Hack a Snap Sever 1000?

[Leomania]

Originally Posted by poogles_uk

Leomania - You could try doing a ip, admin and share reset

Hi Sam,

I've reset things a couple of times, no joy thus far.

I did pick up the OS upgrade from the ftp site, which was very helpful. I'll have to go back through the posts to see if the 2000 is recommended to get the 4.x upgrade or not, but I'm hesitant to do any more upgrading until I can get this unit running with 3.4.805 since so many others have.

Thanks,

- Leo

[z0ner]

Originally Posted by Leomania

Hi Sam,

I've reset things a couple of times, no joy thus far.

Leo, are you joining your SNAP to a Windows domain? I seem to remember when I did that, the SHARE1 folder was inaccessible because I didn't import the user database and the security on the drive had all my domain users (including me) set to DENY, and of course that takes precedence over the Everyone group and full control.

I was going nuts until I joined it to a workgroup to test my theory - sure enough access was fine.

[Sid2000]

Originally Posted by Leomania

Hi Sam,

I've reset things a couple of times, no joy thus far.

I did pick up the OS upgrade from the ftp site, which was very helpful. I'll have to go back through the posts to see if the 2000 is recommended to get the 4.x upgrade or not, but I'm hesitant to do any more upgrading until I can get this unit running with 3.4.805 since so many others have.

Thanks,

- Leo

I'm new to this but I also have a Snap 2000 (Meridian) and I would like to know what is the bios version are you ugrading from.

SOFTWARE: 3.1.608 (US)
HARDWARE: 1.1.0
BIOS: 1.2.180

Please let me know if your 2000 is the same as mine and what the result is. I'm trying to figure out if my 2000 can take 2X300 GB HD. I successfully upgraded it to 2X20 GB HD from 2X8 GB HD without any problems.

[Sid2000]

Originally Posted by upstech

I have upgraded several SNAP 1000's from 2x to 3.4.803 without any problems. 3.4.803 is also available from SnapAppliance.

Hi there. I'm new to this but I have a 2000 Meridian

SOFTWARE: 3.1.608 (US)
HARDWARE: 1.1.0
BIOS: 1.2.180

Can I upgrade to 4 without first upgrading to 3.4.803? Will the software upgrade also upgrade the bios? The reason for questions is because I want to upgrade to 2x300 GB HD's. Is it possible?

Many thanks...

[Dave_in_Dallas]

meister_sd,
I too am dealing with a cracked mirror. Have both 2200 drives booting with OS 3.4.803. One shows the cracked mirror, the other as a single Disk1.
Tried using the commands below to get my mirror available, but received the following error:
07/14/2005 23:24:56 Command: config devices config individual 50000 force

'Individual' JBOD devices require a single Logical Device Id or a Public Partition Id
Any idea where to go from here? There is a Share1 and Share2 on the drive. I can see that it has 65,000+ files on it that I'm trying to recover.... Any help would be appreciated.
Dave_in_Dallas

Originally Posted by meister_sd

OK, I now have my "Cracked Mirror" error fixed. I did what poogle_uk told me, but there were a few more steps I needed to take.

1) Remove the second HD - Just work with the single primary drive.
2) In debug, type: 'config devices info' - write down the "Logical Device" that shows the "Cracked" error. Mine was 50000
3) In debug, type: 'config devices unmount all'
4) THEN I had to type: 'config devices config individual 50000 force' (Where 50000 was mine, your's might be different)
5) Last, I rebooted from debug typing: 'reboot'

After that it took not too much longer than normal to boot, but a few extra seconds. But in the main home page, I still have the "lost" shares, but my disks aren't mirrored or showing errors.

Next, I'm going to try Digital Dolly or Ghost and mirror the main drive to another and see if that works.....

[Leomania]

Originally Posted by z0ner

Leo, are you joining your SNAP to a Windows domain? I seem to remember when I did that, the SHARE1 folder was inaccessible because I didn't import the user database and the security on the drive had all my domain users (including me) set to DENY, and of course that takes precedence over the Everyone group and full control.

I was going nuts until I joined it to a workgroup to test my theory - sure enough access was fine.

I don't have a system set up to be a domain master, so (I think) I have things set up for WORKGROUP sharing. I saw in an "Advanced" menu that there's a "Domain Master" checkbox; not sure if that should be set, cleared or what (currently set, by default apparently).

I guess I'll need to remove that one service pack then start mucking with all the settings on the box. I'll reread the documentation I downloaded from snapappliance.com or adaptec.com (they sure are intertwined!) to see if that gives me any clues.

