Seagate Barracuda 160 GB IDE becomes corrupted. RMA?

[Dan_Musicant]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:32:05 +1100, "Rod Speed"

:> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:02:19 +1100, "Rod Speed"
:>
:>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:07:53 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
:>>>
:>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
:>>>>
:>>>>> I have another HD in the box that's 200 GB and it has one logical
:>>>>> drive only, and is formatted NTFS. That's obviously not the
:>>>>> problem. Also, the drive was working fine for 1.5 years and I made
:>>>>> no changes.
:>>>>
:>>>> Read what Eric wrote. The drive doesn't get trashed _until_ data
:>>>> has been written past the 137GB boundary, so the drive can appear
:>>>> to be working well for quite some time, until you fill the disk up
:>>>> enough.
:>>>>
:>>>>> The logical
:>>>>> drives simply disappeared from it, evidently data corruption.
:>>>>
:>>>> Which is exactly what writing past 137GB does. The write "wraps
:>>>> around" to cylinder 0. What's on cylinder 0? The boot sector and
:>>>> partition tables - bye bye logical drives.
:>>>>
:>>>> See http://www.48bitlba.com/
:>>>
:>>> Thanks. I'm checking out the site.
:>>>
:>>> One thing I didn't mention and it could well have a bearing here:
:>>>
:>>> 2-3 days before the corruption occurred I removed my Promise
:>>> Ultra100 TX2 PCI IDE Controller card from the system in order to
:>>> free up a PCI slot. I had been running over 4 IDE devices, so I
:>>> removed all but 4, including the 3 IDE HD's and my DVD burner. The
:>>> problem drive may well have been on the card and not the MB IDE
:>>> channels.
:>>
:>> Very likely and was getting 48bit LBA support from the driver for
:>> that card.
:>>
:>>> It's currently primary slave.
:>>
:>> Then set the EnableBigLBA value to 1 in the registry.
:
:> Hmm. I guess you are supposed to enter 1, not 0x1 like it says.
:
:Yeah, that's just a formal way of specifying the base with a number.
:
oesnt matter with a value of 1.
:
:> Really cute. Argh.
:
:Yeah, could be clearer.
:
However, if what you said is right, I have to delete my entry and do it
again. I used DWORD, and you say to do binary. Are you sure about that?

 

[Dan_Musicant]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:30:37 +1100, "Rod Speed"

:No, binary.

But MS says:
Value name: EnableBigLba
Data type: REG_DWORD <----
Value data: 0x1

Dan
:
:> I added a value, renamed it EnableBigLba, and the default value was:
:
:> 0x00000000 (0)
:
:> I chose Modify and entered 0x1, however after clicking OK it shows the
:> value as 0x00000411 (1041)
:
:> Is that correct?
:
:Nope, try again with a binary value.
:
:> If not, what am I supposed to enter as a value.
:> I find this all hard to believe.
:
resumably you mean understand.

 

[Dan_Musicant]

So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry right
that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a >137 GB IDE drive
without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?

If I install Win2000, even if I slipstream SP4 onto a CDR install disk
with my SP2 install disk, after the install, 48-bit LBA won't be in
effect until AFTER I make the registry entry. I presume that means that
I better disconnect my >137 IDE HDD's until AFTER I make that registry
entry. Is that correct? And I have to do that for each OS partition I
have, including both my Win2000 ones and my Win98SE. Is this correct or
not? Thanks for any info on this.

Dan

PS Another question I have is the following:

Why didn't Microsoft include functionality in SP3 or SP4 that creates
the registry setting? Is there a reason a person wouldn't want to
automatically have 48-bit LBA enabled? Surely, they could have created
the registry entry automatically as part of the service pack
installation. Or, they could have at least put up a dialogue asking the
user if they wanted to. It just seems like a serious mistake to not have
brought the issue to the user's attention. I might have lost a ton of
valuable data. After all, everything on my 160 GB drive was lost, and
suddenly and entirely without warning.

 

[Rod Speed]

But MS says:
Value name: EnableBigLba
Data type: REG_DWORD <----
Value data: 0x1

Yes, I realised my brain fart there and amended this post.

 

[Rod Speed]

However, if what you said is right, I have to delete my entry and do it
again. I used DWORD, and you say to do binary. Are you sure about that?

No, I amended that, it should be dword.

 

[Rod Speed]

So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry
right that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a >137 GB IDE
drive without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?

If I install Win2000, even if I slipstream SP4 onto a CDR install disk
with my SP2 install disk, after the install, 48-bit LBA won't be in
effect until AFTER I make the registry entry. I presume that means
that I better disconnect my >137 IDE HDD's until AFTER I make that
registry entry. Is that correct?

