160Gb hdd on Win2k

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by DaveG, Feb 13, 2004.

  1. DaveG

    DaveG Guest

    I've installed a 160Gb hdd on my win2k box. The bios originally detected
    it as a 136Gb disk, so I upgraded the bios and it now shows as a 160Gb disk.

    I've added the EnableBigLba registry key but Win2k refuses to recognize
    the drive as anything other than 128Gb.

    The big disk is on the secondary ide along with a CD Writer, there is a
    20Gb drive on the primary IDE

    Win2k is at sp4.

    Are there any other gotcha's with adding a big disk ?

    Cheers,

    Dave
     
    DaveG, Feb 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. DaveG

    Jackson Guest

    "DaveG" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've installed a 160Gb hdd on my win2k box. The bios originally detected


    > Are there any other gotcha's with adding a big disk ?


    Is it a segate 160gb with 8mb buffer?

    Jackson
     
    Jackson, Feb 13, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. DaveG

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > I've installed a 160Gb hdd on my win2k box. The bios originally detected
    > it as a 136Gb disk, so I upgraded the bios and it now shows as a 160Gb disk.
    >
    > I've added the EnableBigLba registry key but Win2k refuses to recognize
    > the drive as anything other than 128Gb.
    >
    > The big disk is on the secondary ide along with a CD Writer, there is a
    > 20Gb drive on the primary IDE
    >
    > Win2k is at sp4.
    >
    > Are there any other gotcha's with adding a big disk ?


    There is a limit to the partition size if it's formatted as FAT32 so
    don't use that

    --
    Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/
     
    Mainlander, Feb 13, 2004
    #3
  4. DaveG

    GraB Guest

    On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:56:36 +1300, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> I've installed a 160Gb hdd on my win2k box. The bios originally detected
    >> it as a 136Gb disk, so I upgraded the bios and it now shows as a 160Gb disk.
    >>
    >> I've added the EnableBigLba registry key but Win2k refuses to recognize
    >> the drive as anything other than 128Gb.
    >>
    >> The big disk is on the secondary ide along with a CD Writer, there is a
    >> 20Gb drive on the primary IDE
    >>
    >> Win2k is at sp4.
    >>
    >> Are there any other gotcha's with adding a big disk ?

    >
    >There is a limit to the partition size if it's formatted as FAT32 so
    >don't use that


    This from a technical friend of mine:

    File system limits:

    FAT16:
    file 2 gigabytes,
    partition 2 gigabytes
    FAT16 (NT):
    file 4 gigabytes,
    partition 4 gigabytes
    FAT32:
    file 4 gigabytes,
    partition 2 terrabytes
    NTFS:
    file 2 terrabytes,
    partition 16 exabytes (18.4 x 10^18 bytes)
     
    GraB, Feb 13, 2004
    #4
  5. DaveG

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:56:36 +1300, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >> I've installed a 160Gb hdd on my win2k box. The bios originally detected
    > >> it as a 136Gb disk, so I upgraded the bios and it now shows as a 160Gb disk.
    > >>
    > >> I've added the EnableBigLba registry key but Win2k refuses to recognize
    > >> the drive as anything other than 128Gb.
    > >>
    > >> The big disk is on the secondary ide along with a CD Writer, there is a
    > >> 20Gb drive on the primary IDE
    > >>
    > >> Win2k is at sp4.
    > >>
    > >> Are there any other gotcha's with adding a big disk ?

    > >
    > >There is a limit to the partition size if it's formatted as FAT32 so
    > >don't use that

    >
    > This from a technical friend of mine:
    >
    > File system limits:
    >
    > FAT16:
    > file 2 gigabytes,
    > partition 2 gigabytes
    > FAT16 (NT):
    > file 4 gigabytes,
    > partition 4 gigabytes
    > FAT32:
    > file 4 gigabytes,
    > partition 2 terrabytes
    > NTFS:
    > file 2 terrabytes,
    > partition 16 exabytes (18.4 x 10^18 bytes)


    Irrelevant. XP in particular can only format to I think its's 32 or 64 GB
    FAT32 partitions, possibly the same restriction applies to 2000 and NT4.

