errors. Can I prove it? No, but it is a damn good bet this is the real problem. Either way, on some 4000's, you are stuck with M/S, with some drive setups.

Then there is the beloved power supply. Now nobody is going to want to hear this, but here it is flat out. From a hardware spec point of view, you cannot use 4 x 250 GB drives (or similar) in the 4000. Why? Because the power supply is just not rated for it, that's why. The SNAP 4000 power supply is rated at 6A on the 12V rail. Look at the specs of any of the larger drives and you will fast see that when they are running, you are running the power supply at anywhere from 75% to 95% of rated spec 24/7. That is NOT recommended in any power supplies. A max rated spec is not for continuous use. But skip that for a moment. The big issue is spin up power. Look at the spin up current required for most modern larger drives. The Seagate 250 GB drive is 2.8A for an example (A very common drive used by 4000 owners). 4 x 2.8 = 11.2A. Ummm last time I checked, 11.2 is significantly larger than 6 (almost double). Now here is the up side to this. The power supplies used in the 4000 seem to be pretty solid electronics and let us get away with it for these short bursts and long term usage., but just KNOW that you are far exceeding rated spec.

Keeping on the power supply, we also know these 4000 units are getting long in the tooth (old). Meaning these power supplies get weaker over time and use. If you get a 4000 with a marginal power supply, what will happen is you will see random drives drop in and out when you power the unit up. It will drive you nuts trying to figure out what is going on, and all along it is a marginal power supply causing the issues. Trust me, I have seen this in 2 different units first hand and it sucks.

Now I know this is about the 4000, but keep in mind what I am about to say for the next paragraph(s). In the 4100, we have seen people use 160 GB drives quite often and get the max 137 GB of the unit. But every once in a while, a user will tell us his won't work. Every time I can think of at the moment, it has been with maxtor drives. Interesting isn't it (in a Spock kinda way)? Sounds to me like the problem is not the user's 4100, but rather maxtor, or at least certain revisions of maxtor 160 Gb drives. Why? Because when a few of these users have swapped to other brand 160 GB drives, it all worked fine.

Now we get to the REAL PROBLEM. The real problem is the people reporting their results. People do not test and report properly. Some guy sticks 4 hard drives in CS mode into his 4000 and it get's all flakey, so he reports "You can't use drives in CS mode in the 4000". BULLCRAP! 2 of the revisions of the 4000 came with drives in CS and the other two revisions will in fact use cable select with the right cable and drives. The problem was his conclusions. His problem may lay elsewhere, like the drives maybe, and their ATA speed, or the cable, hint hint. Then another guy sticks 4 x 250 GB drives in his 4000 and it goes all flakey, so he reports, "You can't use 4 x 250 GB drives in a 4000". In both cases, they reported it as fact. Well guess what? Plenty of people use 4 x 250 GB drives in their SNAP 4000. Maybe the problem is your power supply being marginal with those drives or the model of hard drive? But, but, but, but, my 4 x 80 GB drives worked fine and these 250's, same brand, don't. Well #1, same brand does not mean they work exactly the same. Hard disks, even of the same model number sometimes, go through plenty of revisions and these revisions change things. Then #2, even if they are in the same family, and rated the same for specs, I can promise you, that those 80 GB drives draw a lot less power during spin up than those 250 GB drives do. It's called physics (mass and energy). Then there is the opposite. Someone does something, and it appears to work, so he comes back and says "such and such works in the 4000", like it is fact. Then later, when one of the drives fails or something, he replaces the drive and the array won't rebuild. Maybe because of something else, but also maybe because his conclusions about such and such working may have been wrong. This is the case with the 4 x 300 Gb and 4 x 320 GB drives and why David and I refuse to say it does or doesn't work. Just not enough testing completed to prove it out.

