Unfortunately no one can be told what fun_plug is - you have to see it for yourself.
You are not logged in.
hi!
i've a DNS-323 rev A1 with firmware 1.07...
i'm waiting the official release (in italy) of revision 1.08 to use DNLA with my brand new PS3 Slim...
anyone knows when it will be relased? i saw that in UK it's already out...
and, which is the biggest hd supported? can i put 2 hd of 1tb each?
thanks!
Offline
I have DNS-323 with 2x "Seagate ST31000528AS 1TB, SATA-II 300, 7200 rpm, 32m" inside. Working in Raid 1.
So yes it will support 2x1TB drives.
However you should check the compatibility of your drives before purchase.
Offline
manager2 wrote:
I have DNS-323 with 2x "Seagate ST31000528AS 1TB, SATA-II 300, 7200 rpm, 32m" inside. Working in Raid 1.
So yes it will support 2x1TB drives.
However you should check the compatibility of your drives before purchase.
thanks!
now i've 2x500 gb by Western Digital (no raid).
I would like to buy 2x1 tb for raid 0.
Offline
Two 1.5TB Samsung EcoGreens in mine. Not sure if it supports 2TB models.
Offline
v1.08 2x2TB in RAID1 no problem
HARD DRIVE INFO :
Total Drive(s): 2
Volume Name: Volume_1
Volume Type: RAID 1
Sync Time Remaining: Completed
Total Hard Drive Capacity: 1967954 MB
Used Space: 1399805 MB
Unused Space: 568149 MB
PHYSICAL DISK INFO :
Slot Vendor Model Serial Number Size
Right Seagate ST32000542AS 5XW03MN4 2000 G
Left Seagate ST32000542AS 5XW01WSW 2000 G
Last edited by skydreamer (2010-01-30 13:13:17)
Offline
insane74 wrote:
thanks!
now i've 2x500 gb by Western Digital (no raid).
I would like to buy 2x1 tb for raid 0.
Why RAID0? RAID0 is usually used to increase performance, but that performance comes with a greater risk of data loss - based on my testing there is no performance gain on the DNS-323 - and therefore no valid reason to incur the increased risk.
Perhaps you might like to do your own tests.
Offline
fordem wrote:
insane74 wrote:
thanks!
now i've 2x500 gb by Western Digital (no raid).
I would like to buy 2x1 tb for raid 0.Why RAID0? RAID0 is usually used to increase performance, but that performance comes with a greater risk of data loss - based on my testing there is no performance gain on the DNS-323 - and therefore no valid reason to incur the increased risk.
Perhaps you might like to do your own tests.
indeed i don't need "performance".
simply, i've a lot of divx, mp3 and so on that i should use from my brand new ps3... in raid0, i can have 4tb (since one user has 2 hd x 2 tb each) of my stuff easly accessible from my ps3.
raid1 is "too much" since the content is not so "important".
PS: for example, for the included itunes server you can specify just one folder... in raid1 you "waste" space. with no raid one hd is "unused", with raid0 i could have 4tb of mp3!
PPS: sorry for my weird english!
Offline
Your english is fine - I just want you to be aware that with RAID0, the risk of data loss is doubled.
Offline
fordem wrote:
Your english is fine - I just want you to be aware that with RAID0, the risk of data loss is doubled.
thanks, but i know the risks.
since data stored on my 323 are "garbage"...
Offline
fordem wrote:
just want you to be aware that with RAID0, the risk of data loss is doubled.
compared to RAID1 it's even 4 times higher (in terms of risk * space, you have the doubled risk of loosing double the amount of data).
if space is important the only alternative would be single disks (JBOD has the same risk as RAID0, all data will be gone or at least really hard to restore if one drive breaks)
Offline