| ID | | Article Title | Post Date |
|
301 | 
| Formatting a drive array greater than 16TB with APT (Apple Partition Table) fails in a Macintosh. | Jun-16-09 |
|
302 | 
| I connected two Fusion DX800 (RX1600) RAIDs to the same controller, but only one show up to the ATTO configuration tool and the OS. | May-20-09 |
| The RAID groups need to have different names in order to be recognized on the same controller. |
| |
|
387 |
| How do I replace a failed drive under warranty if I'm in a sensitive/classified environment and can't send the old one back? | Mar-23-10 |
|
402 |
| What is the best way to configure my Fusion RX1600 RAID group for best video editing performance? | Sep-23-09 |
|
445 |
| What is the default drive timeout in Fusion RAID systems? Should I change it? | Mar-24-10 |
|
450 |
| My storage shows 10% more capacity under OS X 10.6 than under OS X 10.5. Why? | Mar-24-10 |
| With Snow Leopard (10.6), Apple adopted the standard usage of terabyte (TB) which equals 1,000,000,000,000 bytes = 10-to-the-12th bytes. Hard drive manufacturers have always specified drive capacity with standard usage which will now match what Mac OS X reports.
WIth Leopard (10.5) and previous versions of Mac OS X, Apple used the binary interpretation of terabyte, (technically a tebibyte) = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes = 2-to-the-40th bytes. Windows also uses binary interpretation.
Under Snow Leopard, drive capacity will be shown per drive specifications. For example, under OS X 10.6, a 1TB drive will appear as a 1000 GB capacity drive (but under OS X 10.5 as a 909 GB capacity drive). For additional information see support.apple.com/kb/TS2419.
What does this mean in real terms? Do I get an immediate increase in storage space?
Formatting or actual capacity does not change at all, only the reported capacity because of the change from base-2 to base-10.
Should I reformat the drives before attempting to plug in a previously 10.5 formatted unit into a 10.6 machine or vice versa?
Reformatting is not necessary at all.
What happens if I plug a 10.6 formatted unit into a 10.5 machine or vice versa?
The volume is seen normally. It is completely compatible and can be transparently moved back and forth. |
| |
|
719 |
| My performance is lower than I expected. Does the drive order matter? | Nov-02-12 |
| In a 16-drive Fusion chassis, Sonnet formats, tests, and builds a RAID at the factory, then removes and numbers (as of Nov 2012) the drives for safe shipping. It is important to install the drives in the numbered order left-to-right. If you don't do this, the performance will suffer because the drive sequence gets scrambled through the SAS expanders to the RAID engine.
If you used the original RAID group built by Sonnet which did not have numbered drives or which numbered drives were not installed in sequential order, then back up your data, delete the RAID group and build a new RAID and your performance will improve.
This note does not apply to the DX800RAID. |
| |
|
955 |
| Can I use Seagate Iron Wolf drives; or Hitchai and WD drives 8TB and larger? | May-31-18 |
| Some newer drives use a hole pattern different from the traditional drive hole pattern for the bottom mounting points. The location of the bottom holes close to the connector did not change; however, the bottom holes near the middle have been removed and replaced with bottom holes close to the front of the drive.
The drives with the new bottom hole pattern include:
Seagate Iron Wolf drives (also missing the middle hole from the side mount hole troika)
Hitachi drives 8TB and larger
WD drives 8TB and larger
Incompatible mount holes
Echo 15+ Dock (side mount, but needs middle hole, so incompatible with only Seagate Iron Wolf)
Fusion F3 (bottom mount)
Fusion D400Q/R400P/D500P (bottom mount)
Fusion D800/R800 (bottom mount)
Compatible mount holes
Fusion R400S RAID (side mount)
Fusion R400 RAID USB 3 (side mount)
Fusion DX800/RX1600 (side mount) If using Iron Wolf line, must use Iron Wolf Pro with rotational vibration sensors
|
| |
| |
