DCT6412 Hard Drive Upgrade? - Page 8 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #211 of 438 Old 05-24-2011, 03:50 PM
Newbie
 
j1194's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm getting to 931gb and then i'm getting failed instead on completed any idea why this would be happening TNO821?
j1194 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #212 of 438 Old 05-24-2011, 05:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
sandbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by j1194 View Post

I'm getting to 931gb and then i'm getting failed instead on completed any idea why this would be happening TNO821?

Is it a new hard drive? Model#?
If its not new out of the anti-static bag, there might be a partition still hanging around that forces it to run out of room when it reaches 931gb???
Just a shot in the dark but if its not new, I would use the HD manufactures software and write zeros to the disk, or I guess you could use the one on the boot CD

Also if its a newer sata6 drive you could try using the jumper to force it to sata3 and see what happens

Kevin
----------
Motor City Custom Audio
Bringing you Custom subwoofer kits, with flames if you want
Onix and Melody Valve Hi Fi Audio Dealer serving the Midwest and Canada
sandbagger is offline  
post #213 of 438 Old 05-24-2011, 06:55 PM
Member
 
DCTneo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by j1194 View Post

I'm getting to 931gb and then i'm getting failed instead on completed any idea why this would be happening TNO821?

I am using WD10EARS in both my DCT6416-III units (leave factory installed jumper settings, it's working for me).

So far the drives on the "confirmed working" list are:

WD10EARS - IntelliPower, 64MB cache, Advanced Format, 1,000,204MB formatted capacity
WD10EVDS - IntelliPower, 32MB cache, 1,000,204MB formatted capacity (intended for DVR/PVR and video surveillance applications)
WD10EALX - 7200RPM, 32MB cache, 1,000,204MB formatted capacity - (required jumper pins 5/6 for SATA3 mode)
WD15EARS (with 1TB image applied) - IntelliPower, 64MB cache, Advanced Format, 1,500,301MB formatted capacity

FYI, WD drives with IntelliPower may vary the rotational speed between 5400RPM and 7200RPM as needed.

The WD15EARS doesn't have any realized increase in capacity over the other drives listed, as it has the same 1TB image applied.
DCTneo is offline  
post #214 of 438 Old 05-24-2011, 07:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
sandbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 21
WD10EALX works but you must place the jumper on 5/6 to force it to 3.0Sata for the DVR to find the drive.

The problem JN1194 is having shouldn't have anything to do with the DVR as it fails during the Image restoration onto the drive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DCTneo View Post

What model of drive are you using, and has it been confirmed by others to work OK? So far on the "confirmed working" list are:

WD10EARS (leave factory installed jumper settings, it's working for me in both my DCT6416-III units)
WD10EVDS

Any others?


Kevin
----------
Motor City Custom Audio
Bringing you Custom subwoofer kits, with flames if you want
Onix and Melody Valve Hi Fi Audio Dealer serving the Midwest and Canada
sandbagger is offline  
post #215 of 438 Old 05-24-2011, 08:48 PM
Member
 
DCTneo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandbagger View Post

The problem JN1194 is having shouldn't have anything to do with the DVR as it fails during the Image restoration onto the drive.

My guess would be that the drive geometry may be different from that of the original image. What model of drive is it?
DCTneo is offline  
post #216 of 438 Old 05-24-2011, 11:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TNO821's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 1,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I wonder if that hard drive is just a tiny bit smaller than the WD10EARS and WD10EVDS...maybe it's just barely too little space to fit the image.
TNO821 is offline  
post #217 of 438 Old 05-25-2011, 09:52 AM
Newbie
 
j1194's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi Guys and thanks for the quick responses.

I tried a second time after the failed status and i got the same thing over, each time took about 9 hours. I am using a WD Green WD10EARS 1TB drive. I bought the drive off of ebay (used), i thought the drive might be bad but I used the WD software and did the extended test over night last night and it returned no errors.

