# HR34 and 4TB External Drive



## docderwood (Oct 27, 2006)

Curious if anyone has tried a 4TB (Western Digital WD4000FYYZ) external drive with the new HR34 software (which I think may allow greater than 2tb?)....


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

docderwood said:


> Curious if anyone has tried a 4TB (Western Digital WD4000FYYZ) external drive with the new HR34 software (which I think may allow greater than 2tb?)....


I'm not using that specific drive but I'm running a 9TB RAID 5 array using the enclosure below. Works great, no problems.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006MB9B2E/ref=oh_details_o06_s00_i00

This is the drive I'm using:

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Barra...F8&qid=1348866322&sr=1-1&keywords=seagate+3TB


----------



## docderwood (Oct 27, 2006)

Thx for the info...like the simplicity of slapping a giant drive in an enclosure (understanding the risk of losing all your shows if it fails...no redundancy)


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

docderwood said:


> Thx for the info...like the simplicity of slapping a giant drive in an enclosure (understanding the risk of losing all your shows if it fails...no redundancy)


You could also get this enclosure and a pair of 3TB drives. Set it up as RAID 1 and not lose recordings unless the HR34 itself dies.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007QQ4584/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> You could also get this enclosure and a pair of 3TB drives. Set it up as RAID 1 and not lose recordings *unless the HR34 itself dies.*


That's the problem that needs fixing, not just on the 34, but on the rest of the HR lineup. All we need is the ability to have any HR within an account be able to read any HDD with content recorded by HRs within the same account.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> That's the problem that needs fixing, not just on the 34, but on the rest of the HR lineup. All we need is the ability to have any HR within an account be able to read any HDD with content recorded by HRs within the same account.
> 
> Rich


Agreed


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rich said:


> That's the problem that needs fixing, not just on the 34, but on the rest of the HR lineup. All we need is the ability to have any HR within an account be able to read any HDD with content recorded by HRs within the same account.
> 
> Rich


Amen.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Agreed


Time to start another thread about this? I've bombed out on a couple threads regarding this, but times have changed and I do believe I'll start another one. Maybe D* will listen this time.

Rich


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Good idea. Also If you would add a poll to it, it would show DTV how many members want it yesterday.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Good idea. Also If you would add a poll to it, it would show DTV how many members want it yesterday.


I was gonna do a poll, but every time I start one I screw it up.

Rich


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

I vote that you start a poll.


----------



## grahambanks (Nov 14, 2012)

RunnerFL said:


> I'm not using that specific drive but I'm running a 9TB RAID 5 array using the enclosure below. Works great, no problems.


Cool. I am not too familiar with RAID, but I think could set that up. What happens if one of the drives fails? Do you lose everything?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Argentina ?

Pure technical curiosity: what size of dishes (I know all sats must be on own dish) you have ? 3m ?5m ?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

grahambanks said:


> Cool. I am not too familiar with RAID, but I think could set that up.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels


----------



## D1vad (Nov 13, 2012)

RunnerFL said:


> I'm not using that specific drive but I'm running a 9TB RAID 5 array using the enclosure below. Works great, no problems.
> 
> Snip...


So are you saying you've passed the two hundred hour limit? Or just that it is attached, and appears to be working? Thanks for the info.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> I'm not using that specific drive but I'm running a 9TB RAID 5 array using the enclosure below. Works great, no problems.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006MB9B2E/ref=oh_details_o06_s00_i00
> 
> ...


9 TBs?!?! And people think I'm nuts for wanting 3 TBs lol How many hours you get with bottomless pit? lol


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

D1vad said:


> So are you saying you've passed the two hundred hour limit? Or just that it is attached, and appears to be working? Thanks for the info.


Yes, I have over 200 hours of recordings on it. I know for a fact the partition is 9TB.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> 9 TBs?!?! And people think I'm nuts for wanting 3 TBs lol How many hours you get with bottomless pit? lol


I haven't even bothered to do the math.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't know about a 9tb system, but I will seriously consider going raid if the single point of failure issue is resolved (and someone tests putting it on a different DVR, which I know will be tried the first night.)


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> I don't know about a 9tb system, but I will seriously consider going raid if the single point of failure issue is resolved (and someone tests putting it on a different DVR, which I know will be tried the first night.)


I've got RAID setups on a couple of units now. If they, I'm not holding my breath, make it so that the content is tied to an account and not a dvice then I'll go RAID on all my DVRs.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I've got RAID setups on a couple of units now. If they, I'm not holding my breath, make it so that the content is tied to an account and not a dvice then I'll go RAID on all my DVRs.


What HDDs are you using? If they are WD drives you might want to check the WD specs pages. WD doesn't recommend the Green Caviar drives for RAID enclosures, but they do recommend the Red Drives for RAID setups. Just found this out yesterday.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> What HDDs are you using? If they are WD drives you might want to check the WD specs pages. WD doesn't recommend the Green Caviar drives for RAID enclosures, but they do recommend the Red Drives for RAID setups. Just found this out yesterday.
> 
> Rich


I'm using Seagate drives in most of my stuff. I do have one RAID enclosure with WD drives but they are black label enterprise class drives.


----------



## Rickt1962 (Jul 17, 2012)

Rich said:


> What HDDs are you using? If they are WD drives you might want to check the WD specs pages. WD doesn't recommend the Green Caviar drives for RAID enclosures, but they do recommend the Red Drives for RAID setups. Just found this out yesterday.
> 
> Rich


Hmm well that sucks ! I know the green drives are cheap 2tb's just over a 100 bucks !


