Installing a DDO... HOW!?! Please help

[Daevon]

Hi everyone
I'm not a newbie in the pc arena but now I've come over a thing that is
puzzling me since the early days of September.
To say it quick, I have to install some 250Gb IDE disks on an 'old' Pentium
III server.
The problem is, the mainboard, with the latest bios, only supports upto
137Gb.
Remembering of 'ancient times', when I used to use EZ-Bios to mount 1.2Gb
HDDs in 486s, I tried to use it, only to discover that MicroHouse (that
manufactured EZ) had closed its doors.
The next logical program seems to be Ontrack, with its Disk Manager.
Since the drives are Maxtors, I downloaded Maxblast 3 from their site and
installed it.
Now, where there's plenty of info on how to *remove* DDO (Dinamic Disk
Overlay), there's absolutely NO info on how to install it.
I tried Everything, from a fully automatic install to a manual/Advanced one.
There are options everywhere to remove DDO but non even one to install it.
From what I've read, Maxblast should do this automatically.. but in fact it
doesn't.

Has anyone had experience with this diabolic Utility?
Does someone here knows how to force an install of DDO?

Many thanks friends!

Daevon

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Hi everyone
I'm not a newbie in the pc arena but now I've come over a thing that is
puzzling me since the early days of September.
To say it quick, I have to install some 250Gb IDE disks on an 'old' Pentium
III server.
The problem is, the mainboard, with the latest bios, only supports upto 137Gb.
Remembering of 'ancient times', when I used to use EZ-Bios to mount 1.2Gb
HDDs in 486s, I tried to use it, only to discover that MicroHouse (that
manufactured EZ) had closed its doors.
The next logical program seems to be Ontrack, with its Disk Manager.
Since the drives are Maxtors, I downloaded Maxblast 3 from their site and
installed it.
Now, where there's plenty of info on how to *remove* DDO (Dinamic Disk
Overlay), there's absolutely NO info on how to install it.

It probably decides by it's own whether an install is necessary.

I tried Everything, from a fully automatic install to a manual/Advanced one.
There are options everywhere to remove DDO but non even one to install it.
From what I've read, Maxblast should do this automatically.. but in fact it
doesn't.

Does it say anywhere that it covers the 137GB limitation?

Has anyone had experience with this diabolic Utility?
Does someone here knows how to force an install of DDO?

If it doesn't cover the 137GB limitation by adding 48-bit LBA then it is of no use.

 

[Bill Funk]

Hi everyone
I'm not a newbie in the pc arena but now I've come over a thing that is
puzzling me since the early days of September.
To say it quick, I have to install some 250Gb IDE disks on an 'old' Pentium
III server.
The problem is, the mainboard, with the latest bios, only supports upto
137Gb.
Remembering of 'ancient times', when I used to use EZ-Bios to mount 1.2Gb
HDDs in 486s, I tried to use it, only to discover that MicroHouse (that
manufactured EZ) had closed its doors.
The next logical program seems to be Ontrack, with its Disk Manager.
Since the drives are Maxtors, I downloaded Maxblast 3 from their site and
installed it.
Now, where there's plenty of info on how to *remove* DDO (Dinamic Disk
Overlay), there's absolutely NO info on how to install it.
I tried Everything, from a fully automatic install to a manual/Advanced one.
There are options everywhere to remove DDO but non even one to install it.
From what I've read, Maxblast should do this automatically.. but in fact it
doesn't.

Has anyone had experience with this diabolic Utility?
Does someone here knows how to force an install of DDO?

Many thanks friends!

Daevon

Have you considered installing a controller card that will handle the
larger drives?

 

[Daevon]

Have you considered installing a controller card that will handle the

larger drives?

Of course I did... but these servers do use proprietary mini-atx like
motherboards.. and they do have only two pci slots.
Both of them are used, for NIC cards and another kind of interconnect.
So I can use only software solutions :/

Thanks anyway
Daevon

 

[Daevon]

Hi

It probably decides by it's own whether an install is necessary.

You're right on this point. In fact, during boot, it says that "DDO is not
needed" so it skips its loading (when booting from the Maxblast Floppy
Disk). For similar reasons it must also be skipping its installation... and
in fact my question was (and still is) if someone knows a way to force a DDO
installation (It does not need to be Maxblast... but I've noticed pretty
everything else is still based on Ontrack DM)

Does it say anywhere that it covers the 137GB limitation?

