WD Hard Drive Size Issue

[kony]

Partition Magic can corrupt disks entirely by itself and without
good reason. Don't trust that product.

Arno

If running it on a drive with data already on it, this may
be true.

On the other hand, we're considering a different situation-
PM8 created it, then chkdsk checked it. At this point,
running windows and successfully saving files to it, there
is no further aspect of PM8 corrupting it, the next event
was with Opera and the freezing.

I'm wondering if there isn't some other system instability
and the whole SP2/48bit LBA/PM8 combination is a tangent not
a cause.

 

[Arno Wagner]

On 2 Aug 2006 14:44:21 GMT, Arno Wagner <[email protected]>
wrote:

If running it on a drive with data already on it, this may
be true.

On the other hand, we're considering a different situation-
PM8 created it, then chkdsk checked it. At this point,
running windows and successfully saving files to it, there
is no further aspect of PM8 corrupting it, the next event
was with Opera and the freezing.

I'm wondering if there isn't some other system instability
and the whole SP2/48bit LBA/PM8 combination is a tangent not
a cause.

Well, MS is not known for the stability of their filesystems. They
never designed them for the typical server situation (as, e.g., Unix
filesystems are), namely that shutdown is due to a power-failure at
any time and without warning. A server fs should recover from this
either automatically of at least during fukesystem check without
corruption to anything except the files written to during or shortly
before the crash. Given that typical server buffering can delay
writes for up to several minutes, this is quite a hard requirement to
fulfill.

Arno

 

[Garrot]

There is some addt'l factor not revealed yet, as I can tell
you with certainty that I have (without this problem you
had):

1) Partitioned with PM8
2) Formatted with PM8 (and/or, for different drives-)
3) Formatted later with WinXP
4) Had no problem with chkdsk, nor corruption.

I partitioned and formatted with PM8, immediately upon booting to XP
chkdsk ran on the drive. Maybe if I had formatted later with XP I would
not have had the issue either.

 

[Garrot]

Partition Magic can corrupt disks entirely by itself and without
good reason. Don't trust that product.

Arno

I've never had a problem when it formats as FAT32, just this NTFS issue.

 

[Alexander Grigoriev]

Unlike FAT(32) which, of course, is not known for stability, NTFS is
fail-safe in the regard that its metadata is not corrupted by system
failures, thanks to its transactional nature. That assumes it's been
initially valid (i.e. formatted with proper means, not screwed up by some
third-party product).

 

[Bob]

Partition Magic can corrupt disks entirely by itself and without
good reason. Don't trust that product.

Use the Data Lifeguard formatter from WD.

 

[Rod Speed]

Use the Data Lifeguard formatter from WD.

Completely mad, use XP to format the drive.

 

[Joe S]

There's a class action under way now, claiming WD uses misleading
size figures. You can join if you've bought a WD drive recently.
Only the lawyers get any money!

Is WD any diffrent to the other major hard drive manufacturers in how it
specifies a drive's capacity?

 

[Rod Speed]

Is WD any diffrent to the other major hard drive manufacturers in how
it specifies a drive's capacity?

Yeah, they did manage one minor footshot.

 

[kony]

Not with XP he doesnt.

You mean WITH SP1, or another patch with the updated ATAPI.
Just original XP will need it.

 

[kony]

Unlike FAT(32) which, of course, is not known for stability,

yes it is stable.

NTFS is
fail-safe in the regard

not it is not

that its metadata is not corrupted by system
failures, thanks to its transactional nature.

That doesn't make it more stable, it makes it more resistant
to certain types of problems. It is a reason to set up a
system properly, NEVER considering the filesystem for one
moment before ensuring the kinds of problems that would make
a difference, don't exist.

In general, there is no good reason to use NTFS for
stability reasons. Support of > 4GB, yes, or security.
Trying to counter an instable system by using a certain
filesystem is like trying to be bulletproof by wearing
kevlar socks.

 

[kony]

Use the Data Lifeguard formatter from WD.

That would work,
or Partition Magic,
or Win Disk Management.