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Rickt1962 said:


> Hmm well that sucks ! I know the green drives are cheap 2tb's just over a 100 bucks !


Not that far from specifically mentioned "black" type, but just some changes in FW made them "enterprise" class with triple tag price.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I'm using Seagate drives in most of my stuff. I do have one RAID enclosure with WD drives but they are black label enterprise class drives.


Didn't read the specs for the Black drives. That WD site is nasty to navigate.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Rickt1962 said:


> Hmm well that sucks ! I know the green drives are cheap 2tb's just over a 100 bucks !


~ the same price as the Red Caviars I saw on Amazon yesterday.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Not that far from specifically mentioned "black" type, but just some changes in FW made them "enterprise" class with triple tag price.


Do you know if a SATA III drive will work on an HR?

Rich


----------



## Jacob Braun (Oct 6, 2011)

Rich said:


> Do you know if a SATA III drive will work on an HR?
> 
> Rich


SATA III is backwards compatible, so yes, they will!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JBv said:


> SATA III is backwards compatible, so yes, they will!


Thanx, now if some kind soul will buy one and try it...

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> Didn't read the specs for the Black drives. That WD site is nasty to navigate.
> 
> Rich


Yeah it is... They're the same drives we use at work in various RAID configurations. The same ones DELL uses in new servers. I sure hope they are ok for RAID setups. :lol:


----------



## Beckzilla (Oct 29, 2007)

Rich said:


> That's the problem that needs fixing, not just on the 34, but on the rest of the HR lineup. All we need is the ability to have any HR within an account be able to read any HDD with content recorded by HRs within the same account.
> 
> Rich


I could not agree more!!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Yeah it is... They're the same drives we use at work in various RAID configurations. The same ones DELL uses in new servers. I sure hope they are ok for RAID setups. :lol:


I was surprised to see that caveat about the Green Caviars and their incompatibility with RAID setups. That could have been there for years, I just happened to spot it.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> I was surprised to see that caveat about the Green Caviars and their incompatibility with RAID setups. That could have been there for years, I just happened to spot it.
> 
> Rich


I'm not sure I understand it myself really.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Beckzilla said:


> I could not agree more!!


I have a feeling D* is gonna have to do something about swapping HDDs within an account because of the HR34. For "power users", the five tuners and 1TB drive just about demand that an external drive be put on the 34s. If the 34 fails, and they all do eventually, all recordings are lost, no matter how big an external drive you put on them, the way it stands now.

BTW, I have absolutely no "inside" info on this, it's just speculation. A lot of us would like to see this happen, but we've been fighting for it for years and nobody at D* seems to care.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I'm not sure I understand it myself really.


I should have bookmarked that page, I don't know if I could find it again.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> I should have bookmarked that page, I don't know if I could find it again.
> 
> Rich


I tried searching "Green RAID" on their site and it gave me a link to a document. I clicked on that link and it just took me back to their home page. I copy/pasted the link and it just took me back to their home page. Looks like WD doesn't want anyone reading their docs.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I tried searching "Green RAID" on their site and it gave me a link to a document. I clicked on that link and it just took me back to their home page. I copy/pasted the link and it just took me back to their home page. Looks like WD doesn't want anyone reading their docs.


I'll try to find it. I searched for Red Cavs and found it in little tiny letters. Easy to miss.

Rich


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I'm not sure I understand it myself really.


It has to do with the error recovery procedure within the drive. Although it doesn't happen often these days, a given read or write may fail the first time (or first few times) but work if retried. The difference between enterprise and desktop drives is how aggressive/persistent the firmware is. That is, how many times will it retry and/or how long it will retry.

"Enterprise"/"RAID compatible" drives limit how long they will retry internally. This is so that duration is less than the time the RAID controller uses to decide the drive is bad.

"Desktop" drives either don't limit at all or have a limit that is too long. When used in a RAID configuration the drive might be considered defective when it is doing internal retries.

A failed sector on a drive does not necessarily mean the drive is a goner. Sector failures in a RAID configuration can easily be overcome as if nothing has happened. But to do that the RAID controller must know that it's a bad sector and not a bad drive (as evidenced by the drive not responding at all because it's hammering away on retries).

Bottom line is don't use desktop drives in RAID.

It isn't just a different setting in firmware that makes a desktop drive a lot cheaper. The warranty is a lot less. The quality is less at some manufacturing locations. For example, I understand that the latest Seagate desktop drives are manufactured in China and have a much higher failure rate as a result.


----------



## franklin_planner (Oct 12, 2011)

Forgive me for "dumbing this down" but can someone explain the difference between the drive the OP talked about and the WD4001FAEX? Will either/both work in a BlackX enclosure? The WD4001FAEX is less expensive. Thanks.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

franklin_planner said:


> Forgive me for "dumbing this down" but can someone explain the difference between the drive the OP talked about and the WD4001FAEX? Will either/both work in a BlackX enclosure? The WD4001FAEX is less expensive. Thanks.


None of the BlacX have any RAID capability so it doesn't matter if the drive is RAID-friendly or not.

At a minimum, any RAID requires at least 2 drives. And it must have a RAID controller in the enclosure. This makes the multiple drives look like a single drive to the DVR. The BlacX Duet is dual drive *but does not contain a RAID controller* so even though it's only one cable (requiring the host to have a SATA port-multiplier-capable controller) the host software sees it as 2 distinct drives - which we know is useless for a DVR.

