137 Gbyte hard drive capacity barrier

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Richards
  • Start date Start date
J

John Richards

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
 
"John Richards" said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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
 
XP .......the fix is to update XP with the latest updates , at least sp2
(why not do this anway)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Can you explain that to me?

I am having a hard time understanding how patching the system can make it
worse.

Burying your head in the sand still leaves your ass exposed!
 
Can you explain that to me?
Click to expand...

Yes, SP2 is primarily addressed at the insecurities in
windows, that come from the interconnectivity with the 'net
- email and browser, or the user.

After Sp2, if you still use the same email and browser you
either:

A) Still have insecurity if using OE and IE

B) Still have security from the other browser.

C) Still the same user who either learned from past
mistakes or didn't, regardless of SP level installed.

I am having a hard time understanding how patching the system can make it
worse.

Burying your head in the sand still leaves your ass exposed!
Click to expand...


Because IF you were concerned about security you didn't have
any of these holes exposed and have only piled more buggy
code onto windows.
 
Lets try this....

You have a bucket with ten holes in it...... wouldn't the water leak slower
if you could plug 5 of them?
 
Lets try this....

You have a bucket with ten holes in it...... wouldn't the water leak slower
if you could plug 5 of them?
Click to expand...

Not of the plug requires enlarging the holes then a few
plugs fall out. Sp2, as with any service pack, has it's own
share of compatibility issues and IF one wants the targeted
purpose, they don't necessarily want 1/2 the holes patched,
they will take the steps that patch most of them, leaving
only those compatibility issues and also the higher overhead
and new bugs from this new code.
 
Ok

So lets me see....

Sp2 is nothing more than a significant amount of updates and patches rolled
into one package.... what is your solution for those of us that still want
to use windows...... those of use who don't want to use Linux (not that I
have a problem with that) ......Those of us who just want to turn on the box
and go on the net and check the net for info.....

Should we never patch our installations?

because without at least one patch we would be connected to the net for
about 40 seconds before we got the sasser virus.

Should we just live with our computer shutting down about every 5 minutes(or
less)?

That would not even give us time to check the groups for the answers of the
gods (like you).

You would have no advice to give!!!

What would you do with your day?

I'm done with this topic.
 
Ok

So lets me see....

Sp2 is nothing more than a significant amount of updates and patches rolled
into one package.... what is your solution for those of us that still want
to use windows...... those of use who don't want to use Linux (not that I
have a problem with that) ......Those of us who just want to turn on the box
and go on the net and check the net for info.....
Click to expand...

Oh? Are you sure SP2 doesn't add what is not, with the
separate patch approach?

Should we never patch our installations?
Click to expand...

You should discriminately patch what you NEED patched,
rather than mindlessly changing a working system. If you
have a use, bug, security vulnerability that is specifically
addressed.
because without at least one patch we would be connected to the net for
about 40 seconds before we got the sasser virus.
Click to expand...

Ok, then you have an entirely different problem than the
patch, your system is not configured securely.

Should we just live with our computer shutting down about every 5 minutes(or
less)?
Click to expand...

No, if you care about security, you should either learn more
about it or at least take the generic approaches others do,
for example firewall.

Here's the patch for that though,
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS04-011.mspx

That would not even give us time to check the groups for the answers of the
gods (like you).

You would have no advice to give!!!
Click to expand...

SP2 can be good for some users. That doesn't mean it's good
for all. If you shun standard security practices and only
wait for each vulnerability, in turn, to be patched through
MS then you're always behind the curve. Those looking to
exploit you are not going to only do so through
previously-patched flaws, on the contrary it would only make
sense to target open vulnerabilities.


What would you do with your day?
Click to expand...

You might be surprised to know the majority of businesses
aren't running at XP SP2 level? Somehow the world
manages... or maybe not "somehow", maybe as I wrote, it's
not necessary for all. It's not that I'm wholely against
SP2 or any other patch, but the devil is in the details,
exactly what your needs are and whether any issues
associated with a given patch (or huge bundle like with SP2)
effect the user/system, or if they might prefer selective
installation of particular patches.
 
Kony said
"You might be surprised to know the majority of businesses aren't running at
XP SP2 level"

I deal with businesses and governments every day and all the ones that I
deal with and all the one I know of (even the ones I am not responsible for)
are patched well above sp2. in fact the enterprise update package will not
work unless patched SP2 or later.
 
Kony said
"You might be surprised to know the majority of businesses aren't running at
XP SP2 level"

I deal with businesses and governments every day and all the ones that I
deal with and all the one I know of (even the ones I am not responsible for)
are patched well above sp2. in fact the enterprise update package will not
work unless patched SP2 or later.
Click to expand...


Then I guess you are surprised. Bet you'd be surprised that
some even run 9x still on the clients.
 
Back
Top