Windows XP SP2 has problems with >137 GB HDD

[Ludwig Weinzierl]

I own a 200 GB Maxtor HDD in a an external case from Aluminum with
prolific IDE-bridge. It supports USB and firewire, for my experiments
I used the firewire interface.

I used this thing intensively for about two months now, with an ext3
fs under Linux as well as ext2explorer under windows XP. (ext2explorer
is a tool for reading ext2/ext3 under Windows). Everything works fine.

On the other hand every attempt to get this device to work with NTFS
and Windows XP Home SP2 failed. Formatting is ok, but when I write
data to the disk, Windows complains about write errors, and the drive
hangs, so that I have to turn it off and on again. I also tried an 120
GB HDD in the same case, and it worked with no problems.
For my experiments I always filled up the disk completely (or until
the first write errors occurred) and then compared every file to see
if it was written properly.

I thought since SP2 there is support for drives bigger then 137 GB?

Ludwig Weinzierl

 

[Guest]

Hi,

What are the exact wording of the windows warning messages?
Are you sure the mobo BIOS of your XP Home support 48 bit LBA, ie. over
137GB Hdd?

Peter

 

[Guest]

The Limitations for each file system are:
o FAT – only addresses up to 4Gb of disk space [Windows XP, 95 and earlier
Windows versions only]
o FAT32 - only addresses up to 32Gb of disk space [Windows XP, Me 98 and 95
Second Edition]
o NTFS - addresses up to 2,000Gb of disk space [Windows XP]

Your 137Gb restriction will be a motherboard issue. You may be able to
download a BIOS update from the manufacturers web site.

 

[Nathan McNulty]

Actually, FAT32 can address up to 2 TB (~2,000 GB) of HD space. XP just
can't format FAT32 larger than 32 GB

-----
Nathan McNulty

The Limitations for each file system are:
o FAT – only addresses up to 4Gb of disk space [Windows XP, 95 and earlier
Windows versions only]
o FAT32 - only addresses up to 32Gb of disk space [Windows XP, Me 98 and 95
Second Edition]
o NTFS - addresses up to 2,000Gb of disk space [Windows XP]

Your 137Gb restriction will be a motherboard issue. You may be able to
download a BIOS update from the manufacturers web site.


:

Hi,

What are the exact wording of the windows warning messages?
Are you sure the mobo BIOS of your XP Home support 48 bit LBA, ie. over
137GB Hdd?

Peter


:

 

[Ron Martell]

The Limitations for each file system are:
o FAT – only addresses up to 4Gb of disk space [Windows XP, 95 and earlier
Windows versions only]

Wrong. The limit is 2 gb for FAT16 in Windows 95/98/Me. NT based
versions of Windows, from NT3.51 on, support up to 4 gb on FAT16
drives using 64K clusters.

o FAT32 - only addresses up to 32Gb of disk space [Windows XP, Me 98 and 95
Second Edition]

Wrong. FAT32 works up to 128 gb for Windows 95/98/Me/2000/XP.
Windows XP will only create and also format FAT32 partitions up to 32
gb but will use larger ones, up to 128 gb, if they are created and
formatted by some other means.

o NTFS - addresses up to 2,000Gb of disk space [Windows XP]

Also Windows 2000.

Your 137Gb restriction will be a motherboard issue. You may be able to
download a BIOS update from the manufacturers web site.

That is probably correct in this instance.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Ron Martell]

Actually, FAT32 can address up to 2 TB (~2,000 GB) of HD space. XP just
can't format FAT32 larger than 32 GB

Actually all implementations (so far) of FAT32 by Microsoft make full
use of only the first 22 bits of the 32 bit FAT entry. The practical
limit is therefore 2^22 clusters, or approx. 4.1 million. And with
the maximum supported cluster size being 32K this works out to a
maximum workable drive capacity of 128 gb.

While larger FAT32 drive have been created, usually inadvertently,
they are not really that usable because, for example, the Scandisk and
Defrag utilities in Windows 95/98/Me will not work on drives that have
more than 4.1 million total clusters. Norton Utilities products have
similar problems.

I have no information about the usability (or not) of the Windows XP
CHKDSK and DEFRAG utilities on FAT32 drives larger than 128 gb. If
someone has had practical experience with this situation I would be
interested in hearing about it.

One way of creating FAT32 drives larger than 128 gb would be to use a
disk cloning utility to copy an existing hard drive to the large
drive. This is the most common source of problems with Scandisk and
Defrag not working on FAT32 drives in Windows 95/98/Me.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Nathan McNulty]

This link may clear some things up. Of importance would be:

"Although Windows 2000 and Windows XP Professional can mount FAT32
volumes of any size, Windows 2000 and Windows XP Professional can format
FAT32 volumes up to 32 GB only."

"The 127.5-GB limit on FAT32 volumes imposed in Windows 98 no longer
applies to Windows Me. In Windows Me, using a cluster size of 32 KB, a
FAT32 volume can theoretically be about 8 terabytes. However, the 32-bit
fields in the partition table (and in the FAT32 boot sector) limit the
size of an individual volume (regardless of file system) on a basic MBR
disk using a sector size of 512 bytes to approximately 2 terabytes."