For completeness, the WD4000FYYZ is an enterprise drive and is RAID-friendly. The WD4001FAEX is a desktop drive and is not designed for RAID.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

unixguru said:


> None of the BlacX have any RAID capability so it doesn't matter if the drive is RAID-friendly or not.
> 
> At a minimum, any RAID requires at least 2 drives. And it must have a RAID controller in the enclosure. This makes the multiple drives look like a single drive to the DVR. The BlacX Duet is dual drive *but does not contain a RAID controller* so even though it's only one cable (requiring the host to have a SATA port-multiplier-capable controller) the host software sees it as 2 distinct drives - which we know is useless for a DVR.
> 
> For completeness, the WD4000FYYZ is an enterprise drive and is RAID-friendly. The WD4001FAEX is a desktop drive and is not designed for RAID.


Can the HR line deal with RAID 1? Would this impact performance?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> Can the HR line deal with RAID 1? Would this impact performance?


I have 2 HR's running RAID1 right now and tested another running RAID5. The one that was running RAID5 is now running RAID0. No issues at all.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Don't the risks of raid 0 greatly exceed the benefit?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Don't the risks of raid 0 greatly exceed the benefit?


What risk? There's no redundancy but I certainly don't see that as a risk.

It's no different than running off of one drive.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I'd see it as less reliable than running it off one. If either drive dies, you lose it. It seems to me there is a greater chance of that happening than one drive. 

Of course we're not talking mission critical data here, and we know if the DVR dies, you lose everything essentially. But it's adding one more component to the mix.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

that's right and he knew that


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> I'd see it as less reliable than running it off one. If either drive dies, you lose it. It seems to me there is a greater chance of that happening than one drive.
> 
> Of course we're not talking mission critical data here, and we know if the DVR dies, you lose everything essentially. But it's adding one more component to the mix.


I don't see it as a risk at all. If you're running off 1 drive and 1 drive fails you lose everything. If you're running RAID0 and you lose 1 drive you lose everything. Like I said before, it's no different than running off one drive.

The odds of 1 of the 2 drives in a RAID0 array failing are the same as 1 drive in a 1 drive setup failing.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

P Smith said:


> that's right and he knew that


Please don't speak for me. I know what I said and meant it.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

RunnerFL said:


> The odds of 1 of the 2 drives in a RAID0 array failing are the same as 1 drive in a 1 drive setup failing.


The odds of each single one failing is the same, but it's twice as likely as there are twice as many drives .


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> The odds of each single one failing is the same, but it's twice as likely as there are twice as many drives .


But a single failure is still a total loss. If it only takes a single drive failure to lose everything then the odds of you losing everything are the same as a single drive system. Same result, same odds, more space.

I use Enterprise Level drives, odds are lower.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, I was pretty good at statistics, and heartily disagree, but I think that's where we'll end up unless a math whiz comes along.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Well, I was pretty good at statistics, and heartily disagree, but I think that's where we'll end up unless a math whiz comes along.


How is a single drive failure different than a single drive failure? :lol:


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Laxguy said:


> Well, I was pretty good at statistics, and heartily disagree, but I think that's where we'll end up unless a math whiz comes along.


You're right , there is clearly demonstrated missing knowledge.

The rule is simple: total reliability is a product of multiplying all part's reliability.

Say one HDD has reliability equal 90% [0.9], then two same HDD will has total 0.81 ie 81%. Any engineer knows that and it shouldn't be discussed here.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> I'd see it as less reliable than running it off one. If either drive dies, you lose it. It seems to me there is a greater chance of that happening than one drive.


If experience of the hardcore users is any indication, the DVR will likely die before either of the hard drives dies.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Any engineer knows that and it shouldn't be discussed here.


There are few engineers here so it bears repeating.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

P Smith said:


> You're right , there is clearly demonstrated missing knowledge.
> 
> The rule is simple: total reliability is a product of multiplying all part's reliability.
> 
> Say one HDD has reliability equal 90% [0.9], then two same HDD will has total 0.81 ie 81%. Any engineer knows that and it shouldn't be discussed here.


True, over the total lifetime of the two drives, and that is the calculation for RAID 0. However, the whole point of RAID 1 is to exploit the fact that the failure of a drive is likely to happen at *any* point over the entire expected lifetime of the drive (as stated in the MTBF rating). Therefore, the likelihood of both drives failing at the same time is vanishingly small. I honestly don't see the point of RAID 0 in a DVR use case. The DVRs don't need the extra drive performance, and buying two 1TB drives is more expensive than one 2TB drive.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"harsh" said:


> If experience of the hardcore users is any indication, the DVR will likely die before either of the hard drives dies.


Very possible. This is one reason I'm not doing a raid setup until the policy changes.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Well, *I was pretty good at statistics*, and heartily disagree, but I think that's where we'll end up unless a math whiz comes along.


Validate that. Tell me what the odds are on hitting a home run the next time you get up after hitting a home run. And if you do hit a home run in successive at bats, what are the odds on hitting a third one?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> If experience of the hardcore users is any indication, the DVR will likely die before either of the hard drives dies.


Agreed and that's the problem we all face. Make the HRs and HDDs compatible with each other within an account and the problem goes away instantly.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Diana C said:


> I honestly don't see the point of RAID 0 in a DVR use case.


Space. 2 x 2TB = 4TB.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Maybe WD will have a 4TB AV drive soon, since they have a 4TB Black drive.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rich said:


> Validate that. Tell me what the odds are on hitting a home run the next time you get up after hitting a home run. And if you do hit a home run in successive at bats, what are the odds on hitting a third one?
> 
> Rich


I did say _*was*_....!

