Adding Hard Drive

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frank
  • Start date Start date
F

Frank

I recently flashed the BIOS on my P2B-F to the latest beta version
(1014.003). Today I added a second HD, a new 40GB. But my OS (W2K) only
sees it as 31.4GB. Why, and how can I get it to recognize the entire
capacity of the HD?
 
I recently flashed the BIOS on my P2B-F to the latest beta version
(1014.003). Today I added a second HD, a new 40GB. But my OS (W2K) only
sees it as 31.4GB. Why, and how can I get it to recognize the entire
capacity of the HD?
Click to expand...

Did you check to see if there is a jumper on the drive that limits it to 32GB?
 
I recently flashed the BIOS on my P2B-F to the latest beta version
(1014.003). Today I added a second HD, a new 40GB. But my OS (W2K) only
sees it as 31.4GB. Why, and how can I get it to recognize the entire
capacity of the HD?
Click to expand...

The motherboard only natively supported 32GB drives with the original
bios. Update the bios or (preferably) buy a PCI ATA133 IDE controller
card, since your motherboard only supports ATA33 but the drive is capable
of significantly faster. The motherboard would otherwise be a major
performance bottleneck.
 
Frank said:
I recently flashed the BIOS on my P2B-F to the latest beta version
(1014.003). Today I added a second HD, a new 40GB. But my OS (W2K) only
sees it as 31.4GB. Why, and how can I get it to recognize the entire
capacity of the HD?
Click to expand...

It probably is 31.4 GB. Remember that a 40 GB drive is really a
40,000,000,000 byte drive, unformatted. You lose gigs in the round down and
more from the file system.
 
kony said:
The motherboard only natively supported 32GB drives with the original
bios. Update the bios or (preferably) buy a PCI ATA133 IDE controller
card, since your motherboard only supports ATA33 but the drive is capable
of significantly faster. The motherboard would otherwise be a major
performance bottleneck.
Click to expand...

A drive of the 40 GB era would probably only have a sustained xfer rate of
20-30 mb, so ATA33 is ultimately fine.
 
A 40,000,000,000 byte HD is actually 37.25 GB (where a Gigabyte = 1024 *
1024 *1024.)

You don't lose that much due to a filesystem either.

I bet he has a 32GB limiting jumper installed on the hard drive.
 
A drive of the 40 GB era would probably only have a sustained xfer rate of
20-30 mb, so ATA33 is ultimately fine.
Click to expand...

Hardly. I had 20GB drives that far exceeded 20-30GB, and they do sell
40GB drives today, which is likely what the OP has (else why would he be
installing it NOW?), that have closer enough to the same throughput as a
larger drive... The platter density is/was 80GB/platter, the 40GB drives
use one side of that platter.

For example, Anything WD or Maxtor made within the past 2 years would
easily exceed 30MB/s in the 7K2 RPM versions. I have at least 3 Maxtor
Diamondmax Plus 8 40GB drives, probably over a year old now, that approach
50GB/s, ATA133 bursts.
 
Hardly. I had 20GB drives that far exceeded 20-30GB, and they do sell
40GB drives today, which is likely what the OP has (else why would he be
installing it NOW?), that have closer enough to the same throughput as a
larger drive... The platter density is/was 80GB/platter, the 40GB drives
use one side of that platter.
Click to expand...

I just bought one a WD 40 gig for $19 usual Office max rebate deal.
 
DanO said:
A 40,000,000,000 byte HD is actually 37.25 GB (where a Gigabyte = 1024 *
1024 *1024.)

You don't lose that much due to a filesystem either.

I bet he has a 32GB limiting jumper installed on the hard drive.
Click to expand...

I agree, given that the 1014.003 BIOS the OP installed is confirmed to
support drives up to 128GB.

P2B

http://tipperlinne.com/p2bmod
 
I recently flashed the BIOS on my P2B-F to the latest beta version
(1014.003). Today I added a second HD, a new 40GB. But my OS (W2K) only
sees it as 31.4GB. Why, and how can I get it to recognize the entire
capacity of the HD?
Click to expand...

What program did you use to format the drive? And what service pack
are you running on w2k?


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
 
It probably is 31.4 GB. Remember that a 40 GB drive is really a
40,000,000,000 byte drive, unformatted. You lose gigs in the round down and
more from the file system.
Click to expand...

Bull!


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
 
kony said:
Hardly. I had 20GB drives that far exceeded 20-30GB, and they do sell
40GB drives today, which is likely what the OP has (else why would he be
installing it NOW?), that have closer enough to the same throughput as a
larger drive... The platter density is/was 80GB/platter, the 40GB drives
use one side of that platter.

For example, Anything WD or Maxtor made within the past 2 years would
easily exceed 30MB/s in the 7K2 RPM versions. I have at least 3 Maxtor
Diamondmax Plus 8 40GB drives, probably over a year old now, that approach
50GB/s, ATA133 bursts.
Click to expand...

It's a sustained transfer rate though. Normally, you wouldn't be constantly
getting full transfer rate. You'd be getting 5 megs here, 2 megs there etc.
ATA33 is fine. Seriously, I have a drive I put in this machine when moving
large amounts of data to another machine, and it's connected via an ATA33
cable. It's plenty fast.

PCI IDE cards are always a waste, since they chew up both CPU and PCI
bandwidth.
 
It's a sustained transfer rate though. Normally, you wouldn't be constantly
getting full transfer rate. You'd be getting 5 megs here, 2 megs there etc.
ATA33 is fine. Seriously, I have a drive I put in this machine when moving
large amounts of data to another machine, and it's connected via an ATA33
cable. It's plenty fast.
Click to expand...

It depends on the jobs... for many people the hard drive is one of the
primary bottlenecks. After considering the seek time, using the higher
ATA mode will still be likely to cut the transfer time in half... so what
if it's only 5 MB? Until that 5MB is transferred the whole system may be
waiting.
PCI IDE cards are always a waste, since they chew up both CPU and PCI
bandwidth.
Click to expand...

PCI IDE cards use busmastering, they do not require ANY CPU time... it's
just the opposite, you're wasting the CPU's performance every time it has
to wait on data from an ATA33 IDE interface.

It is true that a PCI IDE card's consumption of PCI bus bandwidth is an
issue to consider on modern systems, but on the OP's aged motherboard, his
IDE controller, while in the southbridge, is still linked logically as a
PCI device, so it's "on" the PCI bus and it's lower ATA33 speed just makes
matters worse in another regard, moreso than a PCI ATA133 card would.
 
Back
Top