Quoting from

http://www.maxtor.com/en/support/downloads/maxblast3.htm

"Breaks the 528 MB, 2.1 GB, 4.2 GB, 8.4 GB, 32 GB, 64 GB and 137 GB capacity
barriers."

If it doesn't cover the 137GB limitation by adding 48-bit LBA then it is
of no use.

It does cover that, so the problem remains how to install it (

Thanks!

Daevon

 

[Zvi Netiv]

Of course I did... but these servers do use proprietary mini-atx like
motherboards.. and they do have only two pci slots.
Both of them are used, for NIC cards and another kind of interconnect.
So I can use only software solutions :/

I wouldn't rely on a software solution (DDO), even if it could be installed, for
two main reasons: DDO are exteremely vulnerable and losing 250 GB over a banal
boot problem is no joke. Secondly, DDO do not support newer OS, derived from NT
(NT/W2K/XP).

Regards, Zvi

 

[Daevon]

I wouldn't rely on a software solution (DDO), even if it could be

installed, for

Nor I *would*, but i *must*, since there's phisically no free pci slot to
install a new controller and I altready tried updating the bios to the
latest version... so this is my last chance.

two main reasons: DDO are exteremely vulnerable and losing 250 GB >over a

banal
Not a problem here: these machines are mainly proxy servers, so there's no
extremely valuable data on them... and btw, they're backupped from time to
time.

boot problem is no joke. Secondly, DDO do not support newer OS, >derived

from NT
This indeed is a good point...
I've heard of many people with Windows 2000 and XP using DDO... Or I'm
wrong?
Can someone please confirm me this?
This would be a major stopper for me...
(Still I find this strange.... Maxblast tells it is compatible with 2k and
XP!)

Thanks
Daevon

 

[Joe]

I wouldn't rely on a software solution (DDO), even if it could be installed, for
two main reasons: DDO are exteremely vulnerable and losing 250 GB over a banal
boot problem is no joke

Too right. Mine has failed twice since I bought the disk 8 months
ago.. I'm getting rid of it as soon as I find an alternative. Thing
is, I'm sure my M'board supported large disks but it won't see above
32 GB now when I autodetect.

 

[Daevon]

Too right. Mine has failed twice since I bought the disk 8 months

ago.. I'm getting rid of it as soon as I find an alternative. Thing

I do understand it can be risky... but when there's no other solution, it it
the only thing to do... unless someone can suggest me a better idea of
course

Thanks
Daevon

 

[Daevon]

Joe: as a quick solution, you can simply hook up a smaller drive to act as a
boot drive, then completely disable the Bios handling for the large drive
(set to [none] in the bios). In this way the bios will not 'see' the drive,
hence it will happily boot from the smaller drive.
Windows will detect and handle the drive at full size with no problem and
without the need of any DDO.

In fact, this is the solution I'm using right now... a shame there's no
place for two drives in the system I'm using so one of the drives (the 250Gb
one!) is hanging next to the rack

Hope to help

Daevon

 

[Zvi Netiv]

Joe: as a quick solution, you can simply hook up a smaller drive to act as a
boot drive, then completely disable the Bios handling for the large drive
(set to [none] in the bios). In this way the bios will not 'see' the drive,
hence it will happily boot from the smaller drive.
Windows will detect and handle the drive at full size with no problem and
without the need of any DDO.

In fact, this is the solution I'm using right now... a shame there's no
place for two drives in the system I'm using so one of the drives (the 250Gb
one!) is hanging next to the rack

What's wrong with staying with this solution? It's certainly better than a DDO.

Regards, Zvi

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

I do understand it can be risky... but when there's no other solution, it it
the only thing to do... unless someone can suggest me a better idea of
course

You can partition the drive in a 137GB partition and a rest partition.
The 137GB partition will be fully available from DOS/BIOS.
The rest partition can be backed-up from within the OS.
Partitioning should be done from within the OS that can see the full drive.