Basically, the theoretical max is 8 TB, Windows can only use up to 2 TB,
and XP can mount any size FAT32 volume including 2 TB volumes (which of
course would have to be a spanned volume)

Source:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_ryhg.asp

 

[Nathan McNulty]

You are a little off:

Windows 2000 and Windows XP can both mount FAT32 volumes larger than 128
GB. It is quite simple to format a 200 GB drive FAT32 if you use the
appropriate tools

-----
Nathan McNulty

The Limitations for each file system are:
o FAT – only addresses up to 4Gb of disk space [Windows XP, 95 and earlier
Windows versions only]

Wrong. The limit is 2 gb for FAT16 in Windows 95/98/Me. NT based
versions of Windows, from NT3.51 on, support up to 4 gb on FAT16
drives using 64K clusters.

o FAT32 - only addresses up to 32Gb of disk space [Windows XP, Me 98 and 95
Second Edition]

Wrong. FAT32 works up to 128 gb for Windows 95/98/Me/2000/XP.
Windows XP will only create and also format FAT32 partitions up to 32
gb but will use larger ones, up to 128 gb, if they are created and
formatted by some other means.

o NTFS - addresses up to 2,000Gb of disk space [Windows XP]

Also Windows 2000.

Your 137Gb restriction will be a motherboard issue. You may be able to
download a BIOS update from the manufacturers web site.

That is probably correct in this instance.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

 

[Ron Martell]

You are a little off:

Windows 2000 and Windows XP can both mount FAT32 volumes larger than 128
GB. It is quite simple to format a 200 GB drive FAT32 if you use the
appropriate tools

And CHKDSK and Defrag will work properly on such a drive?


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Ron Martell]

This link may clear some things up. Of importance would be:

"Although Windows 2000 and Windows XP Professional can mount FAT32
volumes of any size, Windows 2000 and Windows XP Professional can format
FAT32 volumes up to 32 GB only."

"The 127.5-GB limit on FAT32 volumes imposed in Windows 98 no longer
applies to Windows Me. In Windows Me, using a cluster size of 32 KB, a
FAT32 volume can theoretically be about 8 terabytes. However, the 32-bit
fields in the partition table (and in the FAT32 boot sector) limit the
size of an individual volume (regardless of file system) on a basic MBR
disk using a sector size of 512 bytes to approximately 2 terabytes."

However Scandisk and Defrag in Windows Me will still not work on
drives larger than 128 gb. Period.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[zibby]

The Limitations for each file system are:
o FAT - only addresses up to 4Gb of disk space [Windows XP, 95 and earlier
Windows versions only]

Wrong. The limit is 2 gb for FAT16 in Windows 95/98/Me. NT based
versions of Windows, from NT3.51 on, support up to 4 gb on FAT16
drives using 64K clusters.

o FAT32 - only addresses up to 32Gb of disk space [Windows XP, Me 98 and 95
Second Edition]

Wrong. FAT32 works up to 128 gb for Windows 95/98/Me/2000/XP.
Windows XP will only create and also format FAT32 partitions up to 32
gb but will use larger ones, up to 128 gb, if they are created and
formatted by some other means.

I have USB 200Gb FAT32 drive (one partition, full HD size). Works under XP
without any problems (it was formated NTFS under WinXP and later on changed
to FAT32 with Partition Magic 8.0)

So you're right on that one.

o NTFS - addresses up to 2,000Gb of disk space [Windows XP]

Also Windows 2000.

Your 137Gb restriction will be a motherboard issue. You may be able to
download a BIOS update from the manufacturers web site.

That is probably correct in this instance.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Ludwig Weinzierl]

For fun I tried to format FAT32 with Windows XP and Windows 2000.
The difference was:
Windows XP did not offer the FAT option with a partition that large.
Windows 2000 was happy and started to format.
After about two hours: "Error, partition to large!"...ARRRRGH.
Systems which allow me to shot myself in the foot I can cope with.
Systems which always try to prevent me from every possible damage are
sometimes annoying, but I can cope with them too.
But, first of all let me shoot myself in the foot and then carp, I
really can't stand;-)

Despite the fact that it is possible to create 200 GB FAT32
partitions, there are several problems with them.
Some have been mentioned in this thread.

There are at least another two:

Lot of disk space is wasted due to internal fragmentation.
For my intended usage of the 200 GB HDD (avg. file size 1 MB, 32K
clusters, 60% fragmentation) I have calculated a wastage of 3.8 GB
(avg. file size 1 MB, 32K

clusters, 60% fragmentation).
This is really not that bad (1,9%), but if we can do better...

What is worst is that for FAT file systems the FAT should be kept in
the RAM for performance reasons.
For a 200 GB HDD the FAT is 25MB (32K clusters). I guess this is one
of the main reason for MS to restrict FAT32 partitions artificially to
32 MB.

