137 Gbyte hard drive capacity barrier
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: Need help with Emachines T2542
Next: No Sound
From: John Richards on 21 Feb 2006 16:20 I'm installing a new 200 Gbyte Seagate hard drive in a Windows XP SP2 PC with an MSI K8T Neo series MB. The guide from Seagate warns about the 137 Gbyte addressing limitation of some Operating Systems and of some Mother Boards. The OS should be OK but I can't seem to find anything in the motherboard documentation that specifically mentions this limitation so I am unsure of whether I can safely partition the drive to more than 137 Gbytes. I did do a little research and this is what I came up with. According to the Seagate guide, the 137 Gbyte limit is a result of not being capable of 48 bit addressing. I found a discussion of this issue on the Seagate site http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/tp/137gb.pdf which explains that the limit can be determined by the number of addressable bits. Using their calculations, 28 bit addressing yields 137 Gbytes ( 28 base 2 x 512 Bytes) and the newer 48 bit addressing yields 144 Petabytes. The guide for the Motherboard states under the heading "Hard Disk Connectors: IDE1 & IDE2" that " The mainboard has a 32-bit Enhanced PCI IDE and Ultra DMA 66/100/133 controller that that provides PIO mode 0~5, Bus Master, and Ultra DMA 66/100/133 function." I'm assuming that the 32-bit refers to the addressable bits (Enhanced over the 28-bit ?) which, using the calculations above, would yield about 2.2 Terabytes. I would conclude that my MB is capable of working with partitions of more than 137 Gbytes using the IDE connectors on the MB or have I gone astray? Thanks John
From: Paul on 21 Feb 2006 17:31 In article <wuLKf.15571$z%5.8040(a)twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "John Richards" <jrichar3(a)twcny.rr.com> wrote: > I'm installing a new 200 Gbyte Seagate hard drive in a Windows XP SP2 PC > with an MSI K8T Neo series MB. The guide from Seagate warns about the 137 > Gbyte addressing limitation of some Operating Systems and of some Mother > Boards. The OS should be OK but I can't seem to find anything in the > motherboard documentation that specifically mentions this limitation so I am > unsure of whether I can safely partition the drive to more than 137 Gbytes. > > I did do a little research and this is what I came up with. According to > the Seagate guide, the 137 Gbyte limit is a result of not being capable of > 48 bit addressing. I found a discussion of this issue on the Seagate site > http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/tp/137gb.pdf which explains that the > limit can be determined by the number of addressable bits. Using their > calculations, 28 bit addressing yields 137 Gbytes ( 28 base 2 x 512 Bytes) > and the newer 48 bit addressing yields 144 Petabytes. > > The guide for the Motherboard states under the heading "Hard Disk > Connectors: IDE1 & IDE2" that " The mainboard has a 32-bit Enhanced PCI IDE > and Ultra DMA 66/100/133 controller that that provides PIO mode 0~5, Bus > Master, and Ultra DMA 66/100/133 function." I'm assuming that the 32-bit > refers to the addressable bits (Enhanced over the 28-bit ?) which, using the > calculations above, would yield about 2.2 Terabytes. > > I would conclude that my MB is capable of working with partitions of more > than 137 Gbytes using the IDE connectors on the MB or have I gone astray? > > Thanks > John > > I thought this might amuse you. This is a proposal to the standards committee for 48 bit LBA. http://www.t10.org/t13/technical/e00101r6.pdf The 32 bits refers to the connection of the logic block to the rest of the system. The IDE bus on the ribbon cable is 16 bits wide, and it is possible to combine two 16 bit quantities from the cable, before passing them to the rest of the computer. So, 32 bits has nothing to do with being "4 more than 28", and doesn't imply an over 512GB addressing capability. If you'd said what your motherboard was, some manufacturers list whether a particular BIOS supports 48 bit LBA. Even if your motherboard cannot support 48 bit LBA (because the BIOS is too old and unsupported), you can still retrofit the capability, by using an add-in IDE card created after the ATA/ATAPI-6 standard was released. A Promise Ultra133 TX2 is such a card. (The 133 rate was added to ATA/ATAPI-6 at the same time as the 48 bit LBA feature.) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16816102007 Paul