So the REAL PROBLEM is people reporting their results. They see one result and then ASSUME things and report that thing as FACT. That is why there has been so much confusion on this forum about a great many subjects. Too much assuming going on and not enough COMPLETE testing. THEN, when you ask someone to try this or that or to test something, quite often, the reply is, "sorry, I don't have the time" (after you wasted your time helping them) or they never come back and report what happened. They get what THEY NEED and then disappear. Sorry, truth is truth and I am 100% sure the regulars around here will back me up on that. The long and short is that most of us just do not have the money to go out and buy every SNAP type and revision as well as all kind of disk sizes (in sets) to test and figure out where limits are and what does and does not work. For example, David and I have a working theory on the 4 x 300, 4 x 320 GB, and 4 x 400 GB drive setups. But guess what? David does not have a 4000 and I cannot afford the drives to do the testing myself on my various 4000 units. So unless we can find someone who has these things and is willing to test TOP TO BOTTOM for facts, we just have to continue to give GENERAL parameters and elusive answers. We are doing our best.

NOW, before someone says, "There goes Phoenix on a rant again". I am not ranting or even a little bit ruffled right now, honest. I am just answering the question I was directly asked by name and being totaly open and honest about it. Admin69, please do not think I am ranting at you. I am just trying to clue you in to how elusive some of these answers you want really are, and why.

What I can tell you is; (and yes, it changes over time with real results aquired and new theories)

- 4 x 250 GB works in the 4000
- 4 x 300 and 4 x 320 should work in the 4000
- 4 x 400 and even 4 x 500 might work in the 4000
- 4 x 750 will probably not work

- the 4000 power supply is over spec with modern large drive sizes
- the 4000 will act flakey and random if the power supply is marginal (and this includes maybe even sending errors on startup)

- M/S setups in the 4000 are very risky with RAID 5 setups if a drive fails
- CS setups in the 4000 work just fine, but may require a cable modification and may have problems with some drives (brands or models)

- I seriouly doubt we will every know what the real story is on some of the "whys" because it is buried deep in the OS, BIOS, and built in drivers which we do not currently have access to nor probably ever will.

- Guardian units are way to noisy (sound like hair dryers) for most home users use (this one was just for David)


There ya go....

[Phoenix32]

Let this be a lesson to you all in Book Writing 101

[blue68f100]

Very well expained, Phoenix32.

My hair drier is on the other side of my house so I don't have to listen to it. After awhile you just ignore it, kind of like a squeek in a car. It's also the warmest part of the house.

[admin69]

Thanks (I think) for the 4000 info. My current configs:

4000 w/ 300GB RAID5 Seagate models ST3300831A-RK drives only work master / slave (even with previous 30GB drives). This one emails me errors on reboot.

4000 w/ 250GB RAID5 WD drives set to cable select. No problems seen (yet).

705N w/ 120GB RAID5 WD drives running 4 years no problems (drive config forgotten).

Back from the digression...
What is the largest RAID5 array size on the 12000? I am pretty sure that it can be configured with one four drive array and one eight drive one. Is the Snap OS 4.x RAID5 limitation 1.2TB or is that only a factor with the 4000?

[blue68f100]

It seams too be a OS thing, the best we can tell. This is usable Storage Space. Did you test your (4000) setup by removing a drive (2)? Would be recommended. Phoenix32 ran in to problems with his. But were able to correct the problem with a cable mod. His would not report a problem, failed drive.

I elected to remove my Seagate drives and run SpinRite to check the media. I have one drive that has already used 1/2 of it spare sectors used up. Hopefully with this done it will avoid the bad areas, should help the response time. It has 5 yrs to fail.

I have 400's in my 4500, After the raid 5 set was built, I only ended up with 1.09T usable space. This was with the Guardian OS. I setup with 10% SnapShot space. It may be the reason why. The doc reported the snapshots come out of the raid5 space. The GuardianOS is huge compaired to the SnapOS.

We have little to no data on the 12000. So it would be nice to have a user post some. These were advertised as 3T units. This I suspect that was with 12 x 250gig drives, 3 x 4 drive arrays, Guardian OS?. I think the early ones were 1T. Since they post the raw drive capacity and not usable numbers. It all depends if the 1.2T limit is indeed a SnapOS limit. Does the 12000 have 6 IDE cables with the drives CS or MS? My question is how is the ide buss setup? Since yours is using the SnapOS means its one of the older units. What OS version do you have? I remember that there was a problems on loading v3 OS, v2.6 was the latest for the 12000???? I would contact snap-tech and confirm this, its a BIOS/Flashram size limit, (4m vs 8m). According to Douglas the chip can be removed on the 12000 and swapped for guardian os. At least on his engineering unit. SO if you do not have a physical copy of the flashram I'm not sure I would try a OS upgrade. I could make a backup for you if needed. Or find someone in your area and have them read the chip. This would be good info to know. It would distinguish any doubt we have about the OS. This 12000 takes a lot of $$$$ just for drives. If you have 400gig drives to test with, it would be nice to know how many the array will handle. I realize that it may take a month to build the array , or just 2-3 days. (We have data confirming that a snap will not accept 2 750gig in raid 0, but will in raid 1. Reported a error that a number was crazy large.)

