is there another limit above the 137gb barrier?

hi all

hopefully,this would be my last question and i should have 3-5 years of
trouble-free computing experience.

i know that 48-bit lba has solved the 137gb limit. but isn't there another
barrier just above that, like around 500gb?

i have an abit kv7 mobo that supports big lba. i can run a 160gb hard disk.
does that mean i can also run a 750gb or 1tb disk? or are there other
limitations? i'm still using windows 2k sp4.

i probably would not need all the spaces now. if the price difference is
not too great, i would like to install the biggest disk i can afford.

thanks much

sharonpst wrote:
> hi all
>
> hopefully,this would be my last question and i should have 3-5 years of
> trouble-free computing experience.
>
> i know that 48-bit lba has solved the 137gb limit. but isn't there another
> barrier just above that, like around 500gb?
>
> i have an abit kv7 mobo that supports big lba. i can run a 160gb hard disk.
> does that mean i can also run a 750gb or 1tb disk? or are there other
> limitations? i'm still using windows 2k sp4.
>
> i probably would not need all the spaces now. if the price difference is
> not too great, i would like to install the biggest disk i can afford.
>
> thanks much

2.2TB is the next limit. The limit is based on a 32 bit integer being
used to hold the sector number.

Some people have run into this limitation, when building RAID5 arrays.
(Array is corrupted, when data is copied past the 2.2TB mark.)

On some high end RAID controllers, a workaround for this, is to
redefine the size of a sector. A sector is normally 512 bytes, but
the controller can fudge it to 4K instead. That raises the limit based
on 32 bit sector numbers to 16TB or thereabouts.

But since that workaround is not very common, you should start asking
questions, when approaching 2.2TB.

The 1.5TB drive will be available soon, so we're getting pretty close
to that limit now, with a single drive.

http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.js...00f5ee0a0aRCRD

This article gives a nice short summary of the options. Apparently
a GUID partition is another way to fix Windows.

http://www.highpoint-tech.com/PDF/Va...ector_Size.pdf

"Breaking 2TB:

Option 1 - Use Windows with NTFS and GUID Partition Tables (GPT) partitions.

Windows is capable of utilizing NTFS partitions larger than 2TB, so long as
they are configured properly. Windows requires that the GUID Partition Tables
be used in place of the standard Master Boot Record (MBR) partition tables.
You will need Windows XP x64 Edition, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1,
or a Vista operating system.

Option 2 - Use Variable Sector Size (512 bytes to 4KB)"

I have seen some limitations listed for USB external hard drive
enclosures, but since no technical terms are used to indicate
what the limitation is, it isn't possible to comment on it.
If a USB external hard drive enclosure lists a limit below
the 2.2TB figure, just don't purchase it :-)

HTH,
Paul

hi

i asked because i thought the next barrier is 500gb. if it's 2.2tb, i'm
sure i can hang onto my win2k for at least a few more years.

i have bought two computers before i decided to spend a fortune to buy a
computer with a hard disk. i was so overjoyed that i no longer needed to
carry a stack of floppies that i showed off my computer to people around
me.

"my computer has a hard disk," i screamed. "it's not 5 megabytes or 10
megabytes. it's 20 megabytes."

those were the day my friend ...



Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote in news:g8p0og$d1n$1@aioe.org:

>
> 2.2TB is the next limit. The limit is based on a 32 bit integer being
> used to hold the sector number.
>
>
> The 1.5TB drive will be available soon, so we're getting pretty close
> to that limit now, with a single drive.
>
>

sharonpst wrote:

> hi all
>
> hopefully,this would be my last question and i should have 3-5 years of
> trouble-free computing experience.
>
> i know that 48-bit lba has solved the 137gb limit. but isn't there another
> barrier just above that, like around 500gb?
>
> i have an abit kv7 mobo that supports big lba. i can run a 160gb hard disk.
> does that mean i can also run a 750gb or 1tb disk? or are there other
> limitations? i'm still using windows 2k sp4.
>
> i probably would not need all the spaces now. if the price difference is
> not too great, i would like to install the biggest disk i can afford.
>
> thanks much

24-bit addressing:
2^24 sectors * 512 bytes/sector = 8.192 gigabytes

28-bit addressing:
2^28 sectors * 512 bytes/sector = 128 gigabytes (137x10^9 bytes)

32-bit addressing:
2^32 sectors * 512 bytes/sector = 2.048 terabytes

48-bit addressing:
2^48 sectors * 512 bytes/sector = 128 petabytes

You cannot manually create a partition that is larger than 99,999 MB
when you install Windows 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/871043/en-us

Windows NT Partitioning Rules During Setup
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/138364/en-us
4GB max for boot partition. You'll need a 3rd party tool to enlarge.