- Leo

[Leomania]

Originally Posted by Sid2000

I'm new to this but I also have a Snap 2000 (Meridian) and I would like to know what is the bios version are you ugrading from.

SOFTWARE: 3.1.608 (US)
HARDWARE: 1.1.0
BIOS: 1.2.180

Please let me know if your 2000 is the same as mine and what the result is. I'm trying to figure out if my 2000 can take 2X300 GB HD. I successfully upgraded it to 2X20 GB HD from 2X8 GB HD without any problems.

Mine is as follows:

SOFTWARE: 3.4.805 (was 2.1.340 when I got it)
HARDWARE: 2.0.0
BIOS: 2.0.252

From what I read in this thread (all of it... took days off and on) the 1.x.x hardware seems to not be able to handle 48-bit LBA. Can anyone chime in here and confirm?

- Leo

[OzDave]

Originally Posted by Leomania

Nope... that's not it.

I connected to the Snap Server from my Mac (looks like it connected via SMB) and I was able to delete the zero-length files and the "New Folder" dirs that had been created from WinXP. But I still am told I have no permission to create a new directory from the Finder!

However, I was able to ftp into the box, create a directory and transfer a file from the Mac.

Any thoughts as to what is going wrong, and what I might try to fix it?

Thanks in advance...

I had problems also with using my Snap Server and Mac. The problem is not the Snap, but the Mac. It seems that there were problems with Tiger (10.4). The latest update (10.4.2) corrected the issue. There is a discussion on some of the Mac forums about the write problem on smb and afp mounted drives.
OzDave

[OzDave]

Originally Posted by Leomania

Mine is as follows:

SOFTWARE: 3.4.805 (was 2.1.340 when I got it)
HARDWARE: 2.0.0
BIOS: 2.0.252

From what I read in this thread (all of it... took days off and on) the 1.x.x hardware seems to not be able to handle 48-bit LBA. Can anyone chime in here and confirm?

- Leo

My 2.0.0 Snap 2000 can handle 48-bit LBA. My 1.1.0 Snap 2000 definitly can't support 48-bit LBA. My experience has been that 1.1.0 boxes will detect the larger drive, and try to format it. Formatting fails.

-OzDave

[Sid2000]

Originally Posted by OzDave

My 2.0.0 Snap 2000 can handle 48-bit LBA. My 1.1.0 Snap 2000 definitly can't support 48-bit LBA. My experience has been that 1.1.0 boxes will detect the larger drive, and try to format it. Formatting fails.

-OzDave

Does anyone know how to upgrade from 1.1.0 to 2.0.0? Is it even possible to upgrade the hardware version? Can upgrading to a new SOFTWARE version also upgrade the BIOS and HARDWARE?

Many thanks...

[Leomania]

Originally Posted by Sid2000

Does anyone know how to upgrade from 1.1.0 to 2.0.0? Is it even possible to upgrade the hardware version? Can upgrading to a new SOFTWARE version also upgrade the BIOS and HARDWARE?

Not that I know of; typically, companies change hardware revs to cost-reduce a product or fix significant shortcomings. The hardware is sufficiently different that the firmware/software needs to be different for the new hardware.

I saw a good example of this last night in two Netgear FS516 16-port 10/100 switches; they looked almost identical but were different like night and day inside. One had a dozen or so largish chips, maybe even one chip per port. The other had just two chips of the same physical size and one of the circuit boards was a lot smaller. Both the same model number, same function, but very different in side (clearly a cost reduction).

- Leo

[Sid2000]

Originally Posted by Leomania

Not that I know of; typically, companies change hardware revs to cost-reduce a product or fix significant shortcomings. The hardware is sufficiently different that the firmware/software needs to be different for the new hardware.

I saw a good example of this last night in two Netgear FS516 16-port 10/100 switches; they looked almost identical but were different like night and day inside. One had a dozen or so largish chips, maybe even one chip per port. The other had just two chips of the same physical size and one of the circuit boards was a lot smaller. Both the same model number, same function, but very different in side (clearly a cost reduction).

- Leo

Thanks for the info!!! So what's the maximum drive capacity can I upgrade my 2000? I sucessfully upgraded the SOFWARE to 3.4.803

[Leomania]

Originally Posted by Sid2000

Thanks for the info!!! So what's the maximum drive capacity can I upgrade my 2000? I sucessfully upgraded the SOFWARE to 3.4.803

120GB is the available size that fall below the 137GB barrier; that's the size others have reported using to good effect.

I saw a post somewhere recommending replacement of the cheap CPU fan in the 2000 with a better unit; I managed to track down links to buy the one recommended by the poster. It's inexpensive and has a 5V dual-ball bearing fan.

