New Drive
- Thread starter Souriau
- Start date
prpr
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't bother if I were you. The 9200 has a hideously nasty habit of scrambling its disk after not very long.
This is injurious to a lot of your files. I certainly wouldn't store anything on one long term and expect to get them back.
The software is just too flaky.
I have been bitten by this more than once...
This is injurious to a lot of your files. I certainly wouldn't store anything on one long term and expect to get them back.
The software is just too flaky.
I have been bitten by this more than once...
There is a limit on the maximum number of recordings that you can store of 511 so I would suggest there is little advantage going beyond 500GB. The 9200 uses a Seagate DB35 series ACE drive with an IDE interface but these haven't been manufactured for some years so you may struggle to find one. If you can't, your choices are to fit a different type of IDE drive (some work, some don't) or to fit an IDE to SATA converter and a SATA drive designed for PVR usage. I would agree with prpr that file system stability is an issue for long term storage and if this is what you want to do then buying a newer PVR (such as HDR-FOX T2) would be a better plan.
Biggles
Member
I really can't agree with your claims that "the 9200 has a hideously nasty habit of scrambling its disk" and "the software is just too flaky", if this was the case then almost every 9200 would be suffering disk corruption and this obviously isn't happening. I doubt very much that PVRs were designed for long term archiving so I would agree that storing long term has an element of risk but I for one have not had a hint of disk problems on my 9200.
prpr
Well-Known Member
Well I've had the use of a 9200 with 160GB disk and one with a 320GB disk, bought at different times and they both exhibit the same fault.
I've formatted the disks several times and the fault returns within a few days.
It is made worse by recording two things at once, worse still by attempting to chase play one of the recordings, and by using the PiP stuff.
The first sign that things are wrong is that some of the programme lengths are wrong when replaying.
It often crashes following this.
If you carry on, it often puts duplicate items in the programme list. If you attempt to delete one of these, all hell can break loose.
I've had it recording over previously recorded programmes - sometimes having stopped it recording and then replaying, it will switch from the bit of new programme to the bit of old programme... think of recording over something on tape.
I took the disk out and put it in the PC and HumaxRW told me there were several programme entries referring to one file. Also, some files had no programme entry at all.
This is all very symptomatic of DOS FAT filesystems from 2o-30 years ago - think cross-linked files and lost clusters.
I stand by made experience. YMMV.
I've formatted the disks several times and the fault returns within a few days.
It is made worse by recording two things at once, worse still by attempting to chase play one of the recordings, and by using the PiP stuff.
The first sign that things are wrong is that some of the programme lengths are wrong when replaying.
It often crashes following this.
If you carry on, it often puts duplicate items in the programme list. If you attempt to delete one of these, all hell can break loose.
I've had it recording over previously recorded programmes - sometimes having stopped it recording and then replaying, it will switch from the bit of new programme to the bit of old programme... think of recording over something on tape.
I took the disk out and put it in the PC and HumaxRW told me there were several programme entries referring to one file. Also, some files had no programme entry at all.
This is all very symptomatic of DOS FAT filesystems from 2o-30 years ago - think cross-linked files and lost clusters.
I stand by made experience. YMMV.
Have you run the manufacturers diagnostics on the disks? The fundamental flaw of the Humax 9200/9150/9300 file system is that it assumes the disk is perfect with no bad sectors which is fine until the supply of spare sectors is exhausted.
Biggles
Member
I sympathise with you as you've had lots of problems but the fact is that only a small proportion of machines suffer disk corruption otherwise the internet would be flooded with posts complaining about it, therefore the software can't be as "flaky" as you suggest and my experience is no corruption. I can remember two threads on another forum where owners were reporting disk corruption on 9xx0 machines, in both cases I discovered that the owners regularly simply switched the machines OFF at the mains without properly shutting them down. It is my opinion that this was the cause, or at least contributed to, the disk corruption problem.
I'm not sure why anybody would want to put a 1GB disk in a 9200 (post #6), that would give you about half an hour recording capability. Was that a typo and you meant 1TB? Well Humax never put that size disk in.
I'm not sure why anybody would want to put a 1GB disk in a 9200 (post #6), that would give you about half an hour recording capability. Was that a typo and you meant 1TB? Well Humax never put that size disk in.
We have seen corrupt file systems in the past but not for 4 years so I don't think the file system is as buggy as you have experienced. However I would expect that a marginal sector in the file allocation table would wreak havoc.
Biggles
Member
But everybody is running the same software so if the software is as bad as you suggest in post #2 then everybody would be suffering the same problems as you, and that clearly isn't the case.
MartinOnline
Member
Without a thorough analysis it is difficult to determine if the software is as buggy as you suggest. My two 9200s were regularly used to replay a recording whilst recording two live programmes, with no ill effects on the disk. I never used PiP - it once had an associated bug if I remember correctly.
I note that you said "I never shut them down". Do you mean you never put them into standby? Or that you never cut power to them completely - after having put them properly into standby to avoid the problem referred to by Biggles?
I always used standby mode.
Martin
I note that you said "I never shut them down". Do you mean you never put them into standby? Or that you never cut power to them completely - after having put them properly into standby to avoid the problem referred to by Biggles?
I always used standby mode.
Martin
Why not?
prpr
Well-Known Member
Because sometimes I switch the TV on and find something interesting on or something I forgot to record. I can then rewind by up to two hours and replay what I've missed.
Anyway, I've had loads of hard disks die on PCs after being switched off/on over the years and I always leave them spinning now. I know this can be a contentious issue but I believe most of the wear'n'tear happens at spin up.
Anyway, I've had loads of hard disks die on PCs after being switched off/on over the years and I always leave them spinning now. I know this can be a contentious issue but I believe most of the wear'n'tear happens at spin up.
That assumes that you have it tuned to the correct channel for whatever you want to watch.
I think you will find that these older machines are much more stable if they are put into standby every night. The theory being that there are memory leaks which eventually cause it to fall over in a bad way. I would argue that hard disk wear is a secondary consideration to having a stable machine.
I think you will find that these older machines are much more stable if they are put into standby every night. The theory being that there are memory leaks which eventually cause it to fall over in a bad way. I would argue that hard disk wear is a secondary consideration to having a stable machine.