Limitations of FAT32 File System
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184006/en-us

You never mentioned WHICH file system you are using under Windows 2000.
Using FAT32 and FDISK included with Windows, 32GB max partition size (a
restriction of Microsoft's FDISK). 3rd party tools can expand to 2TB.

So be sure to have a 3rd party tool to make your partitions larger. The
install won't create very large partitions although the file system can
handle much larger partition sizes. If you don't want to get stuck with
drive overlay managers that usurp the MBR to override the BIOS INT13
calls, make sure your hardware gives you a larger addressing range.
Knowing the OS and its version doesn't dictate your maximum hard disk
size unless your hardware also encompasses that same address range.

If you change the bytes-per-sector than you can increase these limits;
however, you won't be able to use most hard disk utilities that assume
512 bytes/sector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntfs

The NTFS file system's capabilities far exceed what the hardware
addressing will allow (and constraints within Windows itself).

"sharonpst" <sharonpst@dontspamme.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B03EDBBF4AB0123234abc@203.26.24.228...
> hi
>
> i asked because i thought the next barrier is 500gb. if it's 2.2tb, i'm
> sure i can hang onto my win2k for at least a few more years.
>
> i have bought two computers before i decided to spend a fortune to buy a
> computer with a hard disk. i was so overjoyed that i no longer needed to
> carry a stack of floppies that i showed off my computer to people around
> me.
>
> "my computer has a hard disk," i screamed. "it's not 5 megabytes or 10
> megabytes. it's 20 megabytes."
>
> those were the day my friend ...
>
>


LOL!
I still use win2k for most of my work!

BTW: a number of years ago a friend of mine told me that his elderly father
wanted to get rid of an old computer he had
purchased back in 1979 or so...
a Kaypro! It still works the last time I tried it and IIRC it has a 10 meg
HD.


I told my friend that it must have cost five thousand dollars when new! (I
looked up the price once, but forgot the actual amount, but it was a small
fortune at the time.)

He then replied: " No wonder my mother got so mad when he bought it!"

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:LoadnQdd88i5vSjVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@ntd.net...
>
> "sharonpst" <sharonpst@dontspamme.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B03EDBBF4AB0123234abc@203.26.24.228...
>> hi
>>
>> i asked because i thought the next barrier is 500gb. if it's 2.2tb, i'm
>> sure i can hang onto my win2k for at least a few more years.
>>
>> i have bought two computers before i decided to spend a fortune to buy a
>> computer with a hard disk. i was so overjoyed that i no longer needed to
>> carry a stack of floppies that i showed off my computer to people around
>> me.
>>
>> "my computer has a hard disk," i screamed. "it's not 5 megabytes or 10
>> megabytes. it's 20 megabytes."
>>
>> those were the day my friend ...
>>
>>
>
>
> LOL!
> I still use win2k for most of my work!
>
> BTW: a number of years ago a friend of mine told me that his elderly
> father
> wanted to get rid of an old computer he had
> purchased back in 1979 or so...
> a Kaypro! It still works the last time I tried it and IIRC it has a 10 meg
> HD.
>
>
> I told my friend that it must have cost five thousand dollars when new!
> (I
> looked up the price once, but forgot the actual amount, but it was a small
> fortune at the time.)
>
> He then replied: " No wonder my mother got so mad when he bought it!"
>


I was amazed at the size of the Winchester disks the biggest I handled was
about the dimensions of two house bricks IIRC it was 5Mb .
My own first HDD was a Teac 105mb which I bought used it had DOS 5.0 and
windows 3.0 installed which mysteriously worked with the 386sx33 system I
had built without changing any drivers after a couple of weeks of the
novelty I removed windows because of the space it was taking up some things
never change.
Derek

