hard drive size

[Guest]

Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize??

 

[Tim Slattery]

Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize??

No. The upper limit on partition size for NTFS is far larger than any
disk available today. Look here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true
for details.

 

[Poprivet]

No. The upper limit on partition size for NTFS is far larger than any
disk available today. Look here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true
for details.

I love this spec:
2 32 - 1
I'm sure not about to test it!
Pop`

 

[Jim]

It means 2 to the 32 second power minus 1. Since 2 to the 32 second power is about 4 GB, you can safely ignore the -1.

Note that the maximum size is 2 to the 32 second power minus 1 allocation units. The current size of an allocation unit is 4096 bytes. That is a lot of bytes.

Jim

No. The upper limit on partition size for NTFS is far larger than any
disk available today. Look here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true
for details.

I love this spec:
2 32 - 1
I'm sure not about to test it!
Pop`

 

[Curt Christianson]

I'm with you Pop, but what if it's really only 2^32-2 !! <bg>

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
www.aumha.org
Practically Nerded,...
http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm

No. The upper limit on partition size for NTFS is far larger than any
disk available today. Look here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true
for details.

I love this spec:
2 32 - 1
I'm sure not about to test it!
Pop`

 

[Unknown]

That is not correct! That formula is for maximum memory size for a 32 bit machine. Files are addressed by Logical
Block Addressing and a block is 4096 bytes.

No. The upper limit on partition size for NTFS is far larger than any
disk available today. Look here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true
for details.

I love this spec:
2 32 - 1
I'm sure not about to test it!
Pop`

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize??

Yes. However it's considerably larger than the largest hard drive you
can buy today.

Read here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true

or http://tinyurl.com/3ao9zo

which states "For now, 2 terabytes should be considered the practical
limit for both physical and logical volumes using NTFS."

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

It means 2 to the 32 second power minus 1. Since 2
to the 32 second power is about 4 GB, you can safely
ignore the -1.

Note that the maximum size is 2 to the 32 second
power minus 1 allocation units.

No, note that 2^32 - 1 is the maximum file size, not the maximum
volume size, and that's for *FAT32* volumes, not NTFS. Regarding FAT32
volume sizes, this article states "Windows 2000 can format new FAT32
volumes up to 32 GB in size but can mount larger volumes (for example,
up to 127.53 GB and 4,177,918 clusters from a volume formatted with
the limits of Windows 98). It is possible to mount volumes that exceed
these limits, but doing so has not been tested and is not
recommended."

The current size
of an allocation unit is 4096 bytes. That is a lot of bytes.

The *default* size (*not* the "current size"; there are exceptions) of
an allocation unit on an NTFS volume is 4096. Allocation unit sizes on
FAT32 volumes vary substantially, depending on volume size, and can go
as high as 32K bytes.

 

[Lil' Dave]

Well, am still waiting like you for the answer to your question. Seen
replies on file sizes, and NTFS maximum size. But, none answered your
question.
Dave

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Well, am still waiting like you for the answer to your question. Seen
replies on file sizes, and NTFS maximum size. But, none answered your
question.

I did. It's 2TB, as I pointed out when I sent the following reply:

*********************************

Yes. However it's considerably larger than the largest hard drive you
can buy today."

Read here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true

or http://tinyurl.com/3ao9zo

which states "For now, 2 terabytes should be considered the practical
limit for both physical and logical volumes using NTFS."

 

[John John]

On MBR disks, two terabytes. It is possible to use much larger volumes
but they must be Dynamic Volumes. Partition tables on MBR disks only
supports partitions up to 2 terabytes.

Using the default cluster size (4 KB) for large volumes, you can create
an NTFS volume up to 16 terabytes. You can create NTFS volumes up to 256
terabytes using the maximum cluster size of 64 KB.

Maximum Sizes on NTFS Volumes

In theory, the maximum NTFS volume size is 2^64 clusters minus 1
cluster. However, the maximum NTFS volume size as implemented in Windows
XP Professional is 2^32 clusters minus 1 cluster. For example, using
64-KB clusters, the maximum NTFS volume size is 256 terabytes minus 64
KB. Using the default cluster size of 4 KB, the maximum NTFS volume size
is 16 terabytes minus 4 KB.

Because partition tables on master boot record (MBR) disks support only
partition sizes up to 2 terabytes, you must use dynamic volumes to
create NTFS volumes over 2 terabytes. Windows XP Professional manages
dynamic volumes in a special database instead of in the partition table,
so dynamic volumes are not subject to the 2-terabyte physical limit
imposed by the partition table. Therefore, dynamic NTFS volumes can be
as large as the maximum volume size supported by NTFS.

[end quote]

http://www.microsoft.com/germany/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/c13621675.mspx

John

 

[Lil' Dave]

The reason I mention this is past experience with 98/98SE. Some parts of
the operating system can have problems with the hard drive exceeding 128GB
formatted size. No mention was or is mentioned with regards to that by MS.
I'm not speaking of defrag or any other filesystem or partitioning tool in
that operating system. Its been well documented in a MS 98 newsgroup.
Problem has nothing to do with bios 48 bit lba capability as that is in
place. Problem is not a partition size problem as small ones are used.
Basically, around the 128GB mark, any further file writes may result in
garbled folder names, garbled filenames, garbled file internal data. This
occurs even if all partitions are less than 128GB formatted. This occurs
even if alternate partitions are NTFS, not FAT32.

I don't expect an answer as MS still hasn't acknowledged 98/98SE's problem
regarding this. Yes, I am suggesting something similar MAY exist in XP just
not at the same total file data saved total size. I'm talking usability
here, not partition size recognition. There's no point in a super-sized
partition if the operating system can't write to its full potential without
error. Similar with a super-size hard drive with multiple partitions.
Dave

 

[John John]

The reason I mention this is past experience with 98/98SE. Some parts of
the operating system can have problems with the hard drive exceeding 128GB
formatted size. No mention was or is mentioned with regards to that by MS.
I'm not speaking of defrag or any other filesystem or partitioning tool in
that operating system. Its been well documented in a MS 98 newsgroup.
Problem has nothing to do with bios 48 bit lba capability as that is in
place. Problem is not a partition size problem as small ones are used.
Basically, around the 128GB mark, any further file writes may result in
garbled folder names, garbled filenames, garbled file internal data. This
occurs even if all partitions are less than 128GB formatted. This occurs
even if alternate partitions are NTFS, not FAT32.

I don't expect an answer as MS still hasn't acknowledged 98/98SE's problem
regarding this. Yes, I am suggesting something similar MAY exist in XP just
not at the same total file data saved total size. I'm talking usability
here, not partition size recognition. There's no point in a super-sized
partition if the operating system can't write to its full potential without
error. Similar with a super-size hard drive with multiple partitions.

There never was a 128GB size limit problem with XP and the 137GB 48-bit
LBA problem is addressed with SP1. Windows XP has no problems using
large partitions, the data will not corrupt if it writes beyond those
boundaries if SP1 is installed.

John