Limit On Volume Count?

Per the software manual, a 6 bay system can have up to 6 volumes.

StephenB wrote:
Per the software manual, a 6 bay system can have up to 6 volumes.

Thank you for the quick reply.

I agree with you if we are talking about physical volumes, according to page 17 of the manual. But, what about logical volumes?

Currently, I have 4 logical volumes (C, D, E, F), and I cannot see how to create an additional logical volume for the new drive.

Is 4 logical volumes really the limit?

RAIDiator 4.2.x has a limit of four volumes.

If you really want a separate volume on each disk, give ReadyNAS OS a try: http://www.readynas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=70133 (I would recommend updating to 6.1.7-RC4 as it has some changes to better work on legacy hardware: http://www.readynas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=154&t=72282)

However if you have a separate volume for each disk, if the disk fails all data is lost. So if your data is important to you it is vital that you maintain a good backup.

Thank you for the reply, mdgm.

That is really an unfortunate limitation in this product. I can't imagine what they were thinking when they put such an arbitrary limit in the OS.

Given the fact that they EOL'd this product less than a year after they stopped making them, this additional issue is very disappointing.

Not impressed with the Netgear support for this product.

The software on the Ultra is a port of an updated version of the software that shipped on the first ReadyNAS products released back in 2004. Before 2008 most ReadyNAS products had no more than 4 drive bays. Clearly adding support for more than 4 volumes wasn't seen as necessary. As the product is now EOL, it won't change in future versions of 4.2.x.

Having six separate volumes is not a good idea in my view as if any disk fails all data on that disk is lost. However the new OS, ReadyNAS OS does support creating a separate volume for each disk. So if you can backup all your data, you could update to that and restore your data from backup.

Yes, I am aware of the backup issues, thanks. This unit is being used as shadow storage on a private lan.

But, it should be trivial to support (number of logical volumes) <= (number of physical volumes). Seriously, we are talking about 6 vs. 4 volume objects for customer use.

I have worked for many years in operating system design and implementation, so I do have a firm grasp on the issues.

Also, the EOL issue is pretty bad, IMHO. The standard in the industry is 5 years of support after last ship before EOL. What Netgear is doing here is really unconscionable.

notcounting wrote:
The standard in the industry is 5 years of support after last ship before EOL. What Netgear is doing here is really unconscionable.

Hmm... Netgear are still replacing out-of-production devices under warranty, they're continuing to update the OS4 and OS5 firmware and addons, their employees are offering informal support on this forum to owners of legacy devices, and they're even making changes to OS6 so it will work better on legacy devices even though it still isn't officially supported for those machines.

What terrible thing are they doing that I've missed?

fastfwd wrote:

notcounting wrote: The standard in the industry is 5 years of support after last ship before EOL. What Netgear is doing here is really unconscionable. Hmm... Netgear are still replacing out-of-production devices under warranty, they're continuing to update the OS4 and OS5 firmware and addons, their employees are offering informal support on this forum to owners of legacy devices, and they're even making changes to OS6 so it will work better on legacy devices even though it still isn't officially supported for those machines. What terrible thing are they doing that I've missed?

By not providing a SW upgrade path for customers who recently bought HW. I know that there are potential complications with upgrading, but those can be overcome. It is not an issue with the technology.

Someone in the org just decided not to do it.

notcounting wrote:
Someone in the org just decided not to do it.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Clearly you haven't been reading the steady stream of OS6 complaints that have been posted here over the last year.

fastfwd wrote:
notcounting wrote: Someone in the org just decided not to do it. You say that like it's a bad thing. Clearly you haven't been reading the steady stream of OS6 complaints that have been posted here over the last year.

Actually, I am a newcomer to the forum. I actually came to ask a question, which has been answered. I will poke around more to see what is up with the new OS.