SP2 broke large cluster size support

[tmx1]

Hi, i noticed when i install XP with SP2 with anything over 4k clusters, it
gives a NTFS.sys BSOD error at installation, also even if i install XP with
4K clusters then i convert the clusters to 64K size afterwards, i get a
Unbootable System error...

Now i know for a fact this is a SP2 issue, since with SP1 these problems
have not occured.

any info on this please?

 

[R. McCarty]

I've submitted this same "Bug" or "Intended Operation" problem to
Microsoft on two separate occasions. Both times, no one has
followed up or supplied any useful input. But I've done extensive
testing (3-4 PC's) and can verify the following:
If a XP SP1(a) instance is using non-standard Cluster size ~+4K
and you install SP2, the instance will continue to work with large
cluster sizes.
If you attempt to install XP-SP2 clean on non-standard clusters
you'll get the BSOD or "Disk Read Error" message. This applies
to resizing with Partition Magic 8.01 or Acronis Disk Mgmt.
Thanks for your posting, it reaffirms my original diagnostics.

 

[tmx1]

yeah its pissing me off since i normally run 64k clusters
SP2 is nothing but crap it seems! breaks more than fixes

 

[SlowJet]

Many databases run with 64K clusters.
This is not good.

Have either of you looked at the drives geometery vs. bios or LBA or large ,
you know, like maybe there an oddity?

SJ

 

[R. McCarty]

No oddities, I've tested this with SCSI and IDE/Atapi drives.
I even tested this on a Dell notebook. The interesting fact is that
if a boot partition is already say at 32-K using Sp1 and you apply
SP2 it continues to work. It's only when you install "Fresh" that
the "Disk Read" error occur. This happens whether you use the
built-in formatter of a SP2 Slipstreamed disk or use 3rd party disk
prep software.
I've read or been told that Windows Server 2003 only employs
or allows install on 4-K clusters. Perhaps SP2 had some of 2003's
NTFS code base added to it.

 

[Mr. Justice]

tmx1,

If everything worked fine after you installed SP2 you'd
be hailing it as the best thing since sliced bread.
Since it didn't, it "is nothing but crap." If you can do
better, write your own OS. In fact, there is always Mac
or Linux for imbeciles like you.

With tens of millions of computers and tens of millions
of different configurations and only a handful of users
having problems, it is a very small percentage. Most
problems are because the users failed to backup data or
update their BIOS or drivers, in other words, it is user
error, not MS error.

Stop your bitching child. Instead, why don't you put
your energy into looking for a solution. Try converting
your HD back to the default 4k clusters, install SP2 and
then reconvert your HD to 64k clusters. Maybe that would
work.

No cookies for you tonight.

 

[Marino Simic]

Since it didn't, it "is nothing but crap." If you can do

better, write your own OS. In fact, there is always Mac
or Linux for imbeciles like you.

it seems to me that the only imbecile are you since 64k clusters are very
common in specific type of machines.
since sp2 does BSOD after install the only two incompatible things here are
microsoft made (NTFS and SP2). i cant see anything that is a user mistake...

if windows xp supports 64k clusters and SP2 doesn't this means that SP2
isn't compatible with windows Xp.
It definitely has issues that are pretty seriuos!

 

[tmx1]

agreed!

it seems to me that the only imbecile are you since 64k clusters are very
common in specific type of machines.
since sp2 does BSOD after install the only two incompatible things here
are
microsoft made (NTFS and SP2). i cant see anything that is a user
mistake...

if windows xp supports 64k clusters and SP2 doesn't this means that SP2
isn't compatible with windows Xp.
It definitely has issues that are pretty seriuos!