Thats one way of doing it. The other is to ensure that the 2K install
is below the 137G level on a bigger drive and just put the EnableBigLBA
entry in the registry before doing anything past the 137G level on the
drive.

And I have to do that for each OS partition I have,
including both my Win2000 ones and my Win98SE.

There is no support for drives over 137G except by
having the drives on a controller that has 48bit LBA
support in the bios and driver for that controller.

No big deal in the situation where you have the FAT32
partition below the 137G level on the drive and the other
partitions are NTFS, SE cant operate on them anyway.

Is this correct or not? Thanks for any info on this.

Another question I have is the following:

Why didn't Microsoft include functionality in
SP3 or SP4 that creates the registry setting?

Not sure why it was done like that.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

I might have lost a ton of
valuable data. After all, everything on my 160 GB drive was lost, and
suddenly and entirely without warning.

(e-mail address removed) will be happy to answer your concerns. Not.

 

[Peter]

So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry right

that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a >137 GB IDE drive
without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?

If you install Windows 2000, you have to do regedit again.

If I install Win2000, even if I slipstream SP4 onto a CDR install disk
with my SP2 install disk, after the install, 48-bit LBA won't be in
effect until AFTER I make the registry entry. I presume that means that
I better disconnect my >137 IDE HDD's until AFTER I make that registry
entry. Is that correct?

Only if you boot unregedited Windows 2000 AND there is a chance that some
program might want to write to > 137GB disk in "high" space area.

And I have to do that for each OS partition I
have, including both my Win2000 ones and my Win98SE. Is this correct or
not? Thanks for any info on this.

I don't know what Win98SE will do in that respect....

Dan

PS Another question I have is the following:

Why didn't Microsoft include functionality in SP3 or SP4 that creates
the registry setting? Is there a reason a person wouldn't want to
automatically have 48-bit LBA enabled? Surely, they could have created
the registry entry automatically as part of the service pack
installation. Or, they could have at least put up a dialogue asking the
user if they wanted to. It just seems like a serious mistake to not have
brought the issue to the user's attention. I might have lost a ton of
valuable data. After all, everything on my 160 GB drive was lost, and
suddenly and entirely without warning.

Oops. I wonder what Microsoft support would say to you if you call them?
Can users organize a group lawsuit against MS? Or license agreement protects
them?

I think they want you to upgrade to Windows XP SP2.
(... Before Vista hits the shelves....)

And, if you are planning to get more than 4GB memory (or 3GB in fact), there
is Windows XP 64bit available.

 

[Andy]

So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry right
that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a >137 GB IDE drive
without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?

If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following lines
in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in the
registry:
------ cut -----
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters]
"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
------ cut -----
After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives.

 

[Dan_Musicant]

:On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:31:22 GMT, Dan_Musicant <[email protected]>
:wrote:
:
:>So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry right
:>that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a >137 GB IDE drive
:>without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?
:
:If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following lines
:in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in the
:registry:
:------ cut -----
:Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
:
:[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters]
:"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
:------ cut -----
:After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
:capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
:configured to properly access large drives.

I have a few of questions:

1. How can I verify in Disk Management that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives?

2. I assume I leave out the lines:

------cut------

3. How do I execute the EnagleBigLba.reg file?

Thanks!!

Dan
:
:>
:>If I install Win2000, even if I slipstream SP4 onto a CDR install disk
:>with my SP2 install disk, after the install, 48-bit LBA won't be in
:>effect until AFTER I make the registry entry. I presume that means that
:>I better disconnect my >137 IDE HDD's until AFTER I make that registry
:>entry. Is that correct? And I have to do that for each OS partition I
:>have, including both my Win2000 ones and my Win98SE. Is this correct or
:>not? Thanks for any info on this.
:>
:>Dan
:>
:>PS Another question I have is the following:
:>
:>Why didn't Microsoft include functionality in SP3 or SP4 that creates
:>the registry setting? Is there a reason a person wouldn't want to
:>automatically have 48-bit LBA enabled? Surely, they could have created
:>the registry entry automatically as part of the service pack
:>installation. Or, they could have at least put up a dialogue asking the
:>user if they wanted to. It just seems like a serious mistake to not have
:>brought the issue to the user's attention. I might have lost a ton of
:>valuable data. After all, everything on my 160 GB drive was lost, and
:>suddenly and entirely without warning.

 

[Dan_Musicant]

:On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:31:22 GMT, Dan_Musicant <[email protected]>
:wrote:
:
:>So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry right
:>that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a >137 GB IDE drive
:>without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?
:
:If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following lines
:in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in the
:registry:
:------ cut -----
:Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
:
:[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters]
:"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
:------ cut -----
:After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
:capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
:configured to properly access large drives.

