1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

137 (?) GB size limit on harddisks

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by Christer, 2004/05/04.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2004/05/04
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,560
    Likes Received:
    71
    Hello all!

    I have searched the Windows BBS and other places, including the Microsoft Knowledge Base but didn´t get any wiser.

    Windows XP - no SP, doesn´t recognize harddisk space above 137 (?) GB but Windows XP - SP1 does.

    Does 137 (?) GB actually refer to harddisk size or partition size?

    A 160 GB harddisk, containing data only, has been partitioned and formated in a XP - SP1 computer. It is then moved, e.g. in a mobile rack, to a XP - no SP computer.

    Will this corrupt the harddisk, Master File Table or what will happen?

    Thanks for Your time,
    Christer
     
  2. 2004/05/04
    Arie

    Arie Administrator Administrator Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/27
    Messages:
    15,174
    Likes Received:
    412
    See: How to Enable 48-bit Logical Block Addressing Support for ATAPI Disk Drives in Windows XP

    They are talking about hard disk size. Partition size doesn't matter, the controller can't access past the 137 GB limit.



     
    Arie,
    #2

  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2004/05/04
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,889
    Likes Received:
    386
  5. 2004/05/04
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,560
    Likes Received:
    71
    Thanks, Arie and Pete for guiding me!

    The full story:

    I helped a friend setting up a new computer. He wanted to move XP from the old box (which originally had Win98SE) to the new one. He has the first release, XP pro - no SP and his harddisks are 160 GB Seagates.

    During installation, I created the system partition only (16 GB), formated and went on with the installation. Next, in disk manager, I created an extended partition with two logicals and formated.

    Now it was time to install SP1a and after that, disk manager greeted me with a chunk of unpartitioned space. I simply deleted the logicals and extended, followed by recreating of the same but to the full capacity.

    Did I make a mistake during the above or am I in the clear?

    The next step was to connect the slave HDD mounted in a mobile rack. All went well and it was partitioned and formated to its full capacity. It has one large partition (~140 GB) for music and films plus one small partition (~20 GB) for Ghost Images of the system partition.

    I have read the articles You referred to but still haven´t understood if he can safely share this drive with his son, who has a computer that is not BigLba-compatible. For a reason that I don´t understand, the son decided to not install XP SP1 (and no, it´s not THAT reason - the copy is legit).

    Will the data on this drive get corrupted if he puts it in his sons computer? Will his Ghost Images get blown away?

    Christer
     
  6. 2004/05/04
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,889
    Likes Received:
    386
    My guess is that you are in the clear, but I am puzzled as to why you chose to install SP1a after partitioning. Personally I would have done it immediately. If you had done this the problem of the unpartitioned space would not have arisen - IMO. Prior to installing SP1 I suspect that XP was only seeing 137 Gb.
    Good question :D Proceed with caution.

    I doubt the drive would be corrupted, but there are likely to be problems with Win 98 accessing the drive. I would give it a try before anything goes onto the drive. It does not sound like a workable scenario to me. I don't remember off hand the max drive size for 98 without drive overlays.
     
  7. 2004/05/04
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,560
    Likes Received:
    71
    I wasn´t aware of the 137 GB limitation. If I had been, I would install SP1a before continuing disk management.

    That´s my conclusion too!

    It´s not Win98, it´s WinXP without any SP.

    Too late for that, he has all his Ghost Images on the rearmost partition, within the space after the 137 GB limit.
    The simple solution is to recommend my friend (and anyone else) to not move large harddisks to computers that possibly don´t support them. Well, at least until someone says that they have done it and that it´s safe.

    I´m wondering ...... :confused: ...... what would happen if a film was stored in the space going beyond the 137 GB limit?
    Would it be regarded as a corrupted file and left alone or would bad things happen ...... :p ...... maybe even scarier than the film itself?

    Christer
     
  8. 2004/05/04
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,889
    Likes Received:
    386
    Anything beyond the 137 Gb limit won't be seen - any file that bridges the limit ????

    Suggest son is taken to one side and the facts of life explained to him - Blaster Worm et al :D
     
  9. 2004/05/04
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,560
    Likes Received:
    71
    Well, the younger generation is the more computer savvy and it would do no good if an old geezer like me tried to tell him anything. He argues that with all hotfixes and patches installed, SP1/1a does not make any difference and I do neither have the facts nor the knowledge to prove him wrong.

    Apart from not seeing the point in SP1/1a, he has adequate protection.

    Christer
     
  10. 2004/05/04
    sparrow

    sparrow Inactive

    Joined:
    2004/03/21
    Messages:
    2,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christer,

    "the younger generation is the more computer savvy "
    "SP1/1a does not make any difference "
    from my linited experience, I agree, and I don't have it installed either.
    I guess I don't do anything that requires it.
     
  11. 2004/05/05
    Arie

    Arie Administrator Administrator Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/27
    Messages:
    15,174
    Likes Received:
    412
    You can share it safely. The data is accessed by the HOST PC. Then send via the network protocol to the other PC(s).
     
  12. 2004/05/06
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,560
    Likes Received:
    71
    Thanks Arie,
    it never occured to me that they can share it over a network!

    Occasionally, a misused term (share) will provide a solution ...... :) ......!

    What they had in mind was to physically move the harddisk between the computers and I started worrying about possible/probable concequences.

    Christer
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.