    --
    Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/
     
    Mainlander, Feb 13, 2004
    #5
  6. DaveG

    Tim Guest

    Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote in
    news::

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:56:36 +1300, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <>,
    >> > says...
    >> >> I've installed a 160Gb hdd on my win2k box. The bios originally
    >> >> detected it as a 136Gb disk, so I upgraded the bios and it now
    >> >> shows as a 160Gb disk.
    >> >>
    >> >> I've added the EnableBigLba registry key but Win2k refuses to
    >> >> recognize the drive as anything other than 128Gb.
    >> >>
    >> >> The big disk is on the secondary ide along with a CD Writer, there
    >> >> is a 20Gb drive on the primary IDE
    >> >>
    >> >> Win2k is at sp4.
    >> >>
    >> >> Are there any other gotcha's with adding a big disk ?
    >> >
    >> >There is a limit to the partition size if it's formatted as FAT32 so
    >> >don't use that

    >>
    >> This from a technical friend of mine:
    >>
    >> File system limits:
    >>
    >> FAT16:
    >> file 2 gigabytes,
    >> partition 2 gigabytes
    >> FAT16 (NT):
    >> file 4 gigabytes,
    >> partition 4 gigabytes
    >> FAT32:
    >> file 4 gigabytes,
    >> partition 2 terrabytes
    >> NTFS:
    >> file 2 terrabytes,
    >> partition 16 exabytes (18.4 x 10^18 bytes)

    >
    > Irrelevant. XP in particular can only format to I think its's 32 or 64
    > GB FAT32 partitions, possibly the same restriction applies to 2000
    > and NT4.


    Partition Magic can overcome those limits though ;)


    --
    Tim
    - <insert witty signature here>
     
    Tim, Feb 14, 2004
    #6
  7. DaveG

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>, *@*.*
    says...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:56:36 +1300, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
    > >
    > > >In article <>,
    > > > says...
    > > >> I've installed a 160Gb hdd on my win2k box. The bios originally detected
    > > >> it as a 136Gb disk, so I upgraded the bios and it now shows as a 160Gb disk.
    > > >>
    > > >> I've added the EnableBigLba registry key but Win2k refuses to recognize
    > > >> the drive as anything other than 128Gb.

    >
    > > >> The big disk is on the secondary ide along with a CD Writer, there is a
    > > >> 20Gb drive on the primary IDE
    > > >>
    > > >> Win2k is at sp4.
    > > >>
    > > >> Are there any other gotcha's with adding a big disk ?
    > > >
    > > >There is a limit to the partition size if it's formatted as FAT32 so
    > > >don't use that

    > >
    > > This from a technical friend of mine:
    > >
    > > File system limits:
    > >
    > > FAT16:
    > > file 2 gigabytes,
    > > partition 2 gigabytes
    > > FAT16 (NT):
    > > file 4 gigabytes,
    > > partition 4 gigabytes
    > > FAT32:
    > > file 4 gigabytes,
    > > partition 2 terrabytes


    This is theoretical. The practical limits are as follows:

    In Windows 98, 128 GB.
    See http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;184006

    I'd guess the OP has formatted in 98 because 2000 will not format
    anything bigger than 32 GB.
    See the same article referenced above.

    > > NTFS:
    > > file 2 terrabytes,
    > > partition 16 exabytes (18.4 x 10^18 bytes)

    >
     
    Mainlander, Feb 14, 2004
    #7
  8. DaveG

    GraB Guest

    >> > File system limits:
    >> >
    >> > FAT16:
    >> > file 2 gigabytes,
    >> > partition 2 gigabytes
    >> > FAT16 (NT):
    >> > file 4 gigabytes,
    >> > partition 4 gigabytes
    >> > FAT32:
    >> > file 4 gigabytes,
    >> > partition 2 terrabytes

    >
    >This is theoretical. The practical limits are as follows:
    >
    >In Windows 98, 128 GB.
    >See http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;184006
    >
    >I'd guess the OP has formatted in 98 because 2000 will not format
    >anything bigger than 32 GB.
    >See the same article referenced above.
    >
    >> > NTFS:
    >> > file 2 terrabytes,
    >> > partition 16 exabytes (18.4 x 10^18 bytes)

    >>


    I like the way that
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;314463
    suggests resorting to Win98 or WinME to format a partition larger than
    32Gb.