I have a few of questions:

1. How can I verify in Disk Management that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives?

2. I assume I leave out the lines:

------cut------

3. How do I execute the EnableBigLba.reg file?

Thanks!!

Dan

PS One more question:

4. The EnableBigLba.reg file - I create it with a text editor, such as
notepad? Thanks...

Dan
:
:>
:>If I install Win2000, even if I slipstream SP4 onto a CDR install disk
:>with my SP2 install disk, after the install, 48-bit LBA won't be in
:>effect until AFTER I make the registry entry. I presume that means that
:>I better disconnect my >137 IDE HDD's until AFTER I make that registry
:>entry. Is that correct? And I have to do that for each OS partition I
:>have, including both my Win2000 ones and my Win98SE. Is this correct or
:>not? Thanks for any info on this.
:>
:>Dan
:>
:>PS Another question I have is the following:
:>
:>Why didn't Microsoft include functionality in SP3 or SP4 that creates
:>the registry setting? Is there a reason a person wouldn't want to
:>automatically have 48-bit LBA enabled? Surely, they could have created
:>the registry entry automatically as part of the service pack
:>installation. Or, they could have at least put up a dialogue asking the
:>user if they wanted to. It just seems like a serious mistake to not have
:>brought the issue to the user's attention. I might have lost a ton of
:>valuable data. After all, everything on my 160 GB drive was lost, and
:>suddenly and entirely without warning.

 

[Rod Speed]

If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following lines
in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in the
registry: :------ cut -----
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

:[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters]
:"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
:------ cut -----

After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives.

I have a few of questions:

1. How can I verify in Disk Management that Windows 2000
has been configured to properly access large drives?

The simplest quick check for that is using Everest, the
physical drive entry I flagged in your Everest report.
If it shows 127G, EnableBigLBA hasnt been enabled.

2. I assume I leave out the lines:

Yes.

3. How do I execute the EnagleBigLba.reg file?

Just double click on the file in the explorer display.
It will ask you if you want to run it.

 

[Rod Speed]

If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following lines
in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in the
registry: :------ cut -----
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

:[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters]
:"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
:------ cut -----

After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives.

I have a few of questions:

1. How can I verify in Disk Management that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives?

2. I assume I leave out the lines:

------cut------

3. How do I execute the EnableBigLba.reg file?

Thanks!!

Dan

PS One more question:

4. The EnableBigLba.reg file - I create it with a text editor, such as
notepad? Thanks...
Yep.

Dan

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry right
that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a >137 GB IDE drive
without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?

If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following lines
in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in the
registry:
------ cut -----
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters]
"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
------ cut -----

After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives.

That doesn't compute.
If capacity was to differ with 48-bit enabled/disabled there wouldn't
be a problem to start with. Clearly that's not the case.

 

[Dan_Musicant]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:04:16 +1100, "Rod Speed"

:>
:>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:31:22 GMT, Dan_Musicant <[email protected]>
:>> wrote:
:>>
:>>> So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry
:>>> right that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a >137 GB
:>>> IDE drive without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?
:>>
:>> If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following lines
:>> in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in the
:>> registry:
:> :------ cut -----
:>> Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
:>>
:> :[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters]
:> :"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
:> :------ cut -----
:>> After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
:>> capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
:>> configured to properly access large drives.
:
:> I have a few of questions:
:
:> 1. How can I verify in Disk Management that Windows 2000
:> has been configured to properly access large drives?
:
:The simplest quick check for that is using Everest, the
hysical drive entry I flagged in your Everest report.
:If it shows 127G, EnableBigLBA hasnt been enabled.

Yes, it's working now it seems. My first Everest report had the capacity
of my 160 and 200 GB drives as 127 GB. Now, after doing the registry
hack it says:

Physical Drives

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[ Drive #1 - ST3120026A (111 GB) ]

Partition Partition Type Drive Start Offset Partition Length
#1 (Active) FAT32 C: (BOOTWIN98SE) 0 MB 3004 MB
#2 NTFS D: (Boot1Win2000) 3004 MB 6000 MB
#3 NTFS E: (Boot2Win2000) 9005 MB 6000 MB
#4 NTFS F: (BootDataNTFS) 15006 MB 99464 MB

[ Drive #2 - ST3160023A (149 GB) ] <------------

Partition Partition Type Drive Start Offset Partition Length
#1 FAT32 H: (160_FAT32) 7 MB 40005 MB
#2 NTFS I: (160_NTFS) 40013 MB 112611 MB

[ Drive #3 - ST3200822A (186 GB) ] <------------

Partition Partition Type Drive Start Offset Partition Length
#1 NTFS G: (--->200_NTFS) 7 MB 190771 MB


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I edited the registry by hand.