The odds of me hitting the first homer are vanishingly small, but assuming they are constant, it'd be the same for each successive at bat. That's assuming constancy, of which there's very little in a real life BB. I'd be pitched to differently after astonishing everyone in the ball park on the first homer, and, after the second dinger, clearly walked in my third a.b., or h.b.p. 
:hurah:


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"harsh" said:


> If experience of the hardcore users is any indication, the DVR will likely die before either of the hard drives dies.


That's the exact opposite of what i have seen with my DVrs.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

kevinturcotte said:


> Can the HR line deal with RAID 1? Would this impact performance?


Sure. A "host" (DVR) doesn't know whether it's talking to a single directly connected drive or a fake virtualized drive presented by a RAID controller.

I've been running RAID 1 since the HR20 first came out. First with Sans Digital and the last few years with a CalDigit VR. Never a problem with the HR. Search my posts for details.

There should not be any performance impact for RAID 1. Writes go to both drives at the same time. Reads can come from either drive so reading can actually be faster (for a given block use the drive whose head is the closest minimizing seek time).

Other levels of RAID might negatively impact performance. A cheap/older RAID 5 or 6 array might be slower because of the need to calculate (in the controller) checksums for writes.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

unixguru said:


> Sure. A "host" (DVR) doesn't know whether it's talking to a single directly connected drive or a fake virtualized drive presented by a RAID controller.
> 
> I've been running RAID 1 since the HR20 first came out. First with Sans Digital and the last few years with a CalDigit VR. Never a problem with the HR. Search my posts for details.
> 
> ...


Even an HR34, writing 5 stream at once, 2 of which might by OTA HD, don't effect performance? I would *THINK* it would, having to "Double write" everything?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> I did say _*was*_....!
> 
> The odds of me hitting the first homer are vanishingly small, but assuming they are constant, it'd be the same for each successive at bat. That's assuming constancy, of which there's very little in a real life BB. I'd be pitched to differently after astonishing everyone in the ball park on the first homer, and, after the second dinger, clearly walked in my third a.b., or h.b.p.
> :hurah:


Validated! Good for you! And you did it quickly enough to make me believe you didn't Google the answer.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> That's the exact opposite of what i have seen with my DVrs.


Over 60 HRs since '06, I've had, and only a couple HDD failures that I was sure of. All the HRs I returned were definitely bad. I guess this is an argument we'll have from time to time. Both valid, both based on experience, but so different... :lol:

Rich


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

kevinturcotte said:


> Even an HR34, writing 5 stream at once, 2 of which might by OTA HD, don't effect performance? I would *THINK* it would, having to "Double write" everything?


It would *if* the double write happened sequentially. It doesn't. The RAID controller sends writes to both drives at the same time.

Disk I/O is not an atomic operation at the device level. It's a command/response situation. Thus command, command, wait, response, response is perfectly normal. The wait (or more accurately wait, wait) time is far larger than the command or response time.

In a small-scale RAID the drives don't even share a physical/electrical channel; each is wired directly to the RAID controller.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Rich said:


> Over 60 HRs since '06, I've had, and only a couple HDD failures that I was sure of. All the HRs I returned were definitely bad. I guess this is an argument we'll have from time to time. Both valid, both based on experience, but so different... :lol:


This has probably been discussed before. With a fairly large sample such as this and more non-drive failures than drive failures, I believe you have one or more environmental issues.

"Dirty" power
Improperly installed dish or wiring (bad grounds, lightning/static sensitivity)
Thermal problems (inadequate ventilation, etc)


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

unixguru said:


> It would *if* the double write happened sequentially. It doesn't. The RAID controller sends writes to both drives at the same time.
> 
> Disk I/O is not an atomic operation at the device level. It's a command/response situation. Thus command, command, wait, response, response is perfectly normal. The wait (or more accurately wait, wait) time is far larger than the command or response time.
> 
> In a small-scale RAID the drives don't even share a physical/electrical channel; each is wired directly to the RAID controller.


After having two expensive (~$500) RAID boxes fail within a year I've been kinda leery about them. What is the best one to buy? Best one being the one you'd get if you were buying one today.

Rich


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Rich said:


> After having two expensive (~$500) RAID boxes fail within a year I've been kinda leery about them. What is the best one to buy? Best one being the one you'd get if you were buying one today.


Hope that price included the drives!

I've gone through 2 older Sans Digital models and would never buy again.

I've had a CalDigit VR for the last 3 years. First on HR20 and now HR34. Love it. Have upgraded drives in it once and will be doing again soon (only trick is you need a special security screwdriver for screws in drive trays). Runs very cool and as quiet as it can be - external power brick. The VR may be limited to 2x2TB so max 2TB RAID 1. (Also configure for "Turbo" mode as it's optimized for video.)

If I had to buy today I'd either get a used VR or the newer VR2. (There is a used one on eBay 4TB for $280 expires in a few hours.)

Unfortunately you can't buy the enclosure without drives. It's relatively expensive. But keep in mind you must use enterprise/RAID class drives so it really isn't unreasonably priced.

Note: CalDigit VR *Mini* is different model than CalDigit VR


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

unixguru said:


> This has probably been discussed before. With a fairly large sample such as this and more non-drive failures than drive failures, I believe you have one or more environmental issues.
> 
> "Dirty" power
> Improperly installed dish or wiring (bad grounds, lightning/static sensitivity)
> Thermal problems (inadequate ventilation, etc)


Most of the problems were early on and due to HDMI incompatibility with my TVs.

I've been an electrician for many years and I don't have "dirty" power.

Improper installations have been a problem that has caused many of my HR failures.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

unixguru said:


> Hope that price included the drives!


Was awhile ago, but I think they came with two 1TB drives in each one.



