Question on 250GB Maxtor Drive

[Aaron]

Hey All,

Yesterday I received my new Maxtor Maxline II 250 GB drive from Newegg. I run WinXP
with SP1, and I made the registry change to support >137GB drives. Whenever I run
Thorough Format or Thorough Chkdsk, however, it freezes at about 60%, and just
never progresses any further. (Could theoretically be around the 137GB mark, but
WinXP doesn't relate any specific information when doing a surface scan) . I DLed
Maxtor's diagnostic utility that boots into DOS, but a surface scan didn't show any
problems. I started a low level format, grossly miscalculating how long that takes
on these big new drives, and its now about 2/3 of the way through after about 10
hours. If it helps, I'm running the drive on an ABIT Motherboard through the
highpoint controller, and the bios should be new enough.

Anyway, I need to know if I should be worried about the Format/Chkdsk surface scan
problem, as if I need to RMA the drive I should do it soon. Does anyone know if
this is expected behavior with WinXP Format and Chkdsk on a drive of this size?

Thanks very much for your advice,
-Aaron

 

[Sleepy]

The 137GB drive limitation is a software, as well as a hardware limitation.
You may wan t to check with your motherboard manufacturer to see if the
board's IDE controllers (and your currently installed drivers) are
compatible with large capacity drives. If they are not, there may be a
software (or BIOS) update available to update the drivers for the IDE
controller on the motherboard. If this does not work, you can buy a PCI IDE
controller that supports the larger drives. In fact, a PCI IDE controller
came with my 160GB Western Digital hard drive. These are your basic
options. Don't fret, a PCI IDE controller card with a single IDE channel is
less than $30.

 

[soccerfan]

faq 427 here might be of use http://maxtor.custhelp.com . and 10 hrs to
format seems way too long, since i formatted a 200gb western digital drive
in an hour.

 

[Ed Light]

Maybe Maxtor has a downloadable utility that will do a scan.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Hello all.

I have had to deal with just such a drive (Maxtor 250gb IDE) in the last
week or so.

We had to get one replaced because it actually had bad firmware and no BIOS,
or indeed Maxtors utility, would recognise it far enough to do anything with it.

The replacement was fine however. I read a lot of articles on the Maxtor
site.... basically it is imperetive with these >137gb drives that you use
proper maxtor utilities rather than MS format / test programs.

Nope, it is not imperative.
Maxblast should even be avoided unless you have no choice.

 

[Wouter]

Was that 1 hour for a low level format? If so, then mine is _much_ slower, by an
order of magnitude.

Anyway I'm not sure I was clear. My PC doesn't hang, the drive is recognized fine,
seems to work, etc. The problem is simply that the surface scan performed by chkdsk
and format built into WinXP hangs after about 60% of the drive. If I split the disk
in 2, then it hangs after about 10% of the second disk.

Has anyone else run the built-in thorough chkdisk or thorough format on a 250GB or
200GB drive successfully? I just want to know if its supposed to work, and if my
drive is somehow bad. I don't want to RMA it if its a good drive. But if its bad I
want to send it back ASAP.

Thanks,
-Aaron

I don't have Windows XP, so I can't confirm anything, but I think it's
highly unlikely that the drive is bad. I won't trust Windows utilities for
this big drives. There are enough harddisk limits and bugs in Windows 95 and
98 to believe that the scandisk utility of WinXP doesn't support the large
drives very well too.
You're new drive is probably "SMART", so use a utility to check the status
of the drive. The harddisk can perform self-tests, and the program may give
you a RMA code if the drive is defective.

For more information about the format/chkdsk problem, I recommend that you
ask this question in a Windows XP newsgroup and/or check the Microsoft
Knowledge Base.

 

[Wouter]

Wouter stood up, at show-n-tell, and said:

Winblows supports up to 9TB. It's, most likely a hardware limitation. OP
needs to contact their motherboard mfg. Sounds as if a BIOS flash, is in
order. I love to blame Winblows for a lot of crap, too. Just don't think
that's the case, here.

I didn't mean that the Operating System (kernel?) doesn't support large
harddisks, but that there may be programs that contain certain bugs which
result in limited harddisk support (for example: the fdisk utility from
Windows 98 doesn't support harddisks greater than 64GB due to a bug, even
though the Operating System itself does support larger drives).
I can imagine that the format and scandisk utitlities of Windows XP contain
such bugs too, which causes his problems. That's why I referred to the
Windows XP newsgroups and MS Knowledge Base.