GlobalWin FAC08
http://www.gigaparts.com/parts/profile.php?sku=FN0054
http://keysource.net/store/product.phtml?ID=40&DIR=9

My fan was making noise when I got it, but I lubed it and it has since been happy; still, I think I'll go for the GlobalWin heatsink/fan when I upgrade the drives in case they aren't as cool running as I hope.

Hope that helps,

- Leo

[Dave_in_Dallas]

SnapOS Update: 2200 Cracked Mirror
I just spent 45 minutes with Adaptec Tech support on the phone trying to solve my broken mirror issue. They confirmed that the disk format is based on a "highly customized" FreeBSD operating system. That was mentioned earlier in this thread I belive by an ex Snap employee.

Prior to calling Adaptec, my attempts with debug commands: Config device config individual 50000 force, I got error: 'Indivudual' JBOD devices require a single Logical Device Id or a Public Partiton Id.
The "Cracked Mirror" designation did go away however. The mirrored disk just reported itself as
"Mirror - Primary disk
Data protection disabled. Backup disk has failed. Primary disk is OK."

Adaptec's suggestion [of course] was data recovery as any attempt to force the Data protection disk into a single disk mode would more than likely result in the disk being They reluctantly refunded my $120 tech support call fee since they were unable to help.

The tech did note however, that had I not formatted the other drive that was part of the mirror, that they could have done a successul recovery.... ??? There are some "tricks" to get past the panic system light and access the server... We need an ex Snap technician as part of this thread don't we....

Ideas and suggestions are welcome and solicited.

[Leomania]

It was caused by the Microsoft SMB patch after all. Removed the patch, access seems to be just fine now.

I'm thinking to go ahead and install 4.0.860 to eliminate this issue going forward. I have no intention of putting my 2000 into a four-drive configuration or anything, so I think it's the way to go.

I'll review the documentation in the upgrade package, but is there anything I should do after following their installation instructions?

Thanks,

- Leo

[Leomania]

Originally Posted by Leomania

It was caused by the Microsoft SMB patch after all. Removed the patch, access seems to be just fine now.

I'm thinking to go ahead and install 4.0.860 to eliminate this issue going forward. I have no intention of putting my 2000 into a four-drive configuration or anything, so I think it's the way to go.

I downloaded the upgrade archive from the ftp site Sam mentioned, unpacked it and tried to use Assist to perform the upgrade; it claims that the file (Snap_4_x.sup) isn't valid for my 2000. The docs talk about the 1100/2200/4400, but not the 2000... so maybe it isn't compatible?

Hmmm... seems to me I've seen someone mention upgrading their 2000 to 4.0.860... is that right?

- Leo

[re3dyb0y]

Leo - Are you on v 3 at the moment, if so you need to download and instal v4.0.830 or i think 4.0.855, as they are the upgrades from v3, then you can put v4.0.860 on.

Usually if it mentions 1100, that includes/means also the 1000, the same with the 2200 and the 2000. If my knowledge serves me correctly. The units are very similar, and im not sure what the difference is.

[Leomania]

Originally Posted by poogles_uk

Leo - Are you on v 3 at the moment, if so you need to download and instal v4.0.830 or i think 4.0.855, as they are the upgrades from v3, then you can put v4.0.860 on.

Usually if it mentions 1100, that includes/means also the 1000, the same with the 2200 and the 2000. If my knowledge serves me correctly. The units are very similar, and im not sure what the difference is.

Yes, I'm on 3.4.805 currently. The documentation talks about being able to upgrade from "2.x or above" so I had no idea about this; but come to think of it, the docs look like they date back to SnapAppliance (little if any info about Adaptec) so I guess it shouldn't come as any surprise.

Thanks a bunch for the tip, Sam!

- Leo

[edcetera]

Hello

Been away for a while, has anyone actually broken the 137 gig barrier on the 2000.

I see statments here that say it but they seem to only be assuming.

Who has actually done it.

I am going to get the Buffalo box and sell my 2000 with 2x120 gig drives if I cant get above this 137 gig constraint.

Please reply with facts, assumptions dont cut it.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely / Ed

[bumpyone]

Originally Posted by edcetera

Hello

Been away for a while, has anyone actually broken the 137 gig barrier on the 2000.

I see statments here that say it but they seem to only be assuming.

Who has actually done it.

I am going to get the Buffalo box and sell my 2000 with 2x120 gig drives if I cant get above this 137 gig constraint.

Please reply with facts, assumptions dont cut it.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely / Ed

Ed,

I have installed two WD 160 GB drives in my 2000. Please see post http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/sho...&postcount=576. I have also upgraded my memory from 64 MB to 256 MB. System is a Quantum Snap 2000 server.

