It looks to me as if the one from AC Ryan is exactly like the one I originally linked to.
Here's the same thing again, this time from Amazon, and with the explicit statement "No upper limit on HDD capacity".
My guess is that the page on AC Ryan is somewhat out of date (all the images in the "gallery" are missing), in which case there's a good possibility that they didn't expect drives in excess of 1TB any time soon. Just to back that idea up, one of the images is of the (defunct) USB/firewire version. notice that it is a tick factor - I think they probably wrote that when specifying 1024GB was bragging. It isn't even a limit which makes sense when talking about disk capacities. Couple that with the statement "supports all 3.5" harddisk up to 10000RPM" - another bragging statement. The disk speed isn't even measured by the interface so how could it be a limit? It just happened to be the speed of the fastest disks then available.
I've looked at several cases, in every instance where a limit is mentioned, the comment has been that there is no limit. With a Sata interface there really isn't any reason why there should be a limit. Even with a PATA interface the limit used to be 137GB. That was abandoned for full 48-bit addressing which has a limit of 144 petabytes. There has never been a controller with a limit between those figures.
Perhaps you can find someone who is willing to categorically state that they've got a limit on their enclosures, and explain why. Until then I think I'll go with the assumption that people like Amazon have got it right.
Bookmarks