I also wrote zeros to the drive overnight. I started the process again this morning before I left for work and it seemed to be progressing at 2 times the speed as before. I'm hoping there was just a partition hanging around or something. Ill send an update when I get home from work.

Thanks!
j1194 is offline  
post #218 of 438 Old 05-25-2011, 07:10 PM
Newbie
 
j1194's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Okay guys, still getting failed because its running out of space, see the attached screen shot. I dont know what the heck to do, do you think the drive will still work?
LL
j1194 is offline  
post #219 of 438 Old 05-25-2011, 07:59 PM
Member
 
DCTneo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by j1194 View Post

Okay guys, still getting failed because its running out of space, see the attached screen shot. I dont know what the heck to do, do you think the drive will still work?

I created the original image on a WD10EARS drive which is the same model as you are using (should therefore be compatible).

I had a thought about why the imaging process is getting an error at 931GB. After initial testing and writing zeroes to the drives, they were formatted directly afterwards and then the image was created. Check the jumper settings on your drive. Although I did not make any changes from the factory defaults I reviewed the jumper positions, I believe the Advanced Format jumper was enabled by default.

According to an article I recently found, enabling Advanced Format allows for an 7 to 10 percent more capacity on the drive:
http://gizmodo.com/5424631/western-d...rd-drive-space

Not enabling Advanced Format could be why your imaging fails around 7 percent short (931 out of 1000 GB capacity). I would suggest enabling Advanced Format by setting jumpers 7-8 and retry imaging the drive:
http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/...id/1679#jumper

Best of luck!
DCTneo is offline  
post #220 of 438 Old 05-25-2011, 09:12 PM
Newbie
 
j1194's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks so much for your input, there were no jumpers set I will set them and retry and then report back!
j1194 is offline  
post #221 of 438 Old 05-25-2011, 09:20 PM
Newbie
 
j1194's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hmmm I'm trying it now but partition editor (in parted magic) still shows the drive at 931.01 gb
j1194 is offline  
post #222 of 438 Old 05-25-2011, 09:59 PM
Member
 
DCTneo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Maybe try writing zeroes to the drive first before imaging the drive. If it doesn't work I can suggest the following:

Edit: I noticed in your attached screen capture that the results were different than the screen capture posted by TNO821.

TNO821 (drive shows as 932G), images successfully:
1953525168+0 sectors in
1953525168+0 sectors out

j1194 (drive shows as 931G), has not yet imaged successfully:
1952476608+0 sectors in
1952476592+0 sectors out

Maybe the image that you downloaded could be corrupt, try downloading again and then re-imaging the drive?
DCTneo is offline  
post #223 of 438 Old 05-25-2011, 11:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TNO821's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 1,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
It looks to me that your WD10EARS has a slightly smaller number of sectors than mine or DCTneo's; all the HDD companies have factories in various different countries and crank out different revisions of the "same" HDD model.

Maybe the best ultimate solution would be if we could find a slightly smaller drive (maybe 750 GB) and get an image of it that could be used by anybody with a slightly-too-small 1 TB hard drive.

You're getting the vast majority of the image, so it's possible that all the needed info is getting copied to it (the vast majority of the info is zero's...and I'm not sure if there is any non-zero data at the very end of the image). I'd try putting it in your cable box and see if it works.
TNO821 is offline  
post #224 of 438 Old 05-26-2011, 12:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TNO821's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 1,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCTneo View Post

Not enabling Advanced Format could be why your imaging fails around 7 percent short (931 out of 1000 GB capacity).

The hard drive isn't really 1000 GB (Gigabytes) in size. It's 1000 GiB (Gibibytes) in size.

If I understand it correctly, GB is a decimal representation of the size, while GiB is a binary representation of that same size.

A GB = 10 to the power of 9, while a GiB = 2 to the power of 30.
So that works out to be:
1 Gibibyte = 10^9 bytes = 1,000,000,000 bytes
1 Gigabyte = 2^30 bytes = 1,073,741,824 bytes

I think the most misleading thing is that the HDD manufacturers don't use the term GiB, they use GB and add a disclaimer on their packaging that a GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes. ...so they're redefining the value of Gigabyte to equal Gibibyte, sort of moving the goal posts if you ask me.

