Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[supernova777]

lukpac..

if u have partitioned the 4tb drive only utilizing the first 2TB of space then yes, u are safe from data corruption... but u are losing 50% of the capacity of the drive... which i wouldnt be ok with. especially given the price of a 4tb vs a 2tb drive.. even if i was given one for free, i wouldnt be satisfied with having a 4tb drive only 50% utilized

re: "physical limit" this was a poor choice of words on my part.. what i meant was the "real limit"
is due to APM partitioning.. by saying physical i was trying to illustrate that it is indeed a barrier that you simply cannot get around... this is why i compared this to the 4gb limit of 32bit windows systems... there is simply no way around this.

from my research my conclusion is...
2.2TB is the absolute largest size that can be assigned to a single hard drive device usable within the mac os 9 operating system. and also the largest
you can assign to a multi-disk RAID partition aswell (either via hardware raid controller or SOFTRAID)

GUID partitions are able to surpass this size in addressable space but are only supported on mac os x 10.4 and higher. PowerPC based Macs that are running OS X 10.4 or later can mount and use a drive formatted with the GUID Partition Table, but cannot boot from the device

the only way around this "2.2TB limit per drive device" rule is to install the drive into a server of some sort and share the drive via AFP as a network drive... i have tested this personally with a RAID array of 4 1TB disks, in a software ZFS RAID5 formation, with a capacity of 3.68TB and am fairly certain that i had more then 2.2TB of data on this drive.. and its performance was very satisfactory, and the experience of using the drive, felt the same as using a local drive. there were no pauses or wait times. Using it over gigabit ethernet w/ AFP i think its arguable that its faster then firewire 400...but this may have been because the raid array had 4 disks and read + wrote data very fast compared to a single drive connected via firewire.

i think that lukpac was just sharing his experience for the benefit of others.. we often get in the routine of answering peoples questions.. we must remember not everyone is 'asking for help' but merely 'contributing information to help the cause'

[IIO]

Are you sure about that?

sure, i´ve been using several 160, 200 and 250 gb HDs in such computers. or to be exakt, the first 137 gb of them

[IIO]

the 6 tera info .. pretty sure it was from apple, too. but i just looked, and i cant find it back.

btw, to clear that up, this "6 TB" i have heard of was a slip.

this limit exists, but this is only the theoretical limit for the G4 hardware. because 6 TB drvies is what OSX 10.5 can do, and 10.5 is the latest these computers can run.

or in other words: this is off topic, because it has nothing to do with OS9

secondly this limit does not automatically mean that you can reach it e.g. with usb, firewire, or the built-in IDE controllers - it might need a certain interface.

[supernova777]

10.5 can do a helluva lot more then 6tb with GPT

http://knowledge.seagate.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/218579en

Apple System and OS Support for Disk Drives Beyond 2.2 TeraBytes (TB)

Discussion of and instructions for updating your computer to be able to use the entire capacity of your larger-than-2TB internal drive in MacOS.

Macintosh systems with OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) and OS X 10.5 (Leopard) support direct attached disk drives greater than 2.2TB in size using GPT (GUID Partition Table).

Macintosh Power Mac G5, MacPro and iMac systems with the above versions of OS X can support 3.5” disk drives greater than 2.2TB in non-RAID configurations.

Software RAID 0 (striped) and RAID 1 (mirrored) with OS X 10.6.6 should work.

Other related categories of storage with possible 2.2TB limitations:
-OS X 10.4 (Tiger) appears to recognize disk drives larger than 2.2TB and has GPT support for additional drives. However, it is reported to be unable to setup or boot a partition larger than 2.2TB.
-Apple Software RAID prior to OS X 10.6
-Apple Bootcamp (including Windows 7 64-bit)
-Apple RAID cards
-Software based full disk encryption tools
-SoftRAID (a third-party application)

http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2754/~/hard-drives-greater-than-2-tb-do-not-work-on-existing-operating-systems

Below are some things to keep in mind when considering the use of drives larger than 2 TB's:

