Windows 2000 and big-hard-drive weird problem

[Fabien LE LEZ]

Hello,

A few days ago, I formated a 250 GB PATA hard drive (one partition
taking the whole disk) on my Windows 2000 box, and put some files on
it.

Now Windows sees it as an unformated/broken 31.5 GB partition, while
all's fine under Linux (i.e. I can read the files).

OTOH, I've got a 320 GB partition on another disk, which works
perfectly under Windows.

Any idea about where the problem is and how I can fix it?

Thanks in advance...

 

[Arno Wagner]

Hello,

A few days ago, I formated a 250 GB PATA hard drive (one partition
taking the whole disk) on my Windows 2000 box, and put some files on
it.

Now Windows sees it as an unformated/broken 31.5 GB partition, while
all's fine under Linux (i.e. I can read the files).

OTOH, I've got a 320 GB partition on another disk, which works
perfectly under Windows.

Any idea about where the problem is and how I can fix it?

Thanks in advance...

This might be a wrap-around issue, i.e. windows will start writing
to the beginning of the disk instead above 128GB. This can do
arbitrary damage and completely destroy your filesystem.

I would advise you to fix this before you write to these
disks again. There are some other threads here, that will
tell you which service pack you need (I use XP and only
40GB of a disk, so I would not know for sure).

Arno

 

[Rod Speed]

A few days ago, I formated a 250 GB PATA hard drive (one partition
taking the whole disk) on my Windows 2000 box, and put some files on it.

Now Windows sees it as an unformated/broken 31.5 GB
partition, while all's fine under Linux (i.e. I can read the files).

That isnt unusual, Win is rather more fussy about the partition
than Linux is, so Linux can still read a damaged partition at times.

OTOH, I've got a 320 GB partition on another
disk, which works perfectly under Windows.

One of the real problems with partitions over 137G is
that you wont necessarily see any problem if you dont
have 48bit LBA enabled until you write stuff beyond the
137G level. THEN it will wrap and corrupt the partition.

Any idea about where the problem is

Its first vital to ensure that you do have 48bit LBA enabled.

It can obviously just be a hard drive problem too.

and how I can fix it?

You can check the 48bit LBA question using hdinfo
http://www.48bitlba.com/hdinfo.htm

Post the SMART data for the 250G drive using
Everest so we can see if the drive has any problems.
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4181

Or post the smartctl SMART report from Linux.

 

[Fabien LE LEZ]

One of the real problems with partitions over 137G is
that you wont necessarily see any problem if you dont
have 48bit LBA enabled until you write stuff beyond the
137G level. THEN it will wrap and corrupt the partition.

My 320 GB is nearly full, and all's fine with it.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

This might be a wrap-around issue, i.e. windows will start writing
to the beginning of the disk instead above 128GB.

You mean 137GB, don't you, babblemouth?

This can do arbitrary damage and completely destroy your filesystem.

Which obviously the God blessed Linux will not have a problem with.
Thanks babblemouth for your continuing show of proof that you haven't
got a clue of anything.

 

[Arno Wagner]

My 320 GB is nearly full, and all's fine with it.

Interesting. The large one isn't an SCSI or USB/FireWire
disk? They are addressed differently...

Arno

 

[Rod Speed]

My 320 GB is nearly full, and all's fine with it.

If that is an external drive, things are different with those.

If its an internal drive, then there is likey some problem with the 250G drive.

How are you killing so many drives ?

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

That isnt unusual, Win is rather more fussy about the partition
than Linux is, so Linux can still read a damaged partition at times.


One of the real problems with partitions over 137G is
that you wont necessarily see any problem if you dont
have 48bit LBA enabled until you write stuff beyond the
137G level. THEN it will wrap and corrupt the partition.

And corrupt it good, not just a little in the case of a partition
table or bootrecord, which appears to be the case here.

So something scribbled in one of those and wrote it back wrong.
A wrap around would just completely erase that and very likely
have caused a lot more damage than just the partition table.

Better use Svend Olaf Mikkelsons tools on it to see what the problem is.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Interesting.

Found babbling again, babblemouth?

The large one isn't an SCSI or USB/FireWire
disk? They are addressed differently...

Grasping at straws?

 

[Fabien LE LEZ]

How are you killing so many drives ?

Good question. It all began with that Seagate crashing (a burnt chip),
and now I feel that my whole system is crumbling.

 

[Rod Speed]

Good question. It all began with that Seagate crashing (a burnt chip),
and now I feel that my whole system is crumbling.

You were warned about that furious drunken grave dancing.

You wouldnt listen...

 

[Fabien LE LEZ]

You were warned about that furious drunken grave dancing.

Ah well, I had fun. But now it's my PC who got the hangover.

 

[Fabien LE LEZ]

You mean 137GB, don't you, babblemouth?

Nope. AFAIK, the limit is indeed 128 GB.
Or, 137 hard-drive-manufacturer-gigabytes, meaning 137 billion bytes.

128 gigabytes = 128*2^30 bytes = 137,438,953,472 bytes.
= 2^37 bytes

[Well, actually, there's a norm somewhere that says I should write
"128 GiB", but AFAIK, nearly noone follows that norm.]

 

[Arno Wagner]

Nope. AFAIK, the limit is indeed 128 GB.
Or, 137 hard-drive-manufacturer-gigabytes, meaning 137 billion bytes.

128 gigabytes = 128*2^30 bytes = 137,438,953,472 bytes.
= 2^37 bytes

[Well, actually, there's a norm somewhere that says I should write
"128 GiB", but AFAIK, nearly noone follows that norm.]

Well, since I am one of those pointing out it shoud be GiB on
a regilar basis, I should of course have written 128GiB.

Arno

 

[Rod Speed]

Folkert Rienstra wrote

Nope. AFAIK, the limit is indeed 128 GB.

He's having a dig at Arno who has always maintained that decimal GBs
are the correct form of GB, essentially because that's the SI standard.

Or, 137 hard-drive-manufacturer-gigabytes, meaning 137 billion bytes.

Its also the SI standard gigabyte.

128 gigabytes = 128*2^30 bytes = 137,438,953,472 bytes.
= 2^37 bytes

[Well, actually, there's a norm somewhere that says I should
write "128 GiB", but AFAIK, nearly noone follows that norm.]

It is however the SI standard.

 

[Fabien LE LEZ]

It is however the SI standard.

But not the de-facto standard.

 

[Arno Wagner]

But not the de-facto standard.

Actually it is the de-facto IEC standard and you will get into legal
trouble if you misuse these units and prefixes to the disadvantage
of somebody you do business with.

Arno

 

[Rod Speed]

But not the de-facto standard.

It certainly is with hard drives.

 

[Fabien LE LEZ]

Actually it is the de-facto IEC standard and you will get into legal
trouble if you misuse these units and prefixes to the disadvantage
of somebody you do business with.

In a legal document where size has importance, it's best to avoid
confusion and talk about bytes only.

Anyway, I don't know any meaning of "GB" that makes "137 GB" a
technical limit. The right figure is either 128 or 137.438953472.

 

[Fabien LE LEZ]

It certainly is with hard drives.

For a hard drive global size, yes. Not not for a partition size.