Capacity size differences in windows managment.

[steve]

I have a test Windows 2003 server. Im trying to resolve a problem I
have seen before in the disk management console of Win2003 (perhaps xp
has it sometimes too)

The disk is about 250 Gig. The upper screen of the comptuer management
screen shows the list of the drives. The C drive has a capacity of 20
GB. However the lower screen the one that says disk 0 basic shows the
C partition as being 129 GB. there are two other partitions that show
a 39 MB partition (this is the dell backup) and unallocated space of
102 GB. Somewhere Windows is confused as to the actual size of the C
partition. Which should be I believe 20 GB. I have a variety of tools
like ultra boot cd and gtparted but I really dont know how to fix this
particular problem. Can I edit something in the disk or somewhere to
make windows and the disk understand what it really should be.

There is one other thing, which is that I seem to have another drive
on the system drive F: but this seems to be the same as the C: drive.
It is not visable in the Computer Management screen but it is visable
in the "My Computer" window. You see a drive f: click on it and you
get to the c: drive.

Regards

 

[Mike Ruskai]

I have a test Windows 2003 server. Im trying to resolve a problem I
have seen before in the disk management console of Win2003 (perhaps xp
has it sometimes too)

The disk is about 250 Gig. The upper screen of the comptuer management
screen shows the list of the drives. The C drive has a capacity of 20
GB. However the lower screen the one that says disk 0 basic shows the
C partition as being 129 GB. there are two other partitions that show
a 39 MB partition (this is the dell backup) and unallocated space of
102 GB. Somewhere Windows is confused as to the actual size of the C
partition. Which should be I believe 20 GB. I have a variety of tools
like ultra boot cd and gtparted but I really dont know how to fix this
particular problem. Can I edit something in the disk or somewhere to
make windows and the disk understand what it really should be.

It's hard to make anything of this. Maybe a screenshot would help.

There is one other thing, which is that I seem to have another drive
on the system drive F: but this seems to be the same as the C: drive.
It is not visable in the Computer Management screen but it is visable
in the "My Computer" window. You see a drive f: click on it and you
get to the c: drive.

You can assign multiple drive letters to the same volume.

 

[steve]

Yes its hard to understand I grant you. I have actually resolved it by
using test disk and removing any partitions that didnt have files it
it.

However just for thouroughness When you open the disk manager via
computer manager there is one window on the right and this window has
two major divisions. The top which lists the drives eg C: D: etc and
then the bottom part of the window which actually lists the physical
disks Drive 0 drive 1 etc. The problem was that there seems to have
been a difference between the size of the volumes listed in the top
part of the window from the botom part. (I think if you look at the
computer management / disk managment window it will be clearer. Anyway
I loaked the ultimet boot cd then the testdisk program and used the
data from

http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk_Step_By_Step

to get rid of partions that seem to be falsly listed. Its not for the
faint in heart. But once you get the hang of it it really isnt that
hard. Following this I could now use gparted to increase the size of a
partion which had failed in the past when I used gparted. So there
really must have been some goofyness with the partion data that was
causing gparted to fail.

Thanks.

 

[Mike Ruskai]

Yes its hard to understand I grant you. I have actually resolved it by
using test disk and removing any partitions that didnt have files it
it.

However just for thouroughness When you open the disk manager via
computer manager there is one window on the right and this window has

[snip]

I'm well aware of what the Windows Disk Management snap-in looks like. I
meant that your description of the problem was too fuzzy, which meant a
screenshot of your actual numbers (to see if you were misinterpreting
something) would clarify it.