    Mac OSX 10.4.x (Tiger) and higher will read drives larger than 2TB. However, you must format the drive using the GUID partition scheme for the drive to be properly recognized.
    Windows 2000/XP (32-bit) has no issues with Network storage drives larger than 2 TB's since they are accessed indirectly through the network.
    Windows XP (64-bit) only recognizes external hard drives larger than 2 TB's that are connected by USB.
    You need to know in which partition scheme, MBR or GPT, your Windows Vista operating system is installed. If it's MBR, you will still have the same issues as in Windows 2000 and XP.
    Windows 2000/XP will have no problems formatting a 2 TB Raid 1 (Mirrored) drive in the MBR format. However, it will not be able to convert that 2 TB RAID 1 drive to a 4 TB RAID 0 drive.
    Likewise, Windows 2000/XP will not be able to convert a 4 TB RAID 0 external drive to a 2 TB RAID 1 drive. You will need the use of a computer running Windows Vista (using a GPT partition), XP (64-bit), or Mac 10.4/10.5 to convert the drive from 4 TB RAID 0 to 2 TB RAID 1.
    Windows 2000/XP will not be able to convert any 2 TB, or smaller, GUID partitioned drive to an MBR partition through Window's Disk Management. This will require a utility, such as DLG Diagnostics, that can write zeros to the drive so it can be partitioned and formatted through Windows 2000/XP.

http://wdc.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/110946/0/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNDIyNjM5NDgxL3NpZC82WG12Mk1kbQ==/filename/Operating_System_Boot_Partition.pdf

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946557

http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/WhitePapers/ENG/2579-771501.pdf

[lukpac]

So, anyone still running ProTools 5? I ran into a bit of a snag.

Everything is now booting fine, and I'm not having any issues accessing or opening files on any partition. However, while PT 5 is opening up sessions on the 100 GB partition just fine, if you copy them to one of the 970 GB partitions it isn't properly reading the files. Sometimes playback results in noise, while other times it results in a different file being played.

I can open the files in other editors, and they are fine. But PT 5 is having problems accessing them.

My question is, before I go too far trying to troubleshoot this, are there any known partition and/or disk size limits for PT 5? I'm hoping I can just repartition and have more smaller partitions, but I'm wondering if anyone knows offhand.

[supernova777]

i think its been explained pretty clearly.
you are asking for trouble using that disk with a mac os 9 computer
period.

you are on your own with this man!
u are in unexplored unsupported territory;)

good luck

[lukpac]

i think its been explained pretty clearly.
you are asking for trouble using that disk with a mac os 9 computer
period.

Well...no.

From the OS side, the files are there, intact, and can be opened with other programs. Even Pro Tools reads them fine to create the waveforms. It is purely an issue with playback within Pro Tools.

While the physical disk is larger than what can be addressed by OS 9, the partitions are not.

[supernova777]

... yet u have a problem... and we are telling u over and over that what u are doing is not reccommended or supported 100%
not everything is black + white (works vs doesnt work).. there is a grey area of (works 90% except has an issue.) or (works as long as i dont try to do X)
u are in the grey area man.. this is the reason why digidesign always was very EXPLICIT about requirements for hardware + software..

u are working with an ata controller that was designed to handle 200gb drives not 4tb drives

why u would need soooo much space for protools ..doesnt make sense to me..

http://archive.digidesign.com/compato/os9/stg/drivereqle.html
"Hard Drive Minimum Requirements" With Pro Tools for Mac OS 9

Requirements for both IDE/ATA or SCSI drives:

    Minimum speed of 7200 RPM & average seek time of less than 10.0 ms
    For 24-32 tracks, drives must be dedicated for audio (internal or external)
    Boot drives may be used for audio tracks, however performance/track count may vary
    Mac OS file system: HFS or HFS+. SCSI drives should be initialized with ATTO ExpressPro-Tools v2.3.2 or higher, IDE/ATA drives should be initialized with Apple's Drive Setup.
    Note: Mac OS 9.2 requires ATTO ExpressPro-Tools v2.7 or higher, available from www.attotech.com/software or Digidesign/Support/Downloads/Utilities
    ATTO ExpressPro-Tools settings: Synch Transfer Rate set to 20 (10) and PCI Burst Rate set to 32 bytes
    If using non-ATTO ExpressPro-Tools initialized drives, click here for options
    For supported SCSI HBA cards check the compatibility document of your specific computer model.

says clear as day "drive must be dedicated for audio" ..
u want to use a single drive.. with 1 partition for use with pro tools.. with nothing else on it.
thats my understanding of it.