 

[Rod Speed]

Nor I *would*, but i *must*, since there's phisically no free pci slot to
install a new controller and I altready tried updating the bios to the
latest version... so this is my last chance.

banal
Not a problem here: these machines are mainly proxy servers, so there's no
extremely valuable data on them... and btw, they're backupped from time to
time.


from NT
This indeed is a good point...
I've heard of many people with Windows 2000 and XP using DDO... Or I'm
wrong?
Can someone please confirm me this?
This would be a major stopper for me...

You dont need a DDO at all. Just install the OS on a drive thats
not big enough to be affected by the bios limit, and dont include
the drive(s) that the bios doesnt like in the drive type table at all.
Win will still see the large drive fine and can use it fine.

(Still I find this strange.... Maxblast
tells it is compatible with 2k and XP!)

It isnt necessarily saying that about the optional DDO tho.

 

[Rod Speed]

Joe: as a quick solution, you can simply hook up a smaller drive to act as a
boot drive, then completely disable the Bios handling for the large drive
(set to [none] in the bios). In this way the bios will not 'see' the drive,
hence it will happily boot from the smaller drive.
Windows will detect and handle the drive at full size with no problem and
without the need of any DDO.

In fact, this is the solution I'm using right now... a shame there's no
place for two drives in the system I'm using so one of the drives (the 250Gb
one!) is hanging next to the rack

So just get a better box for it.

 

[Daevon]

It's not my pc... it it were that way I'd just get a newer mobo, and a
faster processor by the way.
We're talking of a rackmount thingie here... a 2U, 2 boards per chasssis
computer.
There's absolutely NO space in there, everything is crammed to a point were
even adding a single disk is unthinkable.
I'm searching for a laptop drive, to see if I can fit one there... but don't
know about the reliability of those drives.
After all, we're replacing old enterprise-class scsi drives with Maxline II
drives, designed for 24h/365 operation.

It is easy to say: "Just add a new drive"
I'd want to (and In fact, as a quick patch, there's one hanging there right
now), but I do have to do a clean work.. I cannot leave a bare drive out of
the rack!


No one ever used a DDO on an NT machine then?
I found this strange.. Linux natively supports DDO after all (and: "No", "I
Can't switch to Linux there", remember, these are not my property...

Thanks!
Daevon

 

[Daevon]

What's wrong with staying with this solution? It's certainly better than

a >DDO.

Ever seen a server farm?
Oh yes, there are messy ones... but there are other where order is regarded
as a sacred thing.
Air conditioning on 24h/24, dust filters, double doors, magnetic keys,
cameras at every corner.... I'm talking of this kind of stuff.
The machines themselves are indeed old... but there's so much redundancy
there that no machine there ever stopped in years.
Every now and then, they close for a daily manteinance (replace failed PSUs,
Disks) and every 2-3 years they do even upgrade memory, OS... and disks :/

Now If I just leave 1 hanging drive for each upgraded machine... my work
there is over

Many thanks!
Daevon

 

[Zvi Netiv]

a >DDO.

Ever seen a server farm?

Quite a few.

Oh yes, there are messy ones... but there are other where order is regarded
as a sacred thing.
Air conditioning on 24h/24, dust filters, double doors, magnetic keys,
cameras at every corner.... I'm talking of this kind of stuff.
The machines themselves are indeed old... but there's so much redundancy
there that no machine there ever stopped in years.
Every now and then, they close for a daily manteinance (replace failed PSUs,
Disks) and every 2-3 years they do even upgrade memory, OS... and disks :/

Now If I just leave 1 hanging drive for each upgraded machine... my work
there is over

Many thanks!
Daevon

I get the picture. Criticality isn't the problem, I can see.

 

[Mark M]

You can partition the drive in a 137GB partition and a rest
partition. The 137GB partition will be fully available from
DOS/BIOS. The rest partition can be backed-up from within the
OS. Partitioning should be done from within the OS that can see
the full drive.

Hi Folkert. Hey, don't beat me up this time. I need to ask your
advice.

I've put a 160GB drive into my system. My BIOS can only see 137GB.
I am using WInXP Pro + SP1 but the option in XP's Disk Management to
partition the new drive is grayed out.

If I have read it right, this Microsoft article below, seems to say
that I also need the BIOS to support 48 Bit addressing if XP is to
support 48 bit. And I guess it is the 48 bit support which allows me
to use the part of the drive above 137GB.

