Buffalo Forums

Products => Storage => Topic started by: MaMister on December 06, 2011, 05:41:36 PM

Title: Upgrading the hard disk on LS-WVL/E.
Post by: MaMister on December 06, 2011, 05:41:36 PM

Hi all, currently I have a LS-WVL/E with 2 x1TB WD green, firmware 1.52.

 

I would like to upgrade both to  2 x 2TB.

 

I was thinking of :

 

1. Removing no. 2 hard disk and replace with 2TB, let it rebuild the raid 1

2. After done, remove no. 1 hard disk and replace with the other 2TB, let it rebuild the raid 1

 

will I be able to do it this way without loosing any settings or data?

Title: Re: Upgrading the hard disk on LS-WVL/E.
Post by: MaMister on December 07, 2011, 04:58:40 AM

Yep I know, I just wondering if this method will work as it really save lots of trouble like backup 1TB and copy back 1TB of data via network, usb or SATA...

Title: Re: Upgrading the hard disk on LS-WVL/E.
Post by: dach on December 07, 2011, 07:38:51 AM

I don't think it will work either.  But you can try it... If it is designed robust, I don't think you should lose your data either.

 

From what I know about how HDD work, if it even lets you do this and it "clones" the data on your 1 TB drive on to your new HDD, the 2 TB drive will simply end up behaving and looking like a 1TB drive. You'd need special utilities to extend the data partiton to use the extra space, which probably wouldn't be compatible with LS-WV anyway.

Title: Re: Upgrading the hard disk on LS-WVL/E.
Post by: davo on December 07, 2011, 01:10:19 PM

This will work but will still only show the capacity of  the orignal HDD's. To show the new capacity you will need to delete and recreate the RAID once the 2 HDDs are restructured which will definately erase the data.

Title: Re: Upgrading the hard disk on LS-WVL/E.
Post by: MaMister on December 07, 2011, 06:54:15 PM

Well, looks like no choice but to consider:

 

Transfer out and back using:

 

1. network connect to pc

2. USB external drive

3. Remove hard drive SATA direct to pc

 

Which the best?

 

I personally think option 3 is the best but too bad, using UFS explorer can only transfer out but cannot copy back am I right?

Browser ID: smf (is_webkit)
Templates: 1: Printpage (default).
Sub templates: 4: init, print_above, main, print_below.
Language files: 1: index+Modifications.english (default).
Style sheets: 0: .
Hooks called: 69 (show)
Files included: 27 - 1055KB. (show)
Memory used: 719KB.
Tokens: post-login.
Queries used: 14.

[Show Queries]