There's some discussion of it over at overclockers.com.

So the HDD manufacturers say that 1 "gigabyte" is 1,000,000,000 bytes, but the way operating systems report space shows the same thing requiring 1,073,741,824 bytes. So that's about 6.87% smaller than the measurement that the HDD manufacturers go by. Take 1000 GB x 6.87% and you get 68.7 MB. 1000 GB - 68.7 MB = 931.3 GB.

So my revision of the WD10EARS may be just a slight bit larger, perhaps 931.6 GB, which is getting rounded up to 932 GB.
TNO821 is offline  
post #225 of 438 Old 05-26-2011, 07:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
sandbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 21
I am going to bet that the drive JN1194 got off ebay has bad sectors and is JUST small enough for the image to not fit.


Its been a long time since I have done a lot of drive level stuff but from what I remember.

Most drives have the ability to mark sectors as bad and skip over them. I am betting the drive had bad sectors, the drive has since marked them as bad, and has re-sized the drive accordingly. Simply writing zeros to the drive will not remove that info, it just writes to the known good areas skipping the bad.

Some drive software would allow you to go back in and erase the sector map and start over. It has been years since I have had to work on a drive to that level.

Kevin
----------
Motor City Custom Audio
Bringing you Custom subwoofer kits, with flames if you want
Onix and Melody Valve Hi Fi Audio Dealer serving the Midwest and Canada
sandbagger is offline  
post #226 of 438 Old 05-26-2011, 09:19 AM
Member
 
DCTneo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by j1194 View Post

Hmmm I'm trying it now but partition editor (in parted magic) still shows the drive at 931.01 gb

I would try all those suggestions listed here, then regardless of how the drive images I would try it in the PVR to see if it works. It still might work even if the imaging technically fails, as not much info is actually written to the drive during formatting. If the imaging fails it may just be that a few zeroes haven't been written to the drive!
DCTneo is offline  
post #227 of 438 Old 05-26-2011, 04:19 PM
Member
 
Hoglard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: O.C., California
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandbagger View Post

I am going to bet that the drive JN1194 got off ebay has bad sectors and is JUST small enough for the image to not fit.


Most drives have the ability to mark sectors as bad and skip over them. I am betting the drive had bad sectors, the drive has since marked them as bad, and has re-sized the drive accordingly. Simply writing zeros to the drive will not remove that info, it just writes to the known good areas skipping the bad.

I also believe this is the case. And that it originally took 9 hours is another clue pointing in this direction. Buy a brand new disk - I bet you will not have the same problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandbagger View Post

Some drive software would allow you to go back in and erase the sector map and start over. It has been years since I have had to work on a drive to that level.

I do not think this is the way to go, as the sector error map is most likely correct. I speculate if you wipe it out, you could successfully re-image the drive, but then you might end up with frustrating errors when using your DVR. I would buy a new drive for this.
Hoglard is offline  
post #228 of 438 Old 05-26-2011, 04:33 PM
Member
 
Hoglard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: O.C., California
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Another success story: DCT6412III was upgraded with WD15EARS yesterday.

The only thing which I was not prepared for was what felt like more than an hour before the new system fully booted. For most of that time it was doing something at the boot-up screen where progress bar was showing 8 of 12 segments. I guess it was probably checking the disk (1.5TB formatted as 1TB).

Now the system runs cooler, quieter, and has about 8x more recording space!

Thank you guys again, you made my day!
Hoglard is offline  
post #229 of 438 Old 05-26-2011, 05:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
sandbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 21
If, and I personaly would just get a new drive, wiped out the map, I would then run a disk check to remap the bad sectors. But like I said, I bet its got enough bad sectors that the drive is smaller than 1TB

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoglard View Post

I do not think this is the way to go, as the sector error map is most likely correct. I speculate if you wipe it out, you could successfully re-image the drive, but then you might end up with frustrating errors when using your DVR. I would buy a new drive for this.