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:39:20 +0100, Derek rearranged some electrons to
say:

> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:LoadnQdd88i5vSjVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@ntd.net...
>>
>> "sharonpst" <sharonpst@dontspamme.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B03EDBBF4AB0123234abc@203.26.24.228...
>>> hi
>>>
>>> i asked because i thought the next barrier is 500gb. if it's 2.2tb,
>>> i'm sure i can hang onto my win2k for at least a few more years.
>>>
>>> i have bought two computers before i decided to spend a fortune to buy
>>> a computer with a hard disk. i was so overjoyed that i no longer
>>> needed to carry a stack of floppies that i showed off my computer to
>>> people around me.
>>>
>>> "my computer has a hard disk," i screamed. "it's not 5 megabytes or 10
>>> megabytes. it's 20 megabytes."
>>>
>>> those were the day my friend ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> LOL!
>> I still use win2k for most of my work!
>>
>> BTW: a number of years ago a friend of mine told me that his elderly
>> father
>> wanted to get rid of an old computer he had purchased back in 1979 or
>> so...
>> a Kaypro! It still works the last time I tried it and IIRC it has a 10
>> meg HD.
>>
>>
>> I told my friend that it must have cost five thousand dollars when new!
>> (I
>> looked up the price once, but forgot the actual amount, but it was a
>> small fortune at the time.)
>>
>> He then replied: " No wonder my mother got so mad when he bought it!"
>>
>>
>
> I was amazed at the size of the Winchester disks the biggest I handled
> was about the dimensions of two house bricks IIRC it was 5Mb . My own
> first HDD was a Teac 105mb which I bought used it had DOS 5.0 and
> windows 3.0 installed which mysteriously worked with the 386sx33
> system I had built without changing any drivers after a couple of weeks
> of the novelty I removed windows because of the space it was taking up
> some things never change.
> Derek

That ain't nothin... the first ones were 14" in diameter. I still have
an old HP7900 platter hanging on my wall at work... it's 14" in diamater,
and holds one megabyte. Pretty snazzy for mid 70's.

philo wrote:

>
>
>
> LOL!
> I still use win2k for most of my work!
>
> BTW: a number of years ago a friend of mine told me that his elderly father
> wanted to get rid of an old computer he had
> purchased back in 1979 or so...
> a Kaypro! It still works the last time I tried it and IIRC it has a 10 meg
> HD.
>
>
> I told my friend that it must have cost five thousand dollars when new! (I
> looked up the price once, but forgot the actual amount, but it was a small
> fortune at the time.)
>
> He then replied: " No wonder my mother got so mad when he bought it!"
>
>

That's exactly the machine I've been looking for.

Care to part with it?


--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

"cavelamb himself" <cavelamb@Xearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MuGdncSnnviIkivVnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> philo wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > LOL!
> > I still use win2k for most of my work!
> >
> > BTW: a number of years ago a friend of mine told me that his elderly
father
> > wanted to get rid of an old computer he had
> > purchased back in 1979 or so...
> > a Kaypro! It still works the last time I tried it and IIRC it has a 10
meg
> > HD.
> >
> >
> > I told my friend that it must have cost five thousand dollars when new!
(I
> > looked up the price once, but forgot the actual amount, but it was a
small
> > fortune at the time.)
> >
> > He then replied: " No wonder my mother got so mad when he bought it!"
> >
> >
>
> That's exactly the machine I've been looking for.
>
> Care to part with it?
>
>
>

Sorry, I do not want to get rid of it, though a guy locally had some,
I was unable to get there in time.

FWIW: The floppy controller on my machine is shot!

david wrote:

> That ain't nothin... the first ones were 14" in diameter. I still have
> an old HP7900 platter hanging on my wall at work... it's 14" in diamater,
> and holds one megabyte. Pretty snazzy for mid 70's.

Reminds me of many, many moons ago when I used to work on a VAX 11/780.
It had 14" discs with 8 or 10(?) platters that I seem to recall held
about 350Mb(?). Thinking back, it was comical to screw in a new disk
pack and then spin/purge it up for an hour before using it! I'll also
never forget the day we had a major head crash.... we just walked into
the computer room and we could tell right away which drive had crashed
from the plume of smoke emanating from it ;-D