[lukpac]

... yet u have a problem... and we are telling u over and over that what u are doing is not reccommended or supported 100%

Considering OS 9 has been dead for years, nothing is supported anymore.

My problem is specific to Pro Tools, and my question is if anyone knows of a specific limitation or problem with that. If, for example, the issue is with partition size, then not only would the problem have nothing to do with the drive, but it could/would happen on a sub-2.2 TB drive with similar partition sizes. And if it is a partition size issue, it would be nice to know what that limit is, so I don't have to repeatedly repartition and test.

[supernova777]

while PT 5 is opening up sessions on the 100 GB partition just fine, if you copy them to one of the 970 GB partitions it isn't properly reading the files. Sometimes playback results in noise, while other times it results in a different file being played.

your solution is to use a single drive.. dedicated for pro tools.. with a single partition (being the first partition on the drive)
most people would reccommend u use a drive under 1tb in size for this PT-dedicated drive.
and use your 4tb drive as storage/backup.

***you should not have your os running on the same drive as the pro tools audio drive.***
regardless of whether its a different partition...

Considering OS 9 has been dead for years, nothing is supported anymore.

im not talking about "Support" in the call someone up sense.. i meant documented as working... and reccommended as a viable option.
certain hardware configurations work.. and others dont.. this is what im referring to as supported vs unsupported..
works / doesnt work. for example mac os 9 machines only support 1.5gb - 2.0gb of ram. mac os 9 machines support Ata hard drives.
anyway.. u have all the answers you need.. question is whether u are willing to actually listen to whats been told to you!!
i dont make  the rules man.. lol im jsut telling u how it is.. u may not like it but thats how it is because thats how it was..
and thats not going to change.

you are using a computer from 2002 with a hard drive capacity that didnt exist before Fall 2011... think about that for a second

[lukpac]

u are working with an ata controller that was designed to handle 200gb drives not 4tb drives

200 GB drives? According to what/who? I used a 500 GB drive for years without a problem. Where is there any indication that the controller can't handle such large drives? We already know there's a limitation due to the partition map, but that has nothing to do with the controller.

why u would need soooo much space for protools ..doesnt make sense to me..

Because audio files are large and I have a lot of them. What's hard to understand about that?

http://archive.digidesign.com/compato/os9/stg/drivereqle.html
"Hard Drive Minimum Requirements" With Pro Tools for Mac OS 9

Requirements for both IDE/ATA or SCSI drives:

    Minimum speed of 7200 RPM & average seek time of less than 10.0 ms
    For 24-32 tracks, drives must be dedicated for audio (internal or external)
    Boot drives may be used for audio tracks, however performance/track count may vary
    Mac OS file system: HFS or HFS+. SCSI drives should be initialized with ATTO ExpressPro-Tools v2.3.2 or higher, IDE/ATA drives should be initialized with Apple's Drive Setup.
    Note: Mac OS 9.2 requires ATTO ExpressPro-Tools v2.7 or higher, available from www.attotech.com/software or Digidesign/Support/Downloads/Utilities
    ATTO ExpressPro-Tools settings: Synch Transfer Rate set to 20 (10) and PCI Burst Rate set to 32 bytes
    If using non-ATTO ExpressPro-Tools initialized drives, click here for options
    For supported SCSI HBA cards check the compatibility document of your specific computer model.

says clear as day "drive must be dedicated for audio" ..
u want to use a single drive.. with 1 partition for use with pro tools.. with nothing else on it.
thats my understanding of it.

That's for 24-32 tracks. I'm limited to 24 tracks anyway, and most sessions have no more than 8 tracks. That isn't an issue. It even states "Boot drives may be used for audio tracks".

I've been running Pro Tools for years with sessions stored both on my 80 GB boot drive (1 partition) and my 500 GB data drive (3 partitions). Single drive, 1 partition, dedicated, is not an issue. Your understanding isn't correct.

your solution is to use a single drive.. dedicated for pro tools.. with a single partition (being the first partition on the drive)

See above.

most people would reccommend u use a drive under 1tb in size for this PT-dedicated drive..
and use your 4tb drive as storage/backup.