Kevin
----------
Motor City Custom Audio
Bringing you Custom subwoofer kits, with flames if you want
Onix and Melody Valve Hi Fi Audio Dealer serving the Midwest and Canada
sandbagger is offline  
post #230 of 438 Old 05-26-2011, 06:10 PM
Newbie
 
j1194's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I ran an extended test and there are no bad sectors, I think it might be my IDE / sata dual mobo maybe it's something strange with it I'm gonna try on my laptop tonight and see the size it reports back! Thanks all
j1194 is offline  
post #231 of 438 Old 05-26-2011, 07:09 PM
Newbie
 
j1194's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well connected it to my laptop's sata port and in partedmagic it shows the same thing 931.01 must be a manufacturing difference or something? im going to test the drive in the drv and see what happens hopefully the data at the end is all zeros!

Does anyone know if an extended test messes up data on the drive at all?
j1194 is offline  
post #232 of 438 Old 05-26-2011, 09:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TNO821's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 1,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by j1194 View Post

Well connected it to my laptop's sata port and in partedmagic it shows the same thing 931.01 must be a manufacturing difference or something? im going to test the drive in the drv and see what happens hopefully the data at the end is all zeros!

Does anyone know if an extended test messes up data on the drive at all?

It shouldn't. The extended and quick tests should not write anything to the drive.

If the drive ends up not working in your DVR and you want to determine the real total number of sectors, I think that using Western Digital's Data Lifeguard tools for Windows shows the total number of sectors when using the Write Zero's option.
TNO821 is offline  
post #233 of 438 Old 05-26-2011, 10:33 PM
Newbie
 
j1194's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hey guys connected the drive and it worked despite the failed message thanks so much for all your inputs.
j1194 is offline  
post #234 of 438 Old 05-26-2011, 10:36 PM
Member
 
DCTneo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by j1194 View Post

Hey guys connected the drive and it worked despite the failed message thanks so much for all your inputs.

Another success!!! Assuming of course that the drive will remain OK....
DCTneo is offline  
post #235 of 438 Old 05-26-2011, 11:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TNO821's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 1,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Boosh! Must just be a bunch of zeros at the end.

I doubt that the drive is ill...my bet is that it's just a different revision of that hard drive model that has a slightly different number of sectors.

Now I'm wondering how much smaller a drive could be and still work...
What if a 750 GB drive were used? Would the DVR still "think" that there was 1 TB of total space? What would happen when it hit that 750 GB physical limit?

***UPDATE*** I tried imaging a 750 GB Seagate hard drive with the 1 TB image and the cable box reformatted it to 160 GB. So it looks like your hard drive can only be just a tiny bit smaller than the WD10EARS used to create the 1 TB image.
TNO821 is offline  
post #236 of 438 Old 05-27-2011, 10:02 AM
Member
 
DCTneo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'll summarize the successful drive upgrades mentioned so far in this thread and which model of drives were used:

DCTneo (WD10EARS x 2) - DCT6416PIII x 2, firmware 16.53, Access Cable Saskatchewan
TNO821 (WD10EARS, WD10EVDS) - DCH3416, firmware 18.77, Comcast in the SF Bay area
chs4000 (WD10EVDS) - firmware 18.76, Wave Broadband
sailorickm (WD10EARS) - DCT6412PIII
lambchops (WD10EARS)
Hoglard (WD15EARS with 1TB image applied) - DCT6412PIII, firmware 16.75, only able to record ~150GB software limited by Cox cable?
sandbagger (WD10EALX, required jumper pins 5/6 for SATA3 mode)
j1194 (WD10EARS from ebay, imaging incomplete w. error but works anyways)
riley847 (WD10EARS) - DCT6416PIII
markj801
DCTneo's brother (WD15EARS with 1TB image applied) - DCT3416
Sitargo (WD10EVDS) - DCT3416, firmware 16.74, Cablevision (Mexico City)
dan74 (W10EVDS) - DCT3412, firmware 16.79, Flow Jamaica (Columbus Networks USA)
jimichunga working DCT3412
Flacido (WD10EADS-98M2B2, WD10EADX-00T)
terraphantm (WD10EALX, required jumper pins 5/6 for SATA3 mode) - DCH3416, firmware 18.46
Alexander63 (WD10EARS) - DCH3416
StevenHB (WD10EARS) - DCT3412 (Comcast)
deeplake21 (1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.12)

