Is It True?

[Mees]

Hey all,


I've heard Windows XP has some problems with 2nd HDD's bigger than 130GB, now, is this true? Because I'm running out of my 250GB Maxtor drive, so I was planning on getting this one next to it, but if it's not working it was a waste of money of course, but is the myth true?


Thanks,


Mees

[Ivan]

No idea... but mine hasnt had any problems in the current config (36 + 250)

[alrot]

Space has nothing to do with it... unless you use a diferent format partition like linux or other, but if you are using ntfs of fat32 shouln't be any issue ,Im sure that's a myth..

BTW I'm doing everything I can, to save money and buy another 80gb (I rather small disk instead a single hudge large one), to put back in """ Game My old P3""

[justpassingthrough]

Its NOT a myth

Not until Winodws Xp SP2 were hard drive partitions larger than 137GB supported without manually installing a fix into the OS and before NTFS, FAT32 had a size limit.

Its called 48bit LBA support: http://support.microsoft.com/?id=303013 Without it, Winodws will only see 137GB of a large hard drive (or partition) and will corrupt data on a drive or partition of larger than 137GB


Unless you are running Windows XP SP2 or a very late version of Windows XP SP1 and a motherboard which all support 48bit LBA (Large Block Addressing) any partition greater than 137GB will not be seen by the operating system.

[alrot]

Unbelievable, well one of the millons weird things of MS has been revealed , For analogy i woun't never suspect this, so for the new era,all hdd bigger than 138gb will have to be partioned ,ahh Bill
Thanks miltestpilot

Alex

[Mees]

So no problems for me then, although my b-day present won't be a HDD, it'll be a Samsung D900....Hmmmmm.... 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

[Gixer]

You can get around it. I had to when I installed a 250gb hdd before SP2 came out. It involves opening a DOS window and expanding the drive that registers as 137gig to its full size. Bit of a pain but you didn't have to partition it. As said SP2 solved it and I haven't had any issues after re-formatting since.

[yf]

I use a a raid 0 array of 600GB and a second 500GB drive, (its still not big for me...) with SP2, no broblem what so ever.

[Politically Incorrect]

I use a a raid 0 array of 600GB and a second 500GB drive, (its still not big for me...) with SP2, no broblem what so ever.

Except for the fact you lost 100Gb of hard drive space.

[Mees]

Not that bad if you have 1TB left....

[congo]

Except for the fact you lost 100Gb of hard drive space.

How so?

I've always built my own fully updated windows disks and I never was confronted by the issue because my OS has SP2 from the start.

YF is right, you don't need to partition drives, and the OS sees the full size, even if it's a huge RAID 0 array, I use a 400gb RAID 0 myself. Just install with a properly updated windows install disk instead of some old junk that needs a plethora of fixes.

[Politically Incorrect]

Except for the fact you lost 100Gb of hard drive space.

How so?

Is it not true that when setting up a RAID array that it would see the 600Gb drive as a 500Gb?

[Gixer]

I thought when setting up RAID you have to use two drives of the same size and speed? Only what I have read though and dont know fully as I have never set one up.

[congo]

You don't lose any space setting up a RAID0, you get the full capacity of both drives. It's best to use two identical drives but it's not a requirement, the array will adjust all drives to the size and speed of the smallest drive, except in JBOD raid, where the full size of the combined drives is used, but the speed will drop to the speed of the slowest drive I believe.

[Gixer]

I'll just stick with a Raptor 10,000rpm jobby. Practicaly as fast without all the RAID setup to worry about  ;D