Sorry for all the questions on the 12000, but we don't see these very often. Yours is probably only the 3rd one to come through here.

[buckdakat]

I'll add a 4th 12000 to your list. I've got a 12000 that I'm currently attempting to put back into service. (My 4400 is maxed out as is my 2200 and my 2000 is close.) Right now it's running with a single 120GB drive and loaded with SnapOS 4.0.860. I'm attempting to upgrade it to 250GB drives (Seagate Barracuda 7200.10s with 16MB cache) but up to now I have been unable to get the 12000 to format a 250GB drive beyond the 137GB limit. I successfully formatted one of the drives to 250GB in my 2000 and then moved it into the 12000 in the second slot but the 12000 would not verify the disk or mount it.

Right now I'm contemplating trying a different type of 250GB (a WD or a Seagate 7200.9) or possibly just giving up and stepping back to 160GB drives and lose the 23GB per drive.

Any information anyone has on if it is possible to format a 250GB drive and if so what drives worked, would be appreciated. Thanks, BDK

[blue68f100]

Drive capacity is based on the first drive. So change your setup to JBOD. Install the 250gig into drive 1, no other drives in system. Let the OS do the setup, after 10min connect and check progress.

And Interseting note I remember a while back that a 12000 would not accept v4. Only v3?. It was a early HW version.

The only user that I know with a 12000 is Snap-tech.

[buckdakat]

No such luck. I installed a new, unformatted Seagate 160GB drive (a 7200.7 retail model) I had on the shelf in slot 1 (no other disks installed), powered up the 120000 and after many, many hours it formatted the disk to 130GB. I was just reading the posts on the 14000 thread, is it possible that removing the battery might work on a 12000 even though it runs SnapOS? Any other suggestions? Thanks, BDK

[blue68f100]

I'm not sure that the 12000 will support drives greater than 137 gig. Snap-tech talked about 2 different bios for the 12000. One was for the snapos the other for the guardianOS. If it's a SnapOS it can have 2 raid5 of 6 drives. Reading the admin manual I do not believe it will support larger drives. I would drop Snap-tech and PM and ask him. I know he has these units.

[N4631X]

New Snap user here, Were is the reset botton on a SNAP 12000.
I only see the main power botton, and 3 soft keys on the display. do I use one of these keys ?
I'm assuming that I would reset it like the 2200 or 4100 that I have.

What are the console settings ?

start up display shows backplane 1.4.2, bios 3.2.667

the system light is blinking on and off about once per sec.
and the drive 1 light blinks randemly, but mainly stays off.

[buckdakat]

Here is the reset procedure from the Snap Server 12000 Administrator's Guide:

How do I reset the Snap Server settings if I cannot connect to it?

Resetting the Snap Server to its factory default settings does not change the existing disk configuration or erase any data stored on your disks. However, clearing all of the system settings will remove the File/Folder Security and Quotas.

To reset the server settings:
1. Turn the Snap Server off (as described on page 7) and wait for all of the lights to turn off.

2. Press and hold down the center button below the LCD display. While you are still pressing the button, turn the Snap Server back on; continue to hold the button until the LCD indicates it is ready to select a maintenance mode.

3. Release the center button. To select the settings you want to clear and reset, briefly press the Reset button:

Once to clear the server's IP address.
Twice to clear the Administrator password.
Three times to clear the server's network settings.
Four times to clear all system settings.

4. Watch the LCD display to verify that the desired diagnostic mode is shown.

5. When the correct mode is displayed, use the center button below the LCD display to select that mode. The server then restarts and resets the settings you cleared to the factory defaults.

I hope this helps. If you need a copy of the document please private message me with your email address and I'll send you the pdf. BDK

[bitor]

Hi buckdakat:

Thanks for the information.

bitor