# is it possible to use $109 Seagate 2TB external eSATA/Firewire/USB drive with 722k?



## Guest (Sep 9, 2009)

is it possible to use $109 Seagate 2TB external eSATA/Firewire/USB drive with 722k?

I only managed to buy one at $109, because the store
discovered the pricing mistake and pulled it from their
website. It was delivered this morning.

The model number is: ST320005FPA2E3-RK

If not, I'll just use it with my PC....

thanks!


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

You'll need a usb to esata adapter plus a power supply for the drive.

I bought a USB 2.0 SATA dock that I use with my SATA drives, not sure if it will work with ESATA.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

1. Yes, the drive will work just fine; nothing else needed (it already has a USB interface, needed to work with the 722).

2. You will NOT be able to take advantage of the size of the drive, as the 722 will only create 2 500MB partitions, for a max of 1 TB of space.


----------



## thorrall (Oct 1, 2006)

I think it will actually use up to 1.5 TB of space. Dish's website claims compatibility of drives up to that capacity, and I am presently using such a drive successfully. Anyone?


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

My manual says that only drives up to 500MB are supported.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

MLBurks said:


> My manual says that only drives up to 500MB are supported.


Printed manuals, are outdated, before they are even printed.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MLBurks said:


> My manual says that only drives up to 500MB are supported.


I've always used 750GB drives.


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

GrumpyBear said:


> Printed manuals, are outdated, before they are even printed.


I wish I would have knows that as I would have gotten a larger hard drive.


----------



## ChuckA (Feb 7, 2006)

MLBurks said:


> I wish I would have knows that as I would have gotten a larger hard drive.


Just ask the question here and you should get a quick response that is hopefully accurate too.


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

ChuckA said:


> Just ask the question here and you should get a quick response that is hopefully accurate too.


The story of my life. I learn everything after it's too late.:shrug::lol:


----------



## ChuckA (Feb 7, 2006)

Naw, you'll fill that little sucker up in no time and be out buying another! This time you will be armed with the right data. It's never too late to buy another.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

thorrall said:


> I think it will actually use up to 1.5 TB of space. Dish's website claims compatibility of drives up to that capacity, and I am presently using such a drive successfully. Anyone?


It will work fine, but you'll only be able to use 1 TB of the space.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

BattleZone said:


> It will work fine, but you'll only be able to use 1 TB of the space.


It will not work with current FW. See my posts about testing 2 TB disk inside 622/722 and 211/411.

But 1.5 TB will works fine for full amount - tested, a report posted also.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I know 1TB works, because I'm using one... and have seen the posts where 1.5 TB drives have worked too. I have not yet seen anyone say a 2TB worked.

That said, if the 2TB drive can be purchased for that price I'd have bought it anyway as I'm sure there will be some way you can use it for something at that price!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I did try 2 TB disk and posted results and did explain why is that.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

You're better off with the smaller drive, you lose fewer recordings when it fails.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> I did try 2 TB disk and posted results and did explain why is that.


Is there any chance that you could link to these results that you refer to so very often?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I hope the search button with filtering by author and by forum could help (sorry, I don't keep URLs to my own posts).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

It took some wading and a few wild guesses about your special usage of English language, but I found this post: http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2145329&postcount=17

Essentially, it notes that DISH uses 500GB partitions and that you would need more than the maximum four primary partitions to go beyond 1.6TB.

I'm not sure I buy the theory, but it seems to explain the limitation.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> It took some wading and a few wild guesses about your special usage of English language, but I found this post: http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2145329&postcount=17
> 
> Essentially, it notes that DISH uses 500GB partitions and that you would need more than the maximum four primary partitions to go beyond 1.6TB.
> 
> I'm not sure I buy the theory, but it seems to explain the limitation.


I'm not selling it.  It's came as most likely reason.

If you have your own - share it here.


----------