> I've gone through 2 older Sans Digital models and would never buy again.
> 
> I've had a CalDigit VR for the last 3 years. First on HR20 and now HR34. Love it. Have upgraded drives in it once and will be doing again soon (only trick is you need a special security screwdriver for screws in drive trays). Runs very cool and as quiet as it can be - external power brick. The VR may be limited to 2x2TB so max 2TB RAID 1. (Also configure for "Turbo" mode as it's optimized for video.)


I've got all the security screwdrivers. So CalDigit VR, huh? I'll lock that in the vault for future use. Thanx.



> Unfortunately you can't buy the enclosure without drives. It's relatively expensive. But keep in mind you must use enterprise/RAID class drives so it really isn't unreasonably priced.


The new WD Red Caviar are recommended for RAIDs and they're not that expensive.

Just curious about the RAID boxes. At the moment, I have nothing I can do with one. But, you never know...

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Rich" said:


> Over 60 HRs since '06, I've had, and only a couple HDD failures that I was sure of. All the HRs I returned were definitely bad. I guess this is an argument we'll have from time to time. Both valid, both based on experience, but so different... :lol:
> 
> Rich


Hey,I've always said you have a very unique issue. I don't recall seeing anyone else go through as many as you have! 

But other than fan and power supply, I see no reason for anything else to regularly break in these things anyway. I have a feeling the number one issue that DIRECTV has other than hard drives though is power supply's, and then maybe the fans.

But yeah, everyone is different. I just don't see enough people asking about issues that are likely non hard drive but definitely DVR related to think that hard drives aren't the number one issue by far, after install issues. I think installs are probably the number one issue in general people have with DIRECTV systems.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Rich said:


> The new WD Red Caviar are recommended for RAIDs and they're not that expensive.


Wasn't aware of these - thanks. Will have to try them next time I upgrade...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Hey,I've always said you have a very unique issue. I don't recall seeing anyone else go through as many as you have!


The actual number of HRs that I have received as replacements is actually higher than 60. I think 60 is around the number that were activated. A lot came in pieces or just wouldn't power up. They went right back.



> But other than fan and power supply, I see no reason for anything else to regularly break in these things anyway. I have a feeling the number one issue that DIRECTV has other than hard drives though is power supply's, and then maybe the fans.


I've also had HRs that wouldn't work with my remotes unless I stood a foot away from the HR. I had a couple that got into 771 loops and wouldn't do anything but search for signals. Meanwhile, 10 or 11 other HRs were working fine. I had a 24-500, I think it was my first one, that went completely bonkers. Damn thing would do whatever it wanted to whenever it wanted to. I had a new 21-200 that started smoking the first night it was activated. I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.

Most of the HRs I activated had big HDD in or on them and I'm still using all the 2TB HDDs (except for one and I'm not positive it was bad) that were in/on them.



> But yeah, everyone is different. I just don't see enough people asking about issues that are likely non hard drive but definitely DVR related to think that hard drives aren't the number one issue by far, after install issues. I think installs are probably the number one issue in general people have with DIRECTV systems.


I don't remember exactly when it happened, but there was a time when HDD complaints were rare, then it seemed as if everyone was blaming the HDDs for everything.

My main reasons for all the replacements were bad installs and HDMI incompatibility. But the replacements rarely worked correctly either. Most of my problems were from late '06 to the spring of '08. Since then, I've had few problems.

Factor in my lousy luck, I'm the kind of guy you want to see walk into a craps game with a big wad of money, and that accounts for most of the HRs. The upside is I've learned a lot about these beasts. More than I want to know... :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

unixguru said:


> Wasn't aware of these - thanks. Will have to try them next time I upgrade...


I still have to find the place on the WD website that states the Greens aren't meant to be used in RAID boxes. The Reds are.

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> True, over the total lifetime of the two drives, and that is the calculation for RAID 0. However, the whole point of RAID 1 is to exploit the fact that the failure of a drive is likely to happen at *any* point over the entire expected lifetime of the drive (as stated in the MTBF rating).


But given my point that the DVR seems more likely to fail, having a redundant RAID is of limited usefulness or appeal.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Rich said:


> I still have to find the place on the WD website that states the Greens aren't meant to be used in RAID boxes. The Reds are.


Footnote in bottom right corner... http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=780

Probably didn't say this until the Reds were announced.

Good article here.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Are their AV drives raid supported?

I always thought it was a bad idea to use a non av drive for a DVR because of the error correction etc.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

unixguru said:


> Footnote in bottom right corner... http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=780
> 
> Probably didn't say this until the Reds were announced.


Thanx. That isn't where I saw it, but what I saw said the same thing. That website is really something to navigate thru.



> Good article here.


Let me read that.

Rich


----------



## BAHitman (Oct 24, 2007)

I just moved from 4x750G RAID5 to 4x3TB RAID5 in my Promise SmartStor DS4600 enclosure (I have 2 of these enclosures)... I moved all the recordings over and went from 2% free to 76% free.

The 750's were some old WD's I had lying around, the 3TB's are the WD RED drives. 

My observations: The RED drives are ALOT quieter and cooler than the 750's were... and the fan on the RAID box is either on it's lowest speed or off. these are some of the coolest HDD'S I have seed. No performance differences noticed thus far...


----------



## Podkayne (Nov 1, 2007)

So, what then is the external drive storage limit on the HR 34? 3TB, 9TB, whatever you want?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

WD Red drives? Their website only shows Black and Green and a couple other names without colors. What is the "red" drive all about?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Podkayne said:


> So, what then is the external drive storage limit on the HR 34? 3TB, 9TB, whatever you want?