OK, back to the subject:

I tried it with to machines (DELL Inspiron 8200, home-made PC) and
both have the newest available BIOS, which should be capable of 48 bit
LBA.

What is more of interest for me is:

Why does it work with Linux but not with Windows (on the same
machines).
OK, you say Linux does not use the BIOS, but I thought Windows too has
a driver which does not use the BIOS.
And if everything goes over USB or Firewire is the BIOS involved at
all?
And why does it work with ext2explorer.
Is ext2explorer so low level, that it does not use the normal windows
driver which (probably?) uses the BIOS.

Can anyone unconfuse this?

o NTFS - addresses up to 2,000GB of disk space [Windows XP]

Also Windows 2000.

In Windows 2000 and XP without SPs support for >137GB HDD had to be
enabled
by setting the appropriate registry key.
At least for Windows XP without SP 1 I have read that the support was
rather buggy,
and that one had better let Atapi\Parameters untouched.
See KB303013: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013

Peter asked about the exact wording of the windows warning messages?
I did not make a note, but in German it was:

"Fehler beim schreiben auf den Datenträger."
"Daten gingen verloren"

which translates roughly to:

"Error while writing to the volume."
"Data has been lost."

 

[Ludwig Weinzierl]

I have USB 200Gb FAT32 drive (one partition, full HD size). Works under XP

without any problems (it was formated NTFS under WinXP and later on changed
to FAT32 with Partition Magic 8.0)

Ah, this is really interesting. Probably I will give FAT32 another
try.
With which service-pack levels of Windows XP have you tried this?
How much is your slack-space?
What is your feeling about performance? Do you have any figures?

BTW, in Germany they are selling 250 GB external USB drives in a
supermarket chain currently. I think this is quite risky, because they
will not work with a lot of configurations. Or Am I to pesimistic
about this?

 

[Yves Leclerc]

Windows 2000 may not be able to see the large hard drive and I do not know
if MS has offered the patch to enable drives > 137GB for Windows 2000.

Y.

For fun I tried to format FAT32 with Windows XP and Windows 2000.
The difference was:
Windows XP did not offer the FAT option with a partition that large.
Windows 2000 was happy and started to format.
After about two hours: "Error, partition to large!"...ARRRRGH.
Systems which allow me to shot myself in the foot I can cope with.
Systems which always try to prevent me from every possible damage are
sometimes annoying, but I can cope with them too.
But, first of all let me shoot myself in the foot and then carp, I
really can't stand;-)

Despite the fact that it is possible to create 200 GB FAT32
partitions, there are several problems with them.
Some have been mentioned in this thread.

There are at least another two:

Lot of disk space is wasted due to internal fragmentation.
For my intended usage of the 200 GB HDD (avg. file size 1 MB, 32K
clusters, 60% fragmentation) I have calculated a wastage of 3.8 GB
(avg. file size 1 MB, 32K

clusters, 60% fragmentation).
This is really not that bad (1,9%), but if we can do better...

What is worst is that for FAT file systems the FAT should be kept in
the RAM for performance reasons.
For a 200 GB HDD the FAT is 25MB (32K clusters). I guess this is one
of the main reason for MS to restrict FAT32 partitions artificially to
32 MB.

OK, back to the subject:

I tried it with to machines (DELL Inspiron 8200, home-made PC) and
both have the newest available BIOS, which should be capable of 48 bit
LBA.

What is more of interest for me is:

Why does it work with Linux but not with Windows (on the same
machines).
OK, you say Linux does not use the BIOS, but I thought Windows too has
a driver which does not use the BIOS.
And if everything goes over USB or Firewire is the BIOS involved at
all?
And why does it work with ext2explorer.
Is ext2explorer so low level, that it does not use the normal windows
driver which (probably?) uses the BIOS.

Can anyone unconfuse this?

o NTFS - addresses up to 2,000GB of disk space [Windows XP]

Also Windows 2000.

In Windows 2000 and XP without SPs support for >137GB HDD had to be
enabled
by setting the appropriate registry key.
At least for Windows XP without SP 1 I have read that the support was
rather buggy,
and that one had better let Atapi\Parameters untouched.
See KB303013:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013

Peter asked about the exact wording of the windows warning messages?
I did not make a note, but in German it was:

"Fehler beim schreiben auf den Datenträger."
"Daten gingen verloren"

which translates roughly to:

"Error while writing to the volume."
"Data has been lost."

 

[zibby]

Just tried it recently
240Gb SATA HD
with partition magic 8.0 I could create FAT32 up to 198Gb. No way to pass
that limit.

 

[Nathan McNulty]

Restriction would be by the software. FAT32 has a theoretical capacity
of something like 2 TB. The only thing that limits it is the software.
For example, XP will not allow you to format FAT32 any larger than
something like 32 GB and anything over that will have to be formatted
NTFS (that is natively, but other software programs you can use in XP
will allow for more).

 

[zibby]

Theoretical capacity means jack sh... when you have no way to create it.