There are plenty of ways to format a drive, but it is still
crucial that if the drive (partition) is > 128GB, the OS
supports 48bit LBA. As someone mentioned previously when
using Windows Disk Management to format it, at least it will
only show 128GB partition so there is a sign something is
wrong, but so long as the OS had already been set (or by
Service pack) to support 48bit LBA, it can be ignored.

 

[Rod Speed]

You mean WITH SP1, or another patch with the updated ATAPI.

Nope. That shit isnt useful with any XP.

Just original XP will need it.

Wrong, as always. Changing the registry setting with
the original XP wont achieve a damned thing, child.

 

[Rod Speed]

yes it is stable.

not it is not

Yes it is.

That doesn't make it more stable,

Pathetic, really.

it makes it more resistant to certain types of problems.

Pathetic, really.

It is a reason to set up a system properly, NEVER considering
the filesystem for one moment before ensuring the kinds of
problems that would make a difference, don't exist.

Pathetic, really.

In general, there is no good reason to use NTFS for stability reasons.

Pathetic, really.

Support of > 4GB, yes, or security.

Trying to counter an instable system by using a certain filesystem
is like trying to be bulletproof by wearing kevlar socks.

Pathetic, really.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

 

[kony]

Nope. That shit isnt useful with any XP.


Wrong, as always. Changing the registry setting with
the original XP wont achieve a damned thing, child.

Oh?

Be a good pet and go fetch us the Google hit that has this
quote from Microsoft:

"For the original release version of Windows XP Home Edition
or of Windows XP Professional, you can enable 48-bit LBA for
testing purposes. To do this, set the EnableBigLba registry
value to 1 in the following registry subkey:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Atapi\Parameters\"

After you do that, ponder what I wrote above about a patch,
as it's purpose is to avoid the next sentence in the doc
that quote came from.

A Service Pack is not necessary for most of these basic
things Rod. Someone might be lazy or unable to determine
what other options they have instead of adding a Service
Pack, but that does not begin to make the Service Pack a
necessity. Practically all of the SP have detriments as
well as benefits. Some users may never notice, or not care,
or accept the bad with the good which is reasonable, but
nevertheless does not make it necessary to do the overkill
you suggest to reach the goal.

 

[kony]

Pathetic, really.

I like your posts like the above Rod, none of the nonsense
repetition. Make the token insult you always do when you
have nothing to say just so we know you're still alive....
but PLEASE ROD, be more creative, you're out of new
material and nobody likes a boring troll.

 

[Rod Speed]

Oh?

Fraid so.

Be a good pet and go fetch us the Google hit that has this
quote from Microsoft:

"For the original release version of Windows XP Home Edition
or of Windows XP Professional, you can enable 48-bit LBA for
testing purposes. To do this, set the EnableBigLba registry
value to 1 in the following registry subkey:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Atapi\Parameters\"

Have fun explaining
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q303013

After you do that, ponder what I wrote above about a patch, as it's
purpose is to avoid the next sentence in the doc that quote came from.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

A Service Pack is not necessary for most of these basic things Rod.

Pity no one ever said it was, gutless.

Someone might be lazy or unable to determine what other
options they have instead of adding a Service Pack,

Or they might actually have enough of a clue to realise that the
service packs are the most efficient way of ensuring that the OS
is up to date when an update is done after the SP is installed.

but that does not begin to make the Service Pack a necessity.

Pity no one ever said it was, child.

Practically all of the SP have detriments as well as benefits.

Just as true of the updates too, child.

Some users may never notice, or not care, or accept the bad
with the good which is reasonable, but nevertheless does not
make it necessary to do the overkill you suggest to reach the goal.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
it can ever manage when its got done like a dinner, yet again.

 

[xModem]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
it can ever manage when its got done like a dinner, yet again.

Translation: "I can't possibly counter his arguments, so I'll cut & past one
of my non-sequitur, irrelevant insults."

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Fraid so.

Have fun explaining
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q303013

Yes Roddy, have fun explaining ATAPI diskdrives and 48-bit ATAPI LBA support.
There are no ATAPI fixed diskdrives and ATAPI doesn't need 48-bit LBA at all:
48-bit LBA Use prohibited when the PACKET feature set is implemented.

Not exactly one of M$'s better articles.