Ray

[Leomania]

Okay, 4.0.830 went on my 2000 just fine. Upgraded using three of the four .sup files (skipped ServerSync) and all appears to be working well. In fact, better than I expected. Using a Win2k system that has the patch for KB885250 installed, I was able to access and copy files to the Snap without issue. I'm going to reinstall the security patch on my WinXP box and see if things are also okay. If so, I'll be a bit surprised; the security bulletin came out in February 2005, and 4.0.860 came out in March supposedly (according to the Adaptec site) to address the SMB problem it caused.

On a related note, has anyone assembled the cumulative knowledge about what each known version of the SnapOS does? That would be a handy file to have on the ftp site.

- Leo

[Leomania]

Originally Posted by edcetera

Been away for a while, has anyone actually broken the 137 gig barrier on the 2000.

Ed, the key seems to be the hardware rev of your 2000 motherboard. If you have 2.0.0 or above, it will work. From my reading on this form, it requires upgrading the SnapOS to at least 3.4.805 but 4.0.830 or above works as well. Conversely, if you have rev 1.x.x, it won't work.

I need to procure my second 160GB drive to prove it, although it appears that bumpyone has already confirmed that those work.

Lastly, see my recent post about the CPU fan; that has been described as a weak link especially with the hotter-running 7200 RPM drives. I already had to lubricate the fan on my unit, so it clearly is only a stopgap measure until I can install the low-profile dual-ball bearing fan. I consider that a must for the disk upgrade unless I find a good price on some 5400 RPM fluid dynamic bearing drives that are known to run cool, and even then the fan has me concerned.

Even still, at the end of the day these boxes are a bargain; where can you get a RAID0/1 NAS chassis for anything approaching what these sell for on Ebay?

As a note, I bought a Buffalo LinkStation from a friend and after moving up the firmware rev a couple of numbers it works pretty well. But the fact it has a single drive worries me; I'm going to have to yank out the drive, image it, and use that to recover the box should the disk go bad. As long as the Snap remains reliable after the fan/heatsink modification, it will be a better choice IMHO.

Good luck with your upgrade,

- Leo

[Leomania]

Originally Posted by edcetera

Been away for a while, has anyone actually broken the 137 gig barrier on the 2000.

I see statments here that say it but they seem to only be assuming.

Who has actually done it.

Ed, here are the posts I found regarding upgrading the 2000:

144 - 160GB
155,334 - 200GB
428 - 300GB

bumpyone posted about his 160GB a couple of times.

In each case, when mentioned, the hardware rev is 2.0.0 or above. I found posts (including yours) that indicate failure to break the 137GB limit with rev 1.x.x; no one has done it that I've seen mentioned.

Originally Posted by edcetera

I am going to get the Buffalo box and sell my 2000 with 2x120 gig drives if I cant get above this 137 gig constraint.

I just realized after I posted that you probably meant a Buffalo TeraStation, not a LinkStation. Those look pretty sweet.

- Leo

[Neil]

Hi, a friend of mine has a Quantum 1000 Snap that is in need of repair, I’m not sure what’s wrong with it but the symptoms are below:

This unit powers up but is not accessible from the browser interface, however the Link light glows steady green when connected to the network.

After a couple of minutes of being powered up the System and Disk lights flash. The disk light flashes twice as fast as the System light. He can hear the hard disk spin up.

I said I would try and find out what’s wrong with it and fix it if possible. Could these symptoms be caused by a corrupt OS on the hard disk?

I was hoping this was the case, so that I could follow the instructions provided in this forum to install a new drive.


Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Neil

[edcetera]

Hello Leo

I have 3.4.803 software 2.0.0 hardware and bios 2.0.282 in my 2000 and have a copy of 4.08something around here.

I never tried any disk bigger than the 120 becuase at the time I did the upgrade to 120 gig there was no one successful above 137 gig, it was deemed impossible by hardware limitations.

Its still scary IMHO to buy 2x 250 gig drives to find out if this wil work.

Thanks for the help

/ Ed

Originally Posted by Leomania

Ed, here are the posts I found regarding upgrading the 2000:

144 - 160GB
155,334 - 200GB
428 - 300GB

bumpyone posted about his 160GB a couple of times.

In each case, when mentioned, the hardware rev is 2.0.0 or above. I found posts (including yours) that indicate failure to break the 137GB limit with rev 1.x.x; no one has done it that I've seen mentioned.


I just realized after I posted that you probably meant a Buffalo TeraStation, not a LinkStation. Those look pretty sweet.

- Leo