Dan
:
:> 2. I assume I leave out the lines:
:
:> ------cut------
:
:Yes.
:
:> 3. How do I execute the EnagleBigLba.reg file?
:
:Just double click on the file in the explorer display.
:It will ask you if you want to run it.
:
:
:>>> If I install Win2000, even if I slipstream SP4 onto a CDR install
:>>> disk with my SP2 install disk, after the install, 48-bit LBA won't
:>>> be in effect until AFTER I make the registry entry. I presume that
:>>> means that I better disconnect my >137 IDE HDD's until AFTER I make
:>>> that registry entry. Is that correct? And I have to do that for
:>>> each OS partition I have, including both my Win2000 ones and my
:>>> Win98SE. Is this correct or not? Thanks for any info on this.
:>>>
:>>> Dan
:>>>
:>>> PS Another question I have is the following:
:>>>
:>>> Why didn't Microsoft include functionality in SP3 or SP4 that
:>>> creates the registry setting? Is there a reason a person wouldn't
:>>> want to automatically have 48-bit LBA enabled? Surely, they could
:>>> have created the registry entry automatically as part of the
:>>> service pack installation. Or, they could have at least put up a
:>>> dialogue asking the user if they wanted to. It just seems like a
:>>> serious mistake to not have brought the issue to the user's
:>>> attention. I might have lost a ton of valuable data. After all,
:>>> everything on my 160 GB drive was lost, and suddenly and entirely
:>>> without warning.
:

 

[Rod Speed]

Thanks for the washup.

So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry
right that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a >137 GB
IDE drive without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?

If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following
lines in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in
the registry:
:------ cut -----
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

:[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters]
:"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
:------ cut -----
After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives.

I have a few of questions:

1. How can I verify in Disk Management that Windows 2000
has been configured to properly access large drives?

The simplest quick check for that is using Everest, the
physical drive entry I flagged in your Everest report.
If it shows 127G, EnableBigLBA hasnt been enabled.

Yes, it's working now it seems. My first Everest report had the
capacity of my 160 and 200 GB drives as 127 GB. Now, after doing the
registry hack it says:

Physical Drives

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[ Drive #1 - ST3120026A (111 GB) ]

Partition Partition Type Drive Start Offset Partition Length
#1 (Active) FAT32 C: (BOOTWIN98SE) 0 MB 3004 MB
#2 NTFS D: (Boot1Win2000) 3004 MB 6000 MB
#3 NTFS E: (Boot2Win2000) 9005 MB 6000 MB
#4 NTFS F: (BootDataNTFS) 15006 MB 99464 MB

[ Drive #2 - ST3160023A (149 GB) ] <------------

Partition Partition Type Drive Start Offset Partition Length
#1 FAT32 H: (160_FAT32) 7 MB 40005 MB
#2 NTFS I: (160_NTFS) 40013 MB 112611 MB

[ Drive #3 - ST3200822A (186 GB) ] <------------

Partition Partition Type Drive Start Offset Partition Length
#1 NTFS G: (--->200_NTFS) 7 MB 190771 MB


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I edited the registry by hand.

Dan

Just double click on the file in the explorer display.
It will ask you if you want to run it.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

Yes, it's working now it seems. My first Everest report had the capacity
of my 160 and 200 GB drives as 127 GB.

You had a close shave. Had you written more than 127GB of data to those
drives, you would have lost all data on them too.

 

[Dan_Musicant]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:15:58 +0000, Mike Tomlinson

:In article <[email protected]>, Dan_Musicant
:
:>Yes, it's working now it seems. My first Everest report had the capacity
:>of my 160 and 200 GB drives as 127 GB.
:
:You had a close shave. Had you written more than 127GB of data to those
:drives, you would have lost all data on them too.

Ah, well, if you read this thread at the start you'd have seen that I
did actually lose every byte of data on my 160 GB drive. Luckily, my 200
GB drive escaped unharmed, AFAIK. It's the 200 GB drive that has my
important data. Everything on the 160 GB drive that I cared about that I
know about I had backed up, so AFAIK, I didn't lose anything in terms of
data. Lesson number one to learn: ALWAYS have any data backed up that
you would miss if your HD goes belly up.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

You had a close shave. Had you written more than 127GB of data to those
drives, you would have lost all data on them too.

That is like saying that all drivers have the same bug.

But hey, maybe MS only certifies the drivers if the bug is present.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

But hey, maybe MS only certifies the drivers if the bug is present.

Anything M$ does wouldn't surprise me.