Re: 137GB barrier - multi O/S install problem

Conrad <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Conrad <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

>>> I recently managed to scrape enough pennies to rebuild my lightning-bit
>>> workstation. Motherboard ECS KM400-M2 (rev 3.0) HD wd1600JB, 160gb.

>>> I created a small NTFS partition (8gb) for Win2k,

>> You need to ensure that Win2K has 48
>> bit LBA enabled for a drive over 137G.
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q305098

> I came across that mskb article - requirement #1 threw me:

> The following conditions are necessary for the correct functioning of 48-bit
> LBA ATAPI support:
> ? A computer with a 48-bit LBA-compatible Basic Input/Output System
> (BIOS) installed.

Yeah, that's wildly overstated. It isnt really
necessary, tho it does certainly simplify things.

> Since when I looked in BIOS, and none of the addressing modes
> showed a C/H/S combination over 137GB, I assumed that the
> BIOS was NOT 48-bit LBA, but limited by the 137gb "barrier".

You need a bit more info than that to be sure if its 48 bit LBA
capable or not, particularly if the drive had been partitioned
initially in a different system. It may just have been using the
geometry detail that resulted from that with the AUTO drive type.

>>> I looked in the BIOS and found the following geometry:
>>> C/H/S is 65535/16/255, which adds up to about 137gb.

>> What matters is what it shows the size as in the black bios
>> screen at boot time. Looks like you need to update the bios too.

> Cool, I'll watch that number at boot.

> I would LOVE to update the BIOS. This particular board is a
> ECS KM400-M2 (rev 3.0) - the rev 1 board has BIOS images up to 1.0e
> currently - the rev 3.0 board (mine) only shows BIOS rev 1.0 - along with all
> kinds of dire warnings on the page about being sure your board revision number
> matches or
> the earth will tremble, pigeons will fly upside down, George
> Bush will grow a brain, and other signs of the apocolypse.
> Maybe I bought an orphan.

Or maybe its already got 48 bit LBA support.

I'd wipe the drive with something like clearhdd from
http://www.samsung.com/Products/HardDiskDrive/utilities/clearhdd.htm
and then see what shows up on the black
bios screen at boot time with an AUTO drive
type entry. I bet it shows up at 160G.

>>> I thought somewhere is some MBR voodoo that needs some consistency in the
>>> cyl/head/sector geometry.

>> Yeah, some of the partition managers will chuck a wobbly about it.

>>> Further, because Windows apparently believes the limited BIOS
>>> geometry, and since FreeBSD is apparently more correct, what
>>> happens to the FAT32 partitions that I want to write to from either O/S?

>> They'll be fine while ever they are below the 137G boundary.

> That's encouraging - I guess - everything over 130G was going to be Linux or
> FreeBSD anyway.

Its a bit safer to ensure you do have 48 bit LBA support enabled
right thru. If you dont, it can bite when you reconfigure in future etc.

>> You'll have a problem using the full size of the drive and you will get the
>> drive wrapping around in some situations and that will wipe out the
>> partitions on the front of the drive.

> That's NOT encouraging - is that scenario only if NTFS partitions
> or FAT32 partitions cross that boundary? The upper reaches of the drive were
> destined for FreeBSD and Linux anyway.

Yes, whatever is writing to the partition
needs to be able to handle 48 bit LBA

>>> Should I wipe the whole disk and use FreeBSDs FDisk utility to create the
>>> NTFS and FAT32 partitions?

>> You still need to enable 48 bit LBS in Win, so you
>> might as well just wipe the drive and recreate the
>> partitions again in Win after you have done that.

> One drive. I'm on a bit of a budget. The NTFS partition
> creation is the first thing that the WIN2K install does,
> (reasonably). This is a bit of a chicken and egg - I have
> to install Win2k to enable 48-bit to create the partition
> that Win2k needs to live on...

No you dont, the normal approach is to slipsteam the
service pack onto the distribution before installing Win2K.

> Thanks much - I'm clueless about the new drives - the last actual drive
> "programming" I did involved 8" floppies on a TRS-80 - things have changed a
> bit.

Just a tad.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Windows 7
    ... SP4 update and subsequent security patches. ... measures were introduced in XP the Win2k didn't have. ... hard drives. ... I too partition my drives so as to place the OS in a nicely tight ...
    (uk.comp.homebuilt)
  • Re: Grub Manual ... Solved
    ... partition on that drive, which is the second 0 since all this crap runs on ... the hd?'s refer to the bios bootable devices. ... grub, from root to boot, because it actually tells grub where its boot ... 1024 cylinders for some time after larger drives were available. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: dd command to clear start of harddrive
    ... An updated BIOS may help. ... using a /boot partition at the start of the drive will help. ... that lets the BIOS work with larger drives. ... nuch an automatic install, apart from OK'ing a few pages, and setting up the ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Installed 5.2RC from CDROM, fails to boot in manager
    ... to be able to determine the geometry, but it must end on a cylinder boundary ... virtual cylinder except possibly on 10-20 year old drives. ... The BIOS has ... > partition that you delete in FreeBSD later. ...
    (freebsd-current)
  • Re: Drives (partitions) disappeared
    ... Each primary partition is assigned a "drive" letter. ... more "logical drives" within the extended partition, ... Is your installation of Win2K up to date? ... Don't confuse the operating system (Win2K v. WinXP v. MS-DOS or Win9x/ME) ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.file_system)