And yet "most people" don't seem to know if there's a partition size issue or not. At this point it's just as possible that I would have the same problem using a 1 TB drive with a single partition.

im not talking about "Support" in the call someone up sense.. i meant documented as working... and reccommended as a viable option.
certain hardware configurations work.. and others dont.. this is what im referring to as supported vs unsupported..
works / doesnt work.

Yet nobody here has provided those answers. "I probably wouldn't do that" isn't the same thing as "Pro Tools will not work correctly with partitions larger than 190 GB" or "Pro Tools will not work correctly with drives larger than 1 TB". Guesses are not "documented as (not) working".

anyway.. u have all the answers you need.. question is whether u are willing to actually listen to whats been told to you!!
i dont make  the rules man.. lol im jsut telling u how it is.. u may not like it but thats how it is because thats how it was..
and thats not going to change.

you are using a computer from 2002 with a hard drive capacity that didnt exist before Fall 2011... think about that for a second

See above. I don't have the answers I need. I have a lot of guessing.

Hard drive capacities are always increasing. Simply saying "that drive size didn't exist when the computer was made" doesn't inherently mean anything.

[Knezzen]

Sounds like issues I had when I had a dodgy TDM ribbon cable. Wrong channels where muted, sound played back distorted and half of the tracks where silent. Replacing the TDM cable did the trick.
Back then I was using a 400gb drive in my MDD. Never had any issues except Norton Disk Utilities refusing to defragment the drive. Replaced it with a 200gb drive when it broke down.

Are the errors consistent (the same tracks gets distorted/played even after a reboot etc), or are the errors different each boot? How is the DAE playback buffer set?

[lukpac]

Sounds like issues I had when I had a dodgy TDM ribbon cable. Wrong channels where muted, sound played back distorted and half of the tracks where silent. Replacing the TDM cable did the trick.
Back then I was using a 400gb drive in my MDD. Never had any issues except Norton Disk Utilities refusing to defragment the drive. Replaced it with a 200gb drive when it broke down.

Are the errors consistent (the same tracks gets distorted/played even after a reboot etc), or are the errors different each boot? How is the DAE playback buffer set?

I'm leaning towards it not being a cable since 1) the 100 GB partition on the same drive doesn't have any such issues and 2) the issues are only in Pro Tools (and then only when playing files; reading the files to generate the waveforms seems to work fine).

The issues seem to be consistent.

I will take a look at the DAE settings when I get home. I don't know offhand, other than that I haven't changed them.

Thanks, and I'll keep you posted.

[supernova777]

u are working with an ata controller that was designed to handle 200gb drives not 4tb drives

200 GB drives? According to what/who? I used a 500 GB drive for years without a problem. Where is there any indication that the controller can't handle such large drives? We already know there's a limitation due to the partition map, but that has nothing to do with the controller.

look bud,
i dont know how old you are.. or anythign about u.. but what i can tell is you are a bit uneducated on the history of hard drives... but in 2002 (when your computer was built) they had JUST surpassed the 137gb limitation... that explains why one controller is ata-100 and the other ata-66.. i dont think u really fully comprehend what this means lol but let me spell it out for you.. in 2002 there wasnt any drives larger then 200gb.. thats why i said it was designed for 200gb drives.. which would be "the next size coming soon" from what was widely the norm.. 80gb + 120gb drives were the norm in 2002 .. 160gb probably were introduced later into the year.. theres a slight possibility that 200gb drives were introduced in late 2002.. but more likely in 2003.

good for u that your disk works.. but if u are having problems.. Like its been outlined her numerous times for your benefit.. its because u are dealing with unexplored territory in other words u are the only one bat shit crazy enuff to try to use a 4tb 2011+ capacity drive on a hd controller that was built long before 250gb + 500gb drives even existed.

i dont know how much more illustrative i can get man  lol

if u pay attention to anyone elses comments on this entire site u will see that noone here has really tried to use such a large drive not even close.. look at knez comments above he just made to you.. 400gb drive, replaced with 200gb drive..
why dont u go ahead and ask knez if he would do what u are doing? he will probably respond to say that he doesnt feel that its a good idea... ask anyone else..
u are pushing the boundaries of whats right for the machine.. and as a result u should prepare for wierd things to occur because u are not within a fully supported configuration... theres a reason why people stick to the reccommendations.
they dont want to deal with strange problems

im not here to be 100% correct and have all the answers.. im just trying to tell u whats common sense.. and whats reccommeneded from a common sense perspective... and that common sense is telling me u arent really seeing that u are using hardware thats an innappropriate size for the machine.