    Another option is to start from a Microsoft Windows 98 or Microsoft
    Windows Millennium Edition (Me) Startup disk and use the Format tool
    included on the disk.

    In the days of large hard drives it amazes me that MS have these
    built-in limits. 32Gb drives would not be large in the light of a
    250Gb drive.
     
    GraB, Feb 14, 2004
    #8
  9. DaveG

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > >> > File system limits:
    > >> >
    > >> > FAT16:
    > >> > file 2 gigabytes,
    > >> > partition 2 gigabytes
    > >> > FAT16 (NT):
    > >> > file 4 gigabytes,
    > >> > partition 4 gigabytes
    > >> > FAT32:
    > >> > file 4 gigabytes,
    > >> > partition 2 terrabytes

    > >
    > >This is theoretical. The practical limits are as follows:
    > >
    > >In Windows 98, 128 GB.
    > >See http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;184006
    > >
    > >I'd guess the OP has formatted in 98 because 2000 will not format
    > >anything bigger than 32 GB.
    > >See the same article referenced above.
    > >
    > >> > NTFS:
    > >> > file 2 terrabytes,
    > >> > partition 16 exabytes (18.4 x 10^18 bytes)
    > >>

    >
    > I like the way that
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;314463
    > suggests resorting to Win98 or WinME to format a partition larger than
    > 32Gb.
    >
    > Another option is to start from a Microsoft Windows 98 or Microsoft
    > Windows Millennium Edition (Me) Startup disk and use the Format tool
    > included on the disk.
    >
    > In the days of large hard drives it amazes me that MS have these
    > built-in limits. 32Gb drives would not be large in the light of a
    > 250Gb drive.


    There are no such limits. Anyone on NT, 2000 or XP can use NTFS on these
    drives. What you are referring to is people who want to run the obsolete
    FAT32 on a drive.

    --
    Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/
     
    Mainlander, Feb 14, 2004
    #9
  10. DaveG

    GraB Guest

    On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:02:23 GMT, (Matthew Poole)
    wrote:

    >In article <>, GraB <> wrote:
    >>>> > File system limits:

    >*SNIP*
    >>In the days of large hard drives it amazes me that MS have these
    >>built-in limits. 32Gb drives would not be large in the light of a
    >>250Gb drive.

    >
    >Win2k is, now, four years old. Four years ago, a 40GB drive was
    >enormous. You're comparing an old OS with modern technology - How about
    >we look at the limitations of FAT16 in contrast with modern drives, for
    >a really fair comparison?
    >
    >FAT32 is a hack on FAT16, which is a hack on FAT12. If you want
    >enormous drive support, use a real file system - NTFS, FFS, JFS,
    >ReiserFS, ext2/3... the FATs are a poor match with modern technology,
    >due to their inefficient space usage - 64KB clusters? No thanks.


    True. But 64Kb clusters have their use if you are using a partition
    to capture video, for instance. The drive will read and write data
    faster when it is on larger clusters. Once I accidentally had a large
    parition in 2Kb clusters. It tooks ages to defrag. Also copying
    large files around especially to a drive with very small clusters (I
    experimented with 512byte clusters on a partition dedicated to
    internet cache) is noticeably slow. It was painfully slow on 512byte
    clusters. One 32Kb cluster will be read faster than eight 4Kb
    clusters.
     
    GraB, Feb 14, 2004
    #10
  11. DaveG

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:02:23 GMT, (Matthew Poole)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>, GraB <> wrote:
    > >>>> > File system limits:

    > >*SNIP*
    > >>In the days of large hard drives it amazes me that MS have these
    > >>built-in limits. 32Gb drives would not be large in the light of a
    > >>250Gb drive.