I've tested up to 12TB.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> WD Red drives? Their website only shows Black and Green and a couple other names without colors. What is the "red" drive all about?


They are marketing them as NAS drives.

http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digit...354068079&sr=8-1&keywords=western+digital+red


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> WD Red drives? Their website only shows Black and Green and a couple other names without colors. What is the "red" drive all about?


http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=810


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

BAHitman said:


> I just moved from 4x750G RAID5 to 4x3TB RAID5 in my Promise SmartStor DS4600 enclosure (I have 2 of these enclosures)... I moved all the recordings over and went from 2% free to 76% free.
> 
> The 750's were some old WD's I had lying around, the 3TB's are the WD RED drives.
> 
> My observations: The RED drives are ALOT quieter and cooler than the 750's were... and the fan on the RAID box is either on it's lowest speed or off. these are some of the coolest HDD'S I have seed. No performance differences noticed thus far...


Cutting through the Intelli* marketing, the GREEN and RED are 5400 rpm. Your old drives were probably 7200. That does a lot to reduce noise and heat (and power consumption!).

The number of DVR streams supported today really have no use for faster rpm.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> WD Red drives? Their website only shows Black and Green and a couple other names without colors. What is the "red" drive all about?


Wonderful website isn't it? I damn near went nutz trying to find the warning about using Green Caviars in RAID boxes. If it wasn't for *unixguru *I'd still be looking for it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

unixguru said:


> Cutting through the Intelli* marketing, the GREEN and RED are 5400 rpm. Your old drives were probably 7200. That does a lot to reduce noise and heat (and power consumption!).
> 
> The number of DVR streams supported today really have no use for faster rpm.


Ever figure out why the Green Caviars aren't recommended for RAID setups?

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I believe it's because of issues like time required to wake up, or if it hits a bad sector and goes into a longer recovery scan. This can cause the drive to get dropped from the array. I don't think they support Time Limited Error Recovery.

This may not be an issue with all RAID controllers etc, but they pretty much have to make a blanket statement.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I believe it's because of issues like time required to wake up, or if it hits a bad sector and goes into a longer recovery scan. This can cause the drive to get dropped from the array. I don't think they support Time Limited Error Recovery.
> 
> This may not be an issue with all RAID controllers etc, but they pretty much have to make a blanket statement.


Whoosh!!! Went right over my head with that one! But at least I can see some reasoning for the warning, I guess.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> I believe it's because of issues like time required to wake up, or if it hits a bad sector and goes into a longer recovery scan. This can cause the drive to get dropped from the array. I don't think they support Time Limited Error Recovery.
> 
> This may not be an issue with all RAID controllers etc, but they pretty much have to make a blanket statement.


It wouldn't be wake up, RAID never sleeps. If a drive is in a RAID array it never spins down. Bad sector recovery is plausible though.

It probably has more to do with the quality of the parts in the drive itself. Since Green are the bottom of the line WD drives putting them in a RAID array probably shortens their lifespan.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Basically, if the drive hits a bad sector, it can spend up to 30 seconds trying to repair it, move data off etc. I don't think it really responds to the controller during this period, so at least potentially the array could think the drive had failed, dropping it.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Basically, if the drive hits a bad sector, it can spend up to 30 seconds trying to repair it, move data off etc. I don't think it really responds to the controller during this period, so at least potentially the array could think the drive had failed, dropping it.


That depends on the controller and whether or not there is a write caching battery. This leads back to you saying it's probably a blanket statement. I think you're right there. The green drives may be just fine with a higher quality RAID controller with write caching but to be safe they just said no to RAID for the green drives.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> That depends on the controller and whether or not there is a write caching battery. This leads back to you saying it's probably a blanket statement. I think you're right there. The green drives may be just fine with a higher quality RAID controller with write caching but to be safe they just said no to RAID for the green drives.


Unlikely that the kind of controllers we are talking about, 2-4 drives, would have any kind of battery.

Even if they did, it wouldn't help. Every RAID controller is going to decide a drive is dead when it doesn't respond after some period of time. Once it decides it isn't going to automatically change it's mind. Even if it did keep retrying access after it has marked a drive dead it isn't going to automatically bring it back if it starts working again. The logic is if the drive didn't respond reasonably then there is something wrong with it. You don't want to start using a questionable drive again - and likely have it fail again. The longer you play games like that the higher the probability that other drive(s) in the RAID group will develop a problem which increases the risk of losing all integrity of your data. RAID is about reliability and one errs on the conservative side. Of course a manual intervention can tell the RAID controller to bring the drive back - with cheap no-knob RAID this is done by ejecting the drive and reinserting it.

My guess is that a "RED" drive is basically the same as a "GREEN" drive with some firmware tweaks (i.e. a few of the enterprise-class options).

I'd speculate that most/all the models are mostly the same physical device. Maybe the platters are graded/sorted. Possibly different speeds of the controller chip. Different cache RAM sizes. Different firmware (rpms, options, etc). The only reason to do all this complexity is price (to customer). Basically the physical device is mostly the same cost to manufacture no matter what model.


----------



## franklin_planner (Oct 12, 2011)

Can anyone confirm that the Thermaltake BlacX ST0005U will recognize all 3TB of a Western Digital WD AV-GP WD30EURS 3TB drive connected to an HR34?

I have had good luck with that enclosure with the 2TB version on my HR24.