From: Andy on 21 Feb 2006 20:29 Any motherboard that supports 64-bit CPUs will have BIOSes that support 48-bit LBA. However, to enable Windows XP to properly access large drives, the only thing necessary is the installation of SP1 or SP2. On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:20:28 GMT, "John Richards" <jrichar3(a)twcny.rr.com> wrote: >I'm installing a new 200 Gbyte Seagate hard drive in a Windows XP SP2 PC >with an MSI K8T Neo series MB. The guide from Seagate warns about the 137 >Gbyte addressing limitation of some Operating Systems and of some Mother >Boards. The OS should be OK but I can't seem to find anything in the >motherboard documentation that specifically mentions this limitation so I am >unsure of whether I can safely partition the drive to more than 137 Gbytes. > >I did do a little research and this is what I came up with. According to >the Seagate guide, the 137 Gbyte limit is a result of not being capable of >48 bit addressing. I found a discussion of this issue on the Seagate site >http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/tp/137gb.pdf which explains that the >limit can be determined by the number of addressable bits. Using their >calculations, 28 bit addressing yields 137 Gbytes ( 28 base 2 x 512 Bytes) >and the newer 48 bit addressing yields 144 Petabytes. > >The guide for the Motherboard states under the heading "Hard Disk >Connectors: IDE1 & IDE2" that " The mainboard has a 32-bit Enhanced PCI IDE >and Ultra DMA 66/100/133 controller that that provides PIO mode 0~5, Bus >Master, and Ultra DMA 66/100/133 function." I'm assuming that the 32-bit >refers to the addressable bits (Enhanced over the 28-bit ?) which, using the >calculations above, would yield about 2.2 Terabytes. > >I would conclude that my MB is capable of working with partitions of more >than 137 Gbytes using the IDE connectors on the MB or have I gone astray? > >Thanks >John > > >
From: don on 23 Feb 2006 21:35 Two limitations at 137 GB: XP .......the fix is to update XP with the latest updates , at least sp2 (why not do this anway) BIOS limits..... the fix is to update you BIOS "John Richards" <jrichar3(a)twcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:wuLKf.15571$z%5.8040(a)twister.nyroc.rr.com... > I'm installing a new 200 Gbyte Seagate hard drive in a Windows XP SP2 PC > with an MSI K8T Neo series MB. The guide from Seagate warns about the 137 > Gbyte addressing limitation of some Operating Systems and of some Mother > Boards. The OS should be OK but I can't seem to find anything in the > motherboard documentation that specifically mentions this limitation so I am > unsure of whether I can safely partition the drive to more than 137 Gbytes. > > I did do a little research and this is what I came up with. According to > the Seagate guide, the 137 Gbyte limit is a result of not being capable of > 48 bit addressing. I found a discussion of this issue on the Seagate site > http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/tp/137gb.pdf which explains that the > limit can be determined by the number of addressable bits. Using their > calculations, 28 bit addressing yields 137 Gbytes ( 28 base 2 x 512 Bytes) > and the newer 48 bit addressing yields 144 Petabytes. > > The guide for the Motherboard states under the heading "Hard Disk > Connectors: IDE1 & IDE2" that " The mainboard has a 32-bit Enhanced PCI IDE > and Ultra DMA 66/100/133 controller that that provides PIO mode 0~5, Bus > Master, and Ultra DMA 66/100/133 function." I'm assuming that the 32-bit > refers to the addressable bits (Enhanced over the 28-bit ?) which, using the > calculations above, would yield about 2.2 Terabytes. > > I would conclude that my MB is capable of working with partitions of more > than 137 Gbytes using the IDE connectors on the MB or have I gone astray? > > Thanks > John > > > >
From: kony on 23 Feb 2006 22:17
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:35:22 GMT, "don" <bubba(a)bubba.net> wrote: >XP .......the fix is to update XP with the latest updates , at least sp2 >(why not do this anway) > Because it's false security, to someone with good secure computing practices it can only result in a worse system. It is primarily targeted at flaws in OE and IE, but if one actually cares about security they're not using OE or IE after SP2 either. |