Any additions or updates, let me know and I'll keep this post updated so long as I reasonably can....
DCTneo is offline  
post #237 of 438 Old 05-28-2011, 10:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
chs4000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Hi TNO,

I'm happy to split an order of security clips with you. PM me if interested.

-John
chs4000 is offline  
post #238 of 438 Old 06-01-2011, 11:40 AM
Member
 
Hoglard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: O.C., California
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoglard View Post

Another success story: DCT6412III was upgraded with WD15EARS yesterday.

The only thing which I was not prepared for was what felt like more than an hour before the new system fully booted. For most of that time it was doing something at the boot-up screen where progress bar was showing 8 of 12 segments. I guess it was probably checking the disk (1.5TB formatted as 1TB).

Guys, I have a problem.


Everything looked OK when I imaged the disk last week:



Code:
Welcome - Parted Magic (Linux 2.6.38.2-pmagic)

root@PartedMagic:~# bzip2 -d -c -f /media/sdb1/MotoSTB_1TB.bz2 | dc3dd of=/dev/sda progress=on progresscount=500
warning: sector size not probed, assuming 512
dc3dd 6.12.3 started at 2011-05-24 21:10:08 +0000
command line: dc3dd of=/dev/sda progress=on progresscount=500
compiled options: DEFAULT_BLOCKSIZE=32768
sector size: 512 (assumed)
1953525168+0 sectors in                                             
1953525168+0 sectors out
1000204886016 bytes (932 G) copied (??%), 9109.61 s, 105 M/s        
dc3dd completed at 2011-05-24 23:41:57 +0000
root@PartedMagic:~#



But now I realized my DVR does not want to record any more shows. It looks like it thinks it does not have any more disk space, even though the diagnostic screen shows about 834 GB free:







So far it recorded about 147GB so it might be hitting the 160GB hard drive limit in the firmware:





Any thoughts? Did I do anything wrong? Or do we have an issue with the size(1.5TB) of WD15EARS?
Hoglard is offline  
post #239 of 438 Old 06-01-2011, 01:41 PM
Member
 
DCTneo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoglard View Post

Guys, I have a problem.

But now I realized my DVR does not want to record any more shows. It looks like it thinks it does not have any more disk space, even though the diagnostic screen shows about 834 GB free...

So far it recorded about 147GB so it might be hitting the 160GB hard drive limit in the firmware:

Any thoughts? Did I do anything wrong? Or do we have an issue with the size(1.5TB) of WD15EARS?

I was initially surprised (and pleased) that the WD15EARS worked OK, however I heard that the maximum recognizable drive size was rumored to be 1TB. So you may be better off moving to either WD10EARS or WD10EVDS as those all seem to be working properly. It may be a very limited number of 1TB WD drive models that will work properly in the Motorola PVRs, as my brother tried to format a 1TB Seagate without success (I formatted my WD10EARS drives using his PVR). He got an error message saying that the drive was not compatible or something like that.

PS, Hoglard, what cable provider are you with, and what's the firmware version on your box?
DCTneo is offline  
post #240 of 438 Old 06-01-2011, 03:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TNO821's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 1,105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
It's probably the fault of the firmware version that your cable company uses. I've read about people who get one of the 500 GB Motorola DCX cable boxes and it only records up to 160 GB. The solution was that the cable company had to update the firmware version in order for the cable box to use the remaining drive space.
TNO821 is offline  
Reply HDTV Recorders



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off