[lukpac]

look bud,
i dont know how old you are.. or anythign about u.. but what i can tell is you are a bit uneducated on the history of hard drives... but in 2002 (when your computer was built) they had JUST surpassed the 137gb limitation... that explains why one controller is ata-100 and the other ata-66.. i dont think u really fully comprehend what this means lol but let me spell it out for you.. in 2002 there wasnt any drives larger then 200gb.. thats why i said it was designed for 200gb drives.. which would be "the next size coming soon" from what was widely the norm.. 80gb + 120gb drives were the norm in 2002 .. 160gb probably were introduced later into the year.. theres a slight possibility that 200gb drives were introduced in 2002.. but more likely in 2003.

Again: the fact that larger drives were not available in 2002 does not mean that there was no expectation that larger drives would be available in the future. On the contrary: the fact that the G4 MDD supports 48-bit LBA indicates there *was* an expectation of larger drives in the future. There are many documented limitations regarding drive and partition size. The ATA controllers in the G4 MDD is not one of them.

And the 137 GB limit has nothing to do with the 2 controllers, since both can address drives larger than that.

good for u that your disk works.. but if u are having problems.. Like its been outlined her numerous times for your benefit.. its because u are dealing with unexplored territory in other words u are the only one bat shit crazy enuff to try to use a 4tb 2011+ capacity drive on a hd controller that was built long before 250gb + 500gb drives even existed.

i dont know how much more illustrative i can get man  lol

The point is, you don't know what's causing my problem. It's possible it's an issue with the controller not liking that large of a drive, but that is pure speculation on your part. It's just as possible that Pro Tools doesn't like partitions above a certain size. The fact that Pro Tools doesn't have a problem with the 100 GB partition on the same drive makes that a distinct possibility.

Would a 2 TB or 1 TB drive not have this problem with similar partition sizes? I don't know, and based on your replies, you don't know either.

Again, there's some sort of issue or limitation with Pro Tools 5 that isn't present in OS 9 itself. Whether that has to do with a drive or partition above a certain size, I don't know. But that's why I'm asking. I will experiment and try to come to my own conclusions, but I thought if somebody already had some knowledge on the subject it would help quicken that process.

And for the record, I've been dealing with Macs for close to 25 years.

[MacTron]

I told you before: this is a confusing topic. I have to admit that now I'm more confused about this thread also.

But I'll try to briefly what we know about this over 2 TB Hard Drives:

- Using this big drives is mainly an unexplored territory.
- There are some report about this hard drives saying that they don't work.
- Regardless of whether is on a Firewire, SATA or ATA 100/133 controller.
- Partitioning it into less than to 2 TB seems that don't solve the problem.
- In some cases 4TB HD seems to work, but when they are half filled are problematic.

All this seems point us to an absolute upper limit on Mac Os 9 of a physical hard drive: 2TB.

This is what we know...  Until someone could prove the opposite.

[lukpac]

I told you before: this is a confusing topic. I have to admit that now I'm more confused about this thread also.

But I'll try to briefly what we know about this over 2 TB Hard Drives:

- Using this big drives is mainly an unexplored territory.
- There are some report about this hard drives saying that they don't work.
- Regardless of whether is on a Firewire, SATA or ATA 100/133 controller.
- Partitioning it into less than to 2 TB seems that don't solve the problem.
- In some cases 4TB HD seems to work, but when they are half filled are problematic.

All this seems point us to an absolute upper limit on Mac Os 9 of a physical hard drive: 2TB.

This is what we know...  Until someone could prove the opposite.

To be clear: the upper limit imposed by OS 9 is not based on a hardware limitation, but APM, which can only address 32 bits worth of blocks (for ~2 TB total).

I'm still not understanding the last concern ("but when they are half filled are problematic"). Because of the limitation of APM, it's impossible to partition more than ~2 TB of space, and thus it's impossible to fill the disk past that point.

I've read about (but not experienced, since I haven't tried it) size limitations for boot volumes. I wonder if there is a similar issue with Pro Tools.

[supernova777]

loook everyone is trying to tell u.... u are asking for trouble using this disk with a g4
things may 'appear to be working' but we have warned you.. that it has been reported that things were just fine and then BAMM! out of nowhere the drive all goes corrupt.. we arent stupid here.. we have told u what we know.. u make the decision on what to do.. given the information we have shared..
it isnt about us being right.. we dont exist to provide a correct answer to every question or problem u might have...
we keep telling u over and over the reasons why..u just dont want to accept it.

yes u CAN use this disk
but SHOULD you?

CAN and SHOULD are two different things

noone else here would be as foolish to attempt what u are doing because we understand this introduces + increases the chance for problems.
besides that its over kill. and YOU ARE WASTING 50% OF THE DRIVES CAPACITY!!!

use a normal size drive. (500gb, 750gb, 1TB, 2TB --- NOT 4 TB)
make a fileserver.
store your files on your server
copy them to your dedicated audio drive when u need to.

for me personally i wouldnt even try to put a drive above 1TB into any of my mac os 9 powerpc macs
the largest i would even attempt to do would be a striped raid volume with 2 x 1TB drives (obviously adding up to 2TB)

when the protools 5 documentation was written.. these drive sizes didnt exist..
as with anything to do with computers.. sometimes u get lucky and things are compatible
but have BUGS.. because of how the program is written.. if there is some type ofcalculation done inside the program
to ensure drive size for recording. etc etc this math gets performed and booom!! your system crashes because now the formula is different
this is how computer bugs happen.... theres many variables involved.. u are introducing an unknown element into your setup

we have tried to tell u that what u are doing is not reccommended.

[lukpac]

loook everyone is trying to tell u.... u are asking for trouble using this disk with a g4

we keep telling u over and over the reasons why..
u just dont want to accept it.

There's nothing to accept. All you are offering is "you have an old computer and a large new drive, that's bad". That doesn't help.

Computers don't run on magic. When something doesn't work, there's a reason for it. We already know that on OS 9, only ~2 TB of partitions will be available on large drives. That's a limitation of APM. But that doesn't mean that large drives won't work, just that you can't access their full capacity. And outside of Pro Tools, that's been exactly my experience.

Would I be having the same problem with a 2 TB drive? A 1 TB drive? A 750 GB drive? What about the 500 GB drive I was previously using, but partitioned differently? I don't know, and at this point, nobody else seems to know either. You're saying I'm "asking for trouble", but you don't really know why. I ran for years with a 500 GB drive, split into 3 partitions, without any issues. What's the cutoff, and why?

[supernova777]

loook everyone is trying to tell u.... u are asking for trouble using this disk with a g4

we keep telling u over and over the reasons why..
u just dont want to accept it.

There's nothing to accept. All you are offering is "you have an old computer and a large new drive, that's bad". That doesn't help.

Computers don't run on magic.

LOL u are cracking me up bud..
u just dont want to give up eh?? hahaha i admire that.. but this is the wrong thing to be a stubborn bullheaded donkey about.

read the other threads on this forum where diehard explictly says not to use volumes larger then 190gb
and that volumes larger then this size cannot be properly defragged without corrupting the file system with "b tree" errors, + the reason why he ABSOLUTELY refuses to run mac os x on the same machine as mac os 9 .. why he reccommends using a 500gb drive divided into 120 /190 /190 parts..this advice was given to us based on the guys experience having run into the same problems over nad over and over.. setting up many mahcines for other people.. which translates into 30 x the lifetime experience of your average user..

yes the underlying technologies support larger drives, but the OS hasnt been updated since 2002.
perhaps if we could talk to a mac os 9 developer from the core dveloper team heor she could make some quick additions to the code to allow for many new things but sometimes u have to learn to accept some limitations in order to achieve stability + expected performance. rather then unexpected problems..
of which there have been MANY MANY 'strange problems' that our users have encountered.. mac os 9 can be buggy as hell.. if u make the mistake of doing something wrong in your configuration, be it hardware or software.

u must be a gambler..
im not.. i play it safe. risk is not exciting for me.
either that or you are a "more is better" obssessive compulsive... MUST have the biggest....
biggest does not always equal best


http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=15_1086_210_212&item_id=057970
4tb drive =  Our Price $189.99

http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=15_1086_210_212&item_id=042241
2tb drive = Our Price $99.99

u are wasting literally 100$ by even having this disk in the g4.