Aaron wrote that the drive is recognized fine, so a BIOS problem seems
unlikely. I only hope that he means by "recognized fine" that the BIOS
reports the drive as 250GB, and not only displays its name correctly :-/
If it's a BIOS limition, there are two options: 1) computer does not boot
(which is not the case), or 2) drivename is reported correctly on the first
screen, but the drivesize is displayed wrong on the second screen. In both
cases, a BIOS upgrade or workaround will solve the problem.

Wouter

 

[Strontium]

Wouter stood up, at show-n-tell, and said:

I didn't mean that the Operating System (kernel?) doesn't support
large harddisks, but that there may be programs that contain certain
bugs which result in limited harddisk support (for example: the fdisk
utility from Windows 98 doesn't support harddisks greater than 64GB
due to a bug, even though the Operating System itself does support
larger drives).
I can imagine that the format and scandisk utitlities of Windows XP
contain such bugs too, which causes his problems. That's why I
referred to the Windows XP newsgroups and MS Knowledge Base.

Aaron wrote that the drive is recognized fine, so a BIOS problem seems
unlikely. I only hope that he means by "recognized fine" that the BIOS
reports the drive as 250GB, and not only displays its name correctly
:-/
If it's a BIOS limition, there are two options: 1) computer does not
boot (which is not the case), or 2) drivename is reported correctly
on the first screen, but the drivesize is displayed wrong on the
second screen. In both cases, a BIOS upgrade or workaround will solve
the problem.

OK, so if your drive is being recognized (correct size, etc...),
correctly, then I would have to say that it's time go give up win9x

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

I didn't mean that the Operating System (kernel?) doesn't support large
harddisks, but that there may be programs that contain certain bugs which
result in limited harddisk support (for example: the fdisk utility from
Windows 98 doesn't support harddisks greater than 64GB due to a bug, even
though the Operating System itself does support larger drives).
I can imagine that the format and scandisk utitlities of Windows XP contain
such bugs too, which causes his problems. That's why I referred to the
Windows XP newsgroups and MS Knowledge Base.

Aaron wrote that the drive is recognized fine, so a BIOS problem seems
unlikely. I only hope that he means by "recognized fine" that the BIOS
reports the drive as 250GB, and not only displays its name correctly :-/
If it's a BIOS limition, there are two options:

There are more, depending on how the bug works out.

1) computer does not boot (which is not the case),

That is a rather ugly one, whether that is a hang in POST or otherwise.
That should not happen just because of a capacity mismatch.

or 2) drivename is reported correctly on the first
screen, but the drivesize is displayed wrong on the second screen.

That may not effect anything other than the use in DOS or booting
to a partition located above the limit.

 

[Eric Gisin]

Nonsense. Win 2K/XP has been tested with drives up to 2TB and had no problems.

The only limit so far has been the legacy ATA 28-bit LBA (137GB). If you have
a problem here, then your IDE driver is broken.

You don't want to use 250GB volumes under DOS 7/8 or Win 98, you are right at
the FAT32 limit.

|
| I don't have Windows XP, so I can't confirm anything, but I think it's
| highly unlikely that the drive is bad. I won't trust Windows utilities for
| this big drives. There are enough harddisk limits and bugs in Windows 95 and
| 98 to believe that the scandisk utility of WinXP doesn't support the large
| drives very well too.
| You're new drive is probably "SMART", so use a utility to check the status
| of the drive. The harddisk can perform self-tests, and the program may give
| you a RMA code if the drive is defective.
|
| For more information about the format/chkdsk problem, I recommend that you
| ask this question in a Windows XP newsgroup and/or check the Microsoft
| Knowledge Base.
|
|
|

 

[Wouter]

Nonsense. Win 2K/XP has been tested with drives up to 2TB and had no

problems.

As I pointed out to 'Strontium' earlier this day, I didn't mean that the
operating system doesn't support large drives.

The fact that a system is tested with 2TB, and runs fine, doesn't prove that
there aren't any bugs regarding large disksizes (for example: the
fdisk-utility from Windows 98 Gold, which uses some 16-bit values internally
to calculate the size of the drive).

I don't want to suggest that there *is* a bug in the format or scandisk
utility of Windows XP, but only that it's a possibility. I don't have
Windows XP, so I can't test it myself. That's why I referred to the Windows
XP newsgroup...

