Windows 2000 large disk support (>137 Gig)

[Guest]

Hello all - hoping to get some help...

I have a 160 Gig Maxtor HDD on a W2K system dual booting with W98.

The motherboard is an Abit KR7A Raid and the disk is on a raid controller,
which supports 48 bit addressing. Lates bios and drivers are used which all
support 144 bit addressing.

SP4 is installed and the large disk bit in the registry is enabled.

The disk is split into 3 roughly equal partitions which were formatted in
DOS as FAT32.

Disk Management reports the disk and each partition correctly with respect
to overall size and free space. The assigned drive letters are a bit all over
the place though. (I have 4 disks, all partitioned, although only 1 > 137 g)

However! Windows 2000 refuses to use the disk beyond 137 gig, and I am
completely lost as to why as everything seems OK. Does it not like that the
disk is partitioned? Does it not like FAT32?

Any ideas would be very welcome!

Thank you

 

[nesredep egrob]

Hello all - hoping to get some help...

I have a 160 Gig Maxtor HDD on a W2K system dual booting with W98.

The motherboard is an Abit KR7A Raid and the disk is on a raid controller,
which supports 48 bit addressing. Lates bios and drivers are used which all
support 144 bit addressing.

SP4 is installed and the large disk bit in the registry is enabled.

The disk is split into 3 roughly equal partitions which were formatted in
DOS as FAT32.

Disk Management reports the disk and each partition correctly with respect
to overall size and free space. The assigned drive letters are a bit all over
the place though. (I have 4 disks, all partitioned, although only 1 > 137 g)

However! Windows 2000 refuses to use the disk beyond 137 gig, and I am
completely lost as to why as everything seems OK. Does it not like that the
disk is partitioned? Does it not like FAT32?

Any ideas would be very welcome!

Thank you

I have run 2 x 200 GB drives, the first in 3 partitions and the second in 2 on
several different motherboards and never had any trouble. My latest board is the
Intel board which requires either SATA drives or a ATA board to enable the use
of PATA (parallel drives)
You say the bit is set for large drive. Try checkinbg on this:

Start/run/regedit
select HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE
navigate to system/services/atapi/parameters or
system/currentcontrolset/services/atapi/parameters
right click for new
Select Dword name it EnableBigLba (take note of case)
set value to 1
end regedit
reboot

Borge

 

[Guest]

Hi

Thanks for your answer.

That's exactly what I did to set Biglba. Since then, I have run the little
programme from maxtor which sets the bit and it tells me biglba already set.
I have also used dumpreg to check. I think I have to believe it is set. But I
just checked again! I have

EnableBigLba REG_DWORD=0x1

It's (sort of) nice to know the partitions shouldn't make a difference, but
you do not say if you are using FAT32 or NTFS. Does that make a difference? I
can't think why but I am lost.

 

[DL]

Forgive me but I'm a little confused by your post.
A 160gb hd partitioned into 3 all correctly identified in disk management
with a drive letter assigned - yes?

So what exactly do you mean by;
Are you saying you have another slave disk that isnt identied/ cannot be
accessed formated etc in disk management?

 

[nesredep egrob]

Sorry about that, I am on NTSF apart from a Secure Zone 20GB which is FAT32 on
G: logical which otherwise is NTSF.

Borge

 

[DL]

Still not clear
You have a 2nd hd that you cannot access?