Thanks for any help.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

franklin_planner said:


> Can anyone confirm that the Thermaltake BlacX ST0005U will recognize all 3TB of a Western Digital WD AV-GP WD30EURS 3TB drive connected to an HR34?
> 
> I have had good luck with that enclosure with the 2TB version on my HR24.
> 
> Thanks for any help.


Let us know how it works. Info is sketchy right now on what works with the 34s.

Rich


----------



## ScottBRLa (Jan 8, 2013)

RunnerFL said:


> I'm not using that specific drive but I'm running a 9TB RAID 5 array using the enclosure below. Works great, no problems.
> 
> This is the drive I'm using:


I subscribed to DirecTV yesterday, and the installer will be bringing my new HR34 next Friday. I apologize for an elementary question, but I'm not incredibly tech savvy. If I buy the items you referenced, I can pretty much "plug and play"? And take advantage of 9TB of DVR storage on my HR34? Or, do the hard drives require some setup?

Thanks for any advice you can give.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I'd suggest you take your time. The Genie has, for me, plenty of space. All depends on your viewing habits. I personally don't want a large library, and I never keep sporting events. Just movies and a few series. Mileage varies, but RunnerFL's set up is quite sophisticated.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

ScottBRLa said:


> I subscribed to DirecTV yesterday, and the installer will be bringing my new HR34 next Friday. I apologize for an elementary question, but I'm not incredibly tech savvy. If I buy the items you referenced, I can pretty much "plug and play"? And take advantage of 9TB of DVR storage on my HR34? Or, do the hard drives require some setup?
> 
> Thanks for any advice you can give.


It's not exactly plug and play, no, but it's not difficult. Once you get the enclosure setup and hook it up to the HR34 then the HR34 will setup the partitions and such.


----------



## ScottBRLa (Jan 8, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> I'd suggest you take your time. The Genie has, for me, plenty of space. All depends on your viewing habits. I personally don't want a large library, and I never keep sporting events. Just movies and a few series. Mileage varies, but RunnerFL's set up is quite sophisticated.


I've got TiVos I use with cable now, and have 2 TB of storage on my primary, and 1.2 TB each on the two secondary units. Given that all four of my family members will be recording things, and almost entirely in HD, I'm pretty sure we'll run through the 1 TB pretty quickly. Of course, 9 TB is probably overkill....but 6 TB sounds pretty good.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> I'd suggest you take your time.


I have to disagree here. Installation of a brand new unit is the perfect time to add whatever eSATA setup you have. If you wait a few months, or even a few days, you wind up with shows on the internal drive and on the external. As we all know you can't have access to both at the same time.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

ScottBRLa said:


> I've got TiVos I use with cable now, and have 2 TB of storage on my primary, and 1.2 TB each on the two secondary units. Given that all four of my family members will be recording things, and almost entirely in HD, I'm pretty sure we'll run through the 1 TB pretty quickly. Of course, 9 TB is probably overkill....but 6 TB sounds pretty good.


6TB is what I finally wound up doing.


----------



## ScottBRLa (Jan 8, 2013)

RunnerFL said:


> 6TB is what I finally wound up doing.


Excellent....thanks for the advice and your time.


----------



## blueman2 (Jun 10, 2006)

I recently moved from an HR22 to an HR34 Genie. On the HR22, the system would become terribly slow and unresponsive once the built in 500G drive was more than 50% full. Once I had a 2TB drive on it, and it was absolutely unusable when 50% full. 

Does the HR34 suffer the same issue? Are people are using >2TB of recorded material, and still getting good responsiveness from their systems?????

Thanks


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

isn't the thread dedicated to that ? and no one posted how it behave after the drive is 50% full ?


----------



## docderwood (Oct 27, 2006)

Been waiting for someone to try a 4TB drive (w/o raid) and see what happens!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

if tested 3 TB, then 4 TB would be no different


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> isn't the thread dedicated to that ? and no one posted how it behave after the drive is 50% full ?


Should be no problems at 50% full. With any HR. The problems begin to surface between 30% and 20% full. Of course, with an HR22-100, nothing would surprise me.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

docderwood said:


> Been waiting for someone to try a 4TB drive (w/o raid) and see what happens!


Expensive.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> if tested 3 TB, then 4 TB would be no different


Be the same with a 10TB HDD, I would think. But who would do that except for testing purposes?

Rich


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Rich said:


> Be the same with a 10TB HDD, I would think. But who would do that except for testing purposes?
> 
> Rich


Docderwood


----------



## Whiskey River (Apr 7, 2009)

Rickt1962 said:


> Hmm well that sucks ! I know the green drives are cheap 2tb's just over a 100 bucks !


DO NOT USE green caviar drives, THEY WILL FAIL !. Allready replaced those green crapola drives with the RED ones. The Green goes into some sort of bad sector recovery mode endlessly when it encounters a bad spot, and thus causes the RAID to fail and go offline. The RED quickly marks the spot and moves on, allowing the RAID to not go offline. WD made the drives this way to keep RAID people from getting cheap drives. Read their articles about it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Whiskey River said:


> DO NOT USE green caviar drives, THEY WILL FAIL !. Allready replaced those green crapola drives with the RED ones. The Green goes into some sort of bad sector recovery mode endlessly when it encounters a bad spot, and thus causes the RAID to fail and go offline. The RED quickly marks the spot and moves on, allowing the RAID to not go offline. WD made the drives this way to keep RAID people from getting cheap drives. Read their articles about it.


Personally, if I ever get a Genie, I wouldn't use more than a 2TB drive on it. The Green Caviars work quite well in/on all 12 of my HRs. Your point is well taken, tho. I gave up on RAID boxes years ago. Lost two $500 boxes within a year (4 months for one).

