dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
39
share rss forum feed


craig70130
Premium
join:2004-04-27
New Orleans, LA

1 edit
reply to Sinbad Sam

Re: Maximum Hard Drive Size for Windows XP 32 bit

editing my previous reply...

Looks like 2GB is the NTFS limit which is bypassed in 64-bit XP, Vista, and 2003/2008 server by using GPT which is not available in 32-bit XP.

Seems to be alot of conflicting info out there about this. There probably are some 3rd party utilities that will let you create a GPT disk.



sdghty

@algx.net

1 recommendation

2TB is a limit imposed by the MBR partition table, assuming the disk uses 512 sectors. If the sector size is increased to 4K, the limit becomes 16TB.


Sinbad Sam

join:2001-11-13
Arlington, TX
reply to craig70130

OK I have a system with 2 x 1 Terabyte SATAs in a Dynamic Array and a 200 Gigabyte drive, so windows will detect/see more than 2 Terabytes.

Thanks for the information

Sinbad Sam


ChiTang
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-23
Alhambra, CA
kudos:1

Not exactly 100% sure, but decimal terabyte and binary terabyte has a 9.95% in discrepancy. So your 2.2 terabyte less the 9.95% may still be within OS's 2TB.

Add another HD and C.
--
I used to be indecisive, now I am not sure.


gallowsroad

join:2004-08-09
Jenks, OK
reply to sdghty

said by sdghty :

2TB is a limit imposed by the MBR partition table, assuming the disk uses 512 sectors. If the sector size is increased to 4K, the limit becomes 16TB.
Is that limit the total of all discs under the OS or a per volume limit?

IOW, is it possible to have mulitple 2TB arrays managed by a single 32 bit OS?

Or multiple 2TB physical drives if/when they reach that size?
--
Ha ha haaaaaaa....ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

- John Lydon, last Sex Pistols show


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21

1 recommendation

Yes, the XP-32 2 TiB limit is per-volume.



sdgthy

@optonline.net
reply to gallowsroad

It's a limit of a drives partition table, so multiple drives are not a problem. This one has a 1TB drive and a 2TB R5 array and a small R1 boot array.

If you want, you can combine multiple xTB drives by converting them to dynamic disks and spanning for a single "drive" larger than 2TB. If you do so, be aware that if one drive fails you'll also loose what on the other drive(s), much like if they where RAID0.


Sinbad Sam

join:2001-11-13
Arlington, TX

How many drives do you have in the 2T R5 array?

Sinbad Sam



sdgthy

@optonline.net

4 X 750GB



Bill
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-09
reply to sdghty

To be more specific (because I'm sure everybody cares ), the limitation is in the "total sectors" field in the MBR. It's only 8 bytes (32 bits), which provides for a maximum value of 4,294,967,296 sectors. And at 512 bytes per sector, that comes out to 2TB. 4K sector size ATA disks do exist, but I have only seen them used in CE devices.

Another problem we'll run into in the future is when drives get larger than 2TB, you won't be able to create any new partitions after the 2TB mark on the drive! The "relative sectors" (offset) is also a 8 byte value, so you can't give it a relative address larger than 2TB. But we should all be using GPT instead of MBR by then



sdgthy

@optonline.net

said by Bill:

To be more specific (because I'm sure everybody cares ), the limitation is in the "total sectors" field in the MBR. It's only 8 bytes (32 bits), which provides for a maximum value of 4,294,967,296 sectors. And at 512 bytes per sector, that comes out to 2TB. 4K sector size ATA disks do exist, but I have only seen them used in CE devices.
And some raid cards, I just setup 8 1TB drives for a 6.36TB raid5 array, as reported by windows, on a w2k system. I didn't get that deep into it as the OPs question was whether 2TB was a drive limit or total of all drives limit. Without a doubt, it's the former.

said by Bill:

Another problem we'll run into in the future is when drives get larger than 2TB, you won't be able to create any new partitions after the 2TB mark on the drive! The "relative sectors" (offset) is also a 8 byte value, so you can't give it a relative address larger than 2TB. But we should all be using GPT instead of MBR by then
I suspect that'll be quite some time from now. It takes a huge amount of data to fill even 2TB, and I'm sure the average user won't run into that problem for a good number of years yet. And I suspect that point won't be quite as bad as all the LBA issues have been.


Voltron

join:2007-08-04
Bloomington, IN

Hello, sdgthy:

I am installing an Arena Maxtronic hardware-based RAID system (SA-3340S), with 8 one TB SATA drives, connected via an Adaptec 29320LPE (U-320 SCSI) host bus adapter, on a Windows XP Professional (with SP2) system. I want to do what you did with your W2K system, which is to create one array that encompasses the entire capacity of the eight drives, in a RAID 5 configuration. What settings did you have to change on your SCSI adapter card and/or within your RAID enclosure, to allow W2K to see the entire 8 TB (6.36 TB) capacity, without creating multiple LUNS, slices, etc.?

Thank you so much for your assistance, in advance.

--Dylan



sdgthy

@optonline.net

1 recommendation

I used an Areca ARC-1160 which has a setting to present the array as having 4K sectors. That and the performance where the primary reasons I went with an Areca card.

Of the raid cards I considered, the Areca was the only one that had that option. Honestly, I haven't looked at an Adaptec RAID card in awhile as I haven't been too impressed in the past. I never got a ZCR card to work properly in this system. And the issues I had with a 2940 & 3950 in another system should have taught me that. Although I am starting to hear good things about some of the newer cards.