Large hard drive NTFS vs FAT32
in [Computer]
|
Prev: Notebookempfehlung?
Next: Computer won't boot from CD
From: James D. Andrews on 1 Apr 2010 17:35 "Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message news:hp0ie5$ml1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > James D. Andrews wrote: >> "James D. Andrews" <jamesdandrews(a)att.net> wrote in message >> news:hoqvo1$j7m$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... >>> I'm coming across so much conflicting information out there with more >>> details than I need. I'm not looking for NTFS vs. FAT32 pros & cons. >>> >>> Simply put: What is the maximum HDD size FAT32 can handle? If I get a >>> 500GB-1TB drive, must I use NTFS? >>> SNIP >> The answer I was looking for (Thanks, Paul for a good link) was 127.5Gb. >> >> I'm looking at a 160Gb Hard Drive only showing 127Gb. It's FAT32. I >> figured FAT 32 limitations were the problem, but my searches kept coming >> up with conflicting or confusing information. >> SNIP > > If you're having a problem creating a partition (doesn't matter what file > system) of larger than 128/137 GB, that is a "48 bit LBA" problem. That > won't be fixed by the fat32formatter program. Seagate wrote a document > about the change, and an archived copy is available here. > > http://web.archive.org/web/20070121085230/http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/tp/137gb.pdf > > I had a problem like that, with my Win2K install. It wasn't using the > latest Service Pack, and it refused to put a partition larger than the > 128/137GB limit on a 160GB disk. Once I patched the Win2K OS to SP4, I > could use > the whole disk. > > That is more likely to be seen on an IDE drive, with some older hardware. > > There are motherboards, before 2003, that aren't ready for 48 bit LBA > (i.e. booting). > > To get around the problem, a PCI IDE card may help. The ones for sale now, > are > likely compatible with ATA/ATAPI 6 or later, and suitable for larger > disks. See > the table near the bottom of this page, for details of when 48bit LBA hit > the standards. By buying an IDE card with Ultra133 interfaces (an > ATA/ATAPI 7 > feature), that helps ensure the card covers 48 bit LBA as well. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATA/ATAPI > > The mechanics of 28 bit LBA versus 48 bit LBA, is shown in a proposal for > it here. > The registers are "double pumped", and by writing two sets of numbers to > the registers (keeping the first set in temporary storage), they're able > to > use the original sized register space, but with more room for larger > addresses. For things like controller cards, with pseudo-SCSI software > interfaces, that software interface hides the details, and makes it > possible > to support larger disks, without any additional effort from the user. On > hardware that uses a default OS driver for the disk interface, that is > where > Service Packs come in. > > http://www.t10.org/t13/technical/e00101r6.pdf > > Paul Thanks for the links Paul. Some pretty hefty reading. That should keep me busy for awhile. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: James D. Andrews on 1 Apr 2010 17:38
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hp0qhc$bul$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "James D. Andrews" <jamesdandrews(a)att.net> wrote in message > news:hp071l$1cjd$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... >> >> "James D. Andrews" <jamesdandrews(a)att.net> wrote in message >> news:hoqvo1$j7m$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... >>> I'm coming across so much conflicting information out there with more >>> details than I need. I'm not looking for NTFS vs. FAT32 pros & cons. >>> >>> Simply put: What is the maximum HDD size FAT32 can handle? If I get a >>> 500GB-1TB drive, must I use NTFS? >>> >>> (Win XP) >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- >> >> >> The answer I was looking for (Thanks, Paul for a good link) was 127.5Gb. >> >> I'm looking at a 160Gb Hard Drive only showing 127Gb. It's FAT32. I >> figured FAT 32 limitations were the problem, but my searches kept coming >> up with conflicting or confusing information. >> >> Unfortunately, I don't have a spare HDD around (of adequate size) to do a >> full backup before converting. My own HDD is near capacity so I can't use >> mine. Hmmm. I'll figure something out. >> > > The new drive will also format (NTFS) to the max of 137G, but once the > initial partition is created, then format the remainder of the drive in > one huge chunk. I have a 640G drive that formatted to 137G Drive C, and > 503G Drive D. > > Don't wig-out about the numbers and the apparent lack of adding up. This > happens because of the way they measure a byte. Think of New Math -- the > result doesn't matter, just the process used to get there. New Math > explains why the capacity is expressed as 137,433,751,552 bytes (127GB), > and the Used Space and the Free Space can be added together to get the sum > of 127.9GB. > > Install the new drive, format C to 137GB, and D to whatever is left over, > then set the old HDD to be a Slave (you have to move the jumper) and copy > your documents to the new drive, then wait a week or so to be sure you > have all of the stuff you want, then reformat the old drive to wipe it > clean. At the end of all of this, will boot to the new Drive C, have a > partition for Drive D, and your old HDD set as an entirely different > storage space, Drive E. Actually, the Drive E is dependent upon whether or > not the drive letter is assigned already, or not. If it is assigned, then > the old HDD will take the next available letter that hasn't been assigned. > Thank you for your help. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |