48 bit snap server 4100??

[thuber3040]

I also have been stuck on the 48 bit issue for a long time on my 4100 snap, I managed to get a copy of the newest software from adaptec, and I have installed it, and it correctly shows the 4.08 version as i recall, however, I still cannot get past the 137 drive size , I am trying to install some 250's and would like this to be resolved, otherwise I will probably ditch the 4100, as much as I like it, I don't need a 480 gig box since I dont have enough small drives to fill it.

HELP!!!!

Thanks to all, you can send me emails.

[Phoenix32]

<sigh>


Okay, as has been covered in like a thousand other message threads;

The Snap Server 4100 DOES NOT support larger than 137 GB limit, even with the newest Snap OS version...

[Harbinger]

Okay, guys--maybe this is a new solution...

First, visit this site: http://www.coreboot.org/FAQ

Then go back to the main page and snoop around a bit. The coreboot project aims to eliminate proprietary BIOSes with newly written, fast, generic replacements.

What would this have to do with the 4100...?

Well, from the description of how this project works, it sounds as if the SnapOS could be replaced with something else...and that something else COULD have a 48-bit LBA fix included. Perhaps OpenNAS?

At any rate, I just found this project as I have an MSNTV2 box I'm going to convert to a music player. The developers would need some motherboard-specific information (chip numbers, chipset used, high-rez motherboard pics, et cetera) and I'm sure any number of folks here coould supply that info to them.

Just a thought...wouldn't it be nice to upgrade the capability of these boxes?

[Phoenix32]

I suspect your "Location" says it all, however...

In one sense it would be a good thing because it would allow those with 4100's to be able to put larger drives in, and many people have wanted that.

But, in another sense, it is almost a waste. Why? Because I had several 4000's with 1 TB in them and it drove me nuts. Go ahead, try moving say 200 or 300 GB of data over 100baseT. Hell with that! I supose if you wanted it just for say an MP3 Library, you would only have to do the l-o-n-g transfer once, but it would still stink IMO.

To each their own, but this is why I have Guardian units.

[Harbinger]

Originally Posted by Phoenix32

...But, in another sense, it is almost a waste. Why? Because I had several 4000's with 1 TB in them and it drove me nuts. Go ahead, try moving say 200 or 300 GB of data over 100baseT. Hell with that! I supose if you wanted it just for say an MP3 Library, you would only have to do the l-o-n-g transfer once, but it would still stink IMO...

That's precisely the use I had in mind. It would be a sweet machine just to keep music on, and having RAID 5 safety is an added bonus. As the machine sits it would hold a lot of music, but it would be even better if it were larger.

Yup, the initial transfer time would stink. Then again, I could start it and let it go a l-o-n-g time while I did other things...like, live my life.