"How to Enable 48-bit Logical Block Addressing Support
for ATAPI Disk Drives in Windows XP"

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013

--- QUOTE ---
You must meet the following requirements to use 48-bit LBA ATAPI
support:

You must have a 48-bit LBA compatible BIOS.
You must have a hard disk that has a capacity that is greater than
137 GB.
You must have Windows XP SP1 installed.
--- UNQUOTE ---

Doesn't this mean that I cannot get my WinXP to see a drive bigger
than 137GB unless I have a 48 bit BIOS? In my case this seems like a
circular argument because if my BIOS could see the whole drive then I
wouldn't need XP to partition it for me!

I am a bit stuck on how to get to use the part of the drive which is
above 137GB.

Could I use Partition Manager in XP to create that partition or will
PM fail because of a lack of support from my BIOS?

Is there some other way?

Hope you or someone else here can advise. Thanks.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Hi Folkert. Hey, don't beat me up this time.

Well, you hold the key to that: stop asking
questions where you yourself hold the answers.

I need to ask your advice.

I've put a 160GB drive into my system. My BIOS can only see 137GB.
I am using WInXP Pro + SP1 but the option in XP's Disk Management to
partition the new drive is grayed out.

Presumably because of that article below.

If I have read it right, this Microsoft article below, seems to say
that I also need the BIOS to support 48 Bit addressing if XP is to
support 48 bit. And I guess it is the 48 bit support which allows me
to use the part of the drive above 137GB.
Yes.


"How to Enable 48-bit Logical Block Addressing Support
for ATAPI Disk Drives in Windows XP"

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013

--- QUOTE ---
You must meet the following requirements to use 48-bit LBA ATAPI
support:

You must have a 48-bit LBA compatible BIOS.
You must have a hard disk that has a capacity that is greater than
137 GB.
You must have Windows XP SP1 installed.
--- UNQUOTE ---

Doesn't this mean that I cannot get my WinXP to see a drive bigger
than 137GB unless I have a 48 bit BIOS?

That is what it says.

In my case this seems like a circular argument because if my BIOS
could see the whole drive then I wouldn't need XP to partition it for me!

Presumably WinXP is acting holier than the Pope by preventing you
from creating partitions that might not be fully accessible from other
LowLevel OSes like DOS or bootable applications that depend solely
on the BIOS.

I am a bit stuck on how to get to use the part of the drive which is
above 137GB.

Could I use Partition Manager in XP to create that partition or will
PM fail because of a lack of support from my BIOS?

Well, there you go again, asking questions where you hold the answer yourself.
Does it or doesn't it?

 

[Rod Speed]

Hi Folkert. Hey, don't beat me up this time. I need to ask your
advice.

I've put a 160GB drive into my system. My BIOS can only see 137GB.
I am using WInXP Pro + SP1 but the option in XP's Disk Management to
partition the new drive is grayed out.

If I have read it right, this Microsoft article below, seems to say
that I also need the BIOS to support 48 Bit addressing if XP is to
support 48 bit. And I guess it is the 48 bit support which allows me
to use the part of the drive above 137GB.

"How to Enable 48-bit Logical Block Addressing Support
for ATAPI Disk Drives in Windows XP"

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013

--- QUOTE ---
You must meet the following requirements to use 48-bit LBA ATAPI
support:

You must have a 48-bit LBA compatible BIOS.
You must have a hard disk that has a capacity that is greater than
137 GB.
You must have Windows XP SP1 installed.
--- UNQUOTE ---

Doesn't this mean that I cannot get my WinXP to see
a drive bigger than 137GB unless I have a 48 bit BIOS?

Well, thats certainly the official MS approach, anyway.

In my case this seems like a circular argument
Nope.

because if my BIOS could see the whole drive
then I wouldn't need XP to partition it for me!

Sure, but MS is basically saying that for full support
of a drive that big, you need to have BOTH the 48bit
support in the bios and enable that in XP as well.

I am a bit stuck on how to get to use the
part of the drive which is above 137GB.

Update the bios to add 48 bit support.

Could I use Partition Manager in XP to create that partition
or will PM fail because of a lack of support from my BIOS?

Is there some other way?

Update the bios to have 48 bit support.