Info about the Windows 98 fdisk bug:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q263/0/44.ASP

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Please don't snip the attribution line(s).

(*SNIP*)

It happened to me once.

I'm merely commenting that that is a stupid bug rather than a bios limit.

Not a big deal though, because most harddrives
have a 8GB clip or 32GB clip (jumper setting).

Because of that.
Harddrive manufacturers unfortunately can't wait for the BIOS
programmers to finally get a clue.

Then the disk will identify itself as a smaller disk to the BIOS,

It will actually *be* smaller in all its actions.

so that it won't hang, and POST properly.
Directly after the BIOS you have to install a driver

It is called a bios overlay. It usually patches the bios interrupt routine(s).

which will report the correct harddisk size to the operating system.

Nope, that is impossible because of that reduced size jumper.
It patches the bios and it will undo the capacity limit set by
the jumper on the drive so the whole capacity can be addressed.

Why do you think that it won't affect Windows 9x?

Because I know.

If the BIOS reports the wrong disksize, Windows will not be able to use
the large capacity of the disk

Yes it will. It's DOS that doesn't. Not without the overlay.

(unless, off course, you've installed the driver I mentioned above).

Windows uses it's own driver and that sizes the drive itself.

I think Linux/Unix may be able to detect correct harddisk sizes itself,

Like any other OS that doesn't rely on the BIOS.

but Windows 98 surely doesn't.

It bloody well does.

 

[SpaceButler]

The fact that a system is tested with 2TB, and runs fine, doesn't
prove that there aren't any bugs regarding large disksizes (for
example: the fdisk-utility from Windows 98 Gold, which uses some
16-bit values internally to calculate the size of the drive).

I don't want to suggest that there *is* a bug in the format or scandisk
utility of Windows XP, but only that it's a possibility. I don't have
Windows XP, so I can't test it myself. That's why I referred to the
Windows XP newsgroup...

I agree, but how far off could you be to suggest it? (^_^)

The best thing for Aaron to do is partition his drive to chunks of 136.93GB
or less [127.53 GB base 1.024^3] and not worry with it.

I know for a fact those programs breakdown on anything over that in 98se -
I've tried it (though file access on a larger partition is okay). It's a
programming limitation of 4177920 clusters with no more than 32K/cluster,
slightly less than the 28 bit LBA limit of 137.43...

If Microsoft rewrote the programs to bypass that limitation in XP, I'm
guessing it would require at least 128MB of memory to load the fat.

His bios could still be the problem. I've seen an AMI bios load up the
disk parameters automagicly and report the size correctly, but not be able
to actually do the addressing.

 

[Wouter]

Please don't snip the attribution line(s).

Sorry. I wasn't very aware of this. Thanks for the warning

I'm merely commenting that that is a stupid bug rather than a bios limit.

Yes, it's stupid. My current BIOS has no troubles with the new 120 GB
harddisk. If they released this BIOS version a few years earlier, that would
have saved me so much troubles

Because of that.
Harddrive manufacturers unfortunately can't wait for the BIOS
programmers to finally get a clue.


It will actually *be* smaller in all its actions.


It is called a bios overlay. It usually patches the bios interrupt

routine(s).

That's the word I was looking for (a.k.a. Dynamic Drive Overlay, DDO).
"Ontrack Manager" did come up in my mind, but I think that's just a specific
'version'.

Nope, that is impossible because of that reduced size jumper.
It patches the bios and it will undo the capacity limit set by
the jumper on the drive so the whole capacity can be addressed.

That's probably the more technical story of what really happens. What I just
wanted to say, is that due to the BIOS overlay, it's possible to access the
large drive, even though the (original) BIOS didn't support it. In other
words, it *is* possible to use the large harddisk.

Because I know.


Yes it will. It's DOS that doesn't. Not without the overlay.


Windows uses it's own driver and that sizes the drive itself.


Like any other OS that doesn't rely on the BIOS.


It bloody well does.

In the past I had troubles with my large harddisk, which wasn't supported by
the BIOS. If I remember correctly, the BIOS overlay was necessary to run
Windows 98 correctly at the large disk.
Maybe this is different for Windows 98 Gold Edition and Second Edition? (I
can't find any documentation about that on the internet.)
Or maybe I don't remember it correctly :-/