    > >
    > >Win2k is, now, four years old. Four years ago, a 40GB drive was
    > >enormous. You're comparing an old OS with modern technology - How about
    > >we look at the limitations of FAT16 in contrast with modern drives, for
    > >a really fair comparison?
    > >
    > >FAT32 is a hack on FAT16, which is a hack on FAT12. If you want
    > >enormous drive support, use a real file system - NTFS, FFS, JFS,
    > >ReiserFS, ext2/3... the FATs are a poor match with modern technology,
    > >due to their inefficient space usage - 64KB clusters? No thanks.

    >
    > True. But 64Kb clusters have their use if you are using a partition
    > to capture video, for instance. The drive will read and write data
    > faster when it is on larger clusters.


    But surely this only applies to the obsolete FAT system.

    --
    Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/
     
    Mainlander, Feb 14, 2004
    #11
  12. In article <>, GraB <> wrote:
    >>> > File system limits:

    *SNIP*
    >In the days of large hard drives it amazes me that MS have these
    >built-in limits. 32Gb drives would not be large in the light of a
    >250Gb drive.


    Win2k is, now, four years old. Four years ago, a 40GB drive was
    enormous. You're comparing an old OS with modern technology - How about
    we look at the limitations of FAT16 in contrast with modern drives, for
    a really fair comparison?

    FAT32 is a hack on FAT16, which is a hack on FAT12. If you want
    enormous drive support, use a real file system - NTFS, FFS, JFS,
    ReiserFS, ext2/3... the FATs are a poor match with modern technology,
    due to their inefficient space usage - 64KB clusters? No thanks.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Feb 14, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <>, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
    >In article <>,
    > says...

    *SNIP*
    >> True. But 64Kb clusters have their use if you are using a partition
    >> to capture video, for instance. The drive will read and write data
    >> faster when it is on larger clusters.

    >
    >But surely this only applies to the obsolete FAT system.
    >

    No, it applies to all file systems. The clusters moniker is an MS
    thing, but part of performance tuning a system is ensuring that the
    cluster size is matched to the use of the partition.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Feb 14, 2004
    #13
  14. DaveG

    GraB Guest

    On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:48:19 +1300, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:02:23 GMT, (Matthew Poole)
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <>, GraB <> wrote:
    >> >>>> > File system limits:
    >> >*SNIP*
    >> >>In the days of large hard drives it amazes me that MS have these
    >> >>built-in limits. 32Gb drives would not be large in the light of a
    >> >>250Gb drive.
    >> >
    >> >Win2k is, now, four years old. Four years ago, a 40GB drive was
    >> >enormous. You're comparing an old OS with modern technology - How about
    >> >we look at the limitations of FAT16 in contrast with modern drives, for
    >> >a really fair comparison?
    >> >
    >> >FAT32 is a hack on FAT16, which is a hack on FAT12. If you want
    >> >enormous drive support, use a real file system - NTFS, FFS, JFS,
    >> >ReiserFS, ext2/3... the FATs are a poor match with modern technology,
    >> >due to their inefficient space usage - 64KB clusters? No thanks.

    >>
    >> True. But 64Kb clusters have their use if you are using a partition
    >> to capture video, for instance. The drive will read and write data
    >> faster when it is on larger clusters.

    >
    >But surely this only applies to the obsolete FAT system.


    You're starting to sound like Woger.
     
    GraB, Feb 14, 2004
    #14
  15. DaveG

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:48:19 +1300, Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:02:23 GMT, (Matthew Poole)
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >In article <>, GraB <> wrote:
    > >> >>>> > File system limits:
    > >> >*SNIP*
    > >> >>In the days of large hard drives it amazes me that MS have these
    > >> >>built-in limits. 32Gb drives would not be large in the light of a
    > >> >>250Gb drive.
    > >> >
    > >> >Win2k is, now, four years old. Four years ago, a 40GB drive was
    > >> >enormous. You're comparing an old OS with modern technology - How about
    > >> >we look at the limitations of FAT16 in contrast with modern drives, for
    > >> >a really fair comparison?
    > >> >
    > >> >FAT32 is a hack on FAT16, which is a hack on FAT12. If you want
    > >> >enormous drive support, use a real file system - NTFS, FFS, JFS,
    > >> >ReiserFS, ext2/3... the FATs are a poor match with modern technology,
    > >> >due to their inefficient space usage - 64KB clusters? No thanks.
    > >>
    > >> True. But 64Kb clusters have their use if you are using a partition
    > >> to capture video, for instance. The drive will read and write data
    > >> faster when it is on larger clusters.