Rich


----------



## BAHitman (Oct 24, 2007)

I have 9TB on the back of my Genie and we are at 77% free as of now. that's about 2.07G in use. 

I started with 4x750GB in RAID5 on a Promise DS4600 RAID box last April, and moved the recordings to a 4x3TB back in November and have had no issues. the WD RED drives are much quieter and cooler than the 750's were


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Thats too much recorded content in 1 place....sure you've got the data protected using raid, but whats preventing the box from going out? Those recordings are all useless at that point.


----------



## Steve Rhodes (Oct 4, 2006)

blueman2;3202246 said:


> I recently moved from an HR22 to an HR34 Genie. On the HR22, the system would become terribly slow and unresponsive once the built in 500G drive was more than 50% full. Once I had a 2TB drive on it, and it was absolutely unusable when 50% full.
> 
> Does the HR34 suffer the same issue? Are people are using >2TB of recorded material, and still getting good responsiveness from their systems?????
> 
> Thanks


I have an HR34 with a 2TB internal drive from Weakness that we got quite a while ago. We normally have it 70-85% full with no issues or slowdowns.

I really wish I could have more than one genie in our house. I would love to have 5 tuners on all of my DVRs.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Thats too much recorded content in 1 place....sure you've got the data protected using raid, but whats preventing the box from going out? Those recordings are all useless at that point.


Agree, I do. D* really ought to do something about this.

Rich


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Rich said:


> Agree, I do. D* really ought to do something about this.
> 
> Rich


I have about 5 TB's of storage but its spread across 3 DVR's, not to your extent Rich, but I'm single so I didnt need more than a couple DVR's for my different viewing areas. 2TB's per HR2X gives me about 400-450 hours of HD per DVR....it'll never all get watched. Meaning at some point, even I will lose recordings when an HR goes belly up. BUt I've never lost recordings to a failed HDD since I switched to eSATA. At the 1st sign of any problems, I'm copying the drive over, and voila, like new.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> I have about 5 TB's of storage but its spread across 3 DVR's, not to your extent Rich, but I'm single so I didnt need more than a couple DVR's for my different viewing areas. 2TB's per HR2X gives me about 400-450 hours of HD per DVR....it'll never all get watched. Meaning at some point, even I will lose recordings when an HR goes belly up. BUt I've never lost recordings to a failed HDD since I switched to eSATA. At the 1st sign of any problems, I'm copying the drive over, and voila, like new.


We've both solved our problems with losing content. Both in different ways, both work.

If you are not involved in the testing and put a huge RAID array on a Genie...well, you've been warned. If I get one, it'll only have a 2TB drive externally. Just like the rest of my HRs. More than that is much more than normal folks need or will use.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> If you are not involved in the testing and put a huge RAID array on a Genie...well, you've been warned.


I dropped down to 3TB on each Genie.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I dropped down to 3TB on each Genie.


Wise, you are! Did you ever hit a point where the Genies wouldn't record?

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> Wise, you are! Did you ever hit a point where the Genies wouldn't record?
> 
> Rich


No, not at all. At one point I had 40% left on a 6TB array. I was just recording stuff to see how much it would take to fill it. I gave up. Way more than anyone would ever need to hold on to. :lol:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> No, not at all. At one point I had 40% left on a 6TB array. I was just recording stuff to see how much it would take to fill it. I gave up. Way more than anyone would ever need to hold on to. :lol:


I think I'm gonna drop down to 9 HRs. I think my obsessiveness has run it's course. The HRs seem much more stable and there's really not that much on TV that we actually watch. I'm also gonna see what I can do about dumping the Premier Package. I rarely record movies.

Rich


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> I think I'm gonna drop down to 9 HRs. I think my obsessiveness has run it's course. The HRs seem much more stable and there's really not that much on TV that we actually watch. I'm also gonna see what I can do about dumping the Premier Package. I rarely record movies.
> 
> Rich


I'm down from 6 HRs and a couple of H25's to 2 Genies, 2 HRs and a Genie client.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I'm down from 6 HRs and a couple of H25's to 2 Genies, 2 HRs and a Genie client.


I've gotta have HRs on each TV (8) or they'll be an uprising. 9 seems the right number for me. I might take a 44 if they offer me one without charge. Don't want clients. Rather have DVRs.

Rich


----------



## GAM (Jun 3, 2007)

When setting up a RAID (either mirror or RAID 5) do you have to build the RAID array on a PC first and then when it is done hook it up to the HR34? Also, could I use my existing HR34 drive to do this or do you have to start fresh?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

You can use an existing DVR, but it replaces the internal drive so you'd have to redo your series links, and it you have recordings on the internal, you'll need to reboot with the external disconnected to access them.

I recommend leaving at least a partial recording of something on the internal. Sometimes they don't recognize the external after a reboot, and it's helpful to know that it booted to the internal drive instead of just seeing no recordings.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

after forming RAID and formatting working space by DVR, you could copy a content with series links, recordings,EPG, etc - we have dedicated thread(s) how-to


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

GAM said:


> When setting up a RAID (either mirror or RAID 5) do you have to build the RAID array on a PC first and then when it is done hook it up to the HR34? Also, could I use my existing HR34 drive to do this or do you have to start fresh?


You have to use an enclosure with a RAID controller on board and follow the enclosures instructions on setting up your array. Then hook it up to the HR34 and it will format and set it up for use.

You could not use the existing drive in your HR34 as part of the array. Creation of the array wipes out the data on all drives in the array.


----------



## GAM (Jun 3, 2007)

Thanks for the info!


----------