    > >
    > >But surely this only applies to the obsolete FAT system.

    >
    > You're starting to sound like Woger.


    FAT is a kludge. MS say it is inefficient over about 400 MB. FAT32 was
    only intended to get 16 bit Windows through to XP, which uses NTFS. Linux
    users have a range of vastly superior filesystems to FAT to choose from.

    --
    Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/
     
    Mainlander, Feb 14, 2004
    #15
  16. On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:54:44 +1300, GraB wrote:

    > In the days of large hard drives it amazes me that MS have these
    > built-in limits. 32Gb drives would not be large in the light of a
    > 250Gb drive.


    Or the 10TB array I just finished commissioning.

    The default OS for the controllers is WinXP
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 14, 2004
    #16
  17. On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:19:27 +1300, GraB wrote:

    > True. But 64Kb clusters have their use if you are using a partition
    > to capture video, for instance. The drive will read and write data
    > faster when it is on larger clusters. Once I accidentally had a large
    > parition in 2Kb clusters. It tooks ages to defrag.


    This is all FAT-centric

    I have a 1TB drive with 3 million files on it, most of which are < 4kB.
    With ReisferFS there is no fragmentation and moving them is almost
    instatntaneous.

    Anything smaller than a sector gets stored in the directory inode, as do
    partials. This makes for extremely efficient space utilisation and the
    B-tree indexing system makes finding any given file (there are 600,000 in
    one directory) a sub-1-second affair.

    Try doing THAT with FAT or NTFS.
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 14, 2004
    #17
  18. DaveG

    Enkidu Guest

    On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:46:56 +0000, Uncle StoatWarbler
    <> wrote:
    >
    >Anything smaller than a sector gets stored in the directory inode, as do
    >partials. This makes for extremely efficient space utilisation and the
    >B-tree indexing system makes finding any given file (there are 600,000 in
    >one directory) a sub-1-second affair.
    >

    Wow! Imagine what would happen if they all decided to grow to > 1
    sector at the same time!

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Feb 14, 2004
    #18
  19. On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:18:46 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

    >>Anything smaller than a sector gets stored in the directory inode, as do
    >>partials. This makes for extremely efficient space utilisation and the
    >>B-tree indexing system makes finding any given file (there are 600,000 in
    >>one directory) a sub-1-second affair.
    >>

    > Wow! Imagine what would happen if they all decided to grow to > 1
    > sector at the same time!


    Not a lot. That's one of the tests.

    The indexing structure copes very well with the filesystem getting a
    hammering
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 15, 2004
    #19
  20. DaveG

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:19:27 +1300, GraB wrote:
    >
    > > True. But 64Kb clusters have their use if you are using a partition
    > > to capture video, for instance. The drive will read and write data
    > > faster when it is on larger clusters. Once I accidentally had a large
    > > parition in 2Kb clusters. It tooks ages to defrag.

    >
    > This is all FAT-centric
    >
    > I have a 1TB drive with 3 million files on it, most of which are < 4kB.
    > With ReisferFS there is no fragmentation and moving them is almost
    > instatntaneous.


    Yeah I'm going to put Reiser on my Linux PC, when I get it set up.
    ReiserV4 is even better.

    --
    Full featured open source Win32 newsreader - Gravity 2.70
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpgravity/
     
    Mainlander, Feb 15, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    160GB Seagate Momentus 5400.3 2.5" Hard Drive

    Silverstrand, Jan 31, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    718
    Silverstrand
    Jan 31, 2006
  2. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    646
    Silverstrand
    Feb 25, 2006
  3. hugh jass

    160Gb hard drive not found on My Computer

    hugh jass, Jan 8, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,154
    Conor
    Jan 8, 2005
  4. thing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    751
    thing
    Aug 15, 2004
  5. ashjas
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,130
Loading...

Share This Page