Guest bluechair Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize??
Guest Tim Slattery Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 Re: hard drive size bluechair <bluechair@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize?? No. The upper limit on partition size for NTFS is far larger than any disk available today. Look here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true for details. -- Tim Slattery MS MVP(DTS) Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
Guest Poprivet Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 Re: hard drive size Tim Slattery wrote: > bluechair <bluechair@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >> Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize?? > > No. The upper limit on partition size for NTFS is far larger than any > disk available today. Look here: > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true > for details. I love this spec: 2 32 - 1 I'm sure not about to test it! Pop`
Guest Jim Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 Re: hard drive size It means 2 to the 32 second power minus 1. Since 2 to the 32 second power is about 4 GB, you can safely ignore the -1. Note that the maximum size is 2 to the 32 second power minus 1 allocation units. The current size of an allocation unit is 4096 bytes. That is a lot of bytes. Jim "Poprivet" <poprivet@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:ulFQyHJ9HHA.5712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... Tim Slattery wrote: > bluechair <bluechair@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >> Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize?? > > No. The upper limit on partition size for NTFS is far larger than any > disk available today. Look here: > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true > for details. I love this spec: 2 32 - 1 I'm sure not about to test it! Pop`
Guest Curt Christianson Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 Re: hard drive size I'm with you Pop, but what if it's really only 2^32-2 !! <bg> -- HTH, Curt Windows Support Center http://www.aumha.org Practically Nerded,... http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm "Poprivet" <poprivet@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:ulFQyHJ9HHA.5712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... Tim Slattery wrote: > bluechair <bluechair@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >> Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize?? > > No. The upper limit on partition size for NTFS is far larger than any > disk available today. Look here: > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true > for details. I love this spec: 2 32 - 1 I'm sure not about to test it! Pop`
Guest Unknown Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 Re: hard drive size That is not correct! That formula is for maximum memory size for a 32 bit machine. Files are addressed by Logical Block Addressing and a block is 4096 bytes. "Poprivet" <poprivet@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:ulFQyHJ9HHA.5712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... Tim Slattery wrote: > bluechair <bluechair@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >> Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize?? > > No. The upper limit on partition size for NTFS is far larger than any > disk available today. Look here: > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true > for details. I love this spec: 2 32 - 1 I'm sure not about to test it! Pop`
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 Re: hard drive size On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:00:05 -0700, bluechair <bluechair@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize?? Yes. However it's considerably larger than the largest hard drive you can buy today. Read here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true or http://tinyurl.com/3ao9zo which states "For now, 2 terabytes should be considered the practical limit for both physical and logical volumes using NTFS." -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted September 11, 2007 Posted September 11, 2007 Re: hard drive size On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:53:55 GMT, "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote: > It means 2 to the 32 second power minus 1. Since 2 > to the 32 second power is about 4 GB, you can safely > ignore the -1. > > Note that the maximum size is 2 to the 32 second > power minus 1 allocation units. No, note that 2^32 - 1 is the maximum file size, not the maximum volume size, and that's for *FAT32* volumes, not NTFS. Regarding FAT32 volume sizes, this article states "Windows 2000 can format new FAT32 volumes up to 32 GB in size but can mount larger volumes (for example, up to 127.53 GB and 4,177,918 clusters from a volume formatted with the limits of Windows 98). It is possible to mount volumes that exceed these limits, but doing so has not been tested and is not recommended." > The current size > of an allocation unit is 4096 bytes. That is a lot of bytes. The *default* size (*not* the "current size"; there are exceptions) of an allocation unit on an NTFS volume is 4096. Allocation unit sizes on FAT32 volumes vary substantially, depending on volume size, and can go as high as 32K bytes. > "Poprivet" <poprivet@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:ulFQyHJ9HHA.5712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Tim Slattery wrote: > > bluechair <bluechair@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > >> Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize?? > > > > No. The upper limit on partition size for NTFS is far larger than any > > disk available today. Look here: > > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true > > for details. > > I love this spec: > 2 32 - 1 > I'm sure not about to test it! > Pop` -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Lil' Dave Posted September 13, 2007 Posted September 13, 2007 Re: hard drive size Well, am still waiting like you for the answer to your question. Seen replies on file sizes, and NTFS maximum size. But, none answered your question. Dave "bluechair" <bluechair@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9946AFAF-5AE2-47F5-AC4E-98B18977AE4D@microsoft.com... > Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize??
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted September 13, 2007 Posted September 13, 2007 Re: hard drive size On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:54:17 -0500, "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote: > Well, am still waiting like you for the answer to your question. Seen > replies on file sizes, and NTFS maximum size. But, none answered your > question. I did. It's 2TB, as I pointed out when I sent the following reply: ********************************* Yes. However it's considerably larger than the largest hard drive you can buy today." Read here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true or http://tinyurl.com/3ao9zo which states "For now, 2 terabytes should be considered the practical limit for both physical and logical volumes using NTFS." > "bluechair" <bluechair@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:9946AFAF-5AE2-47F5-AC4E-98B18977AE4D@microsoft.com... > > Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize?? > -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest John John Posted September 13, 2007 Posted September 13, 2007 Re: hard drive size On MBR disks, two terabytes. It is possible to use much larger volumes but they must be Dynamic Volumes. Partition tables on MBR disks only supports partitions up to 2 terabytes. Using the default cluster size (4 KB) for large volumes, you can create an NTFS volume up to 16 terabytes. You can create NTFS volumes up to 256 terabytes using the maximum cluster size of 64 KB. Maximum Sizes on NTFS Volumes In theory, the maximum NTFS volume size is 2^64 clusters minus 1 cluster. However, the maximum NTFS volume size as implemented in Windows XP Professional is 2^32 clusters minus 1 cluster. For example, using 64-KB clusters, the maximum NTFS volume size is 256 terabytes minus 64 KB. Using the default cluster size of 4 KB, the maximum NTFS volume size is 16 terabytes minus 4 KB. Because partition tables on master boot record (MBR) disks support only partition sizes up to 2 terabytes, you must use dynamic volumes to create NTFS volumes over 2 terabytes. Windows XP Professional manages dynamic volumes in a special database instead of in the partition table, so dynamic volumes are not subject to the 2-terabyte physical limit imposed by the partition table. Therefore, dynamic NTFS volumes can be as large as the maximum volume size supported by NTFS. [end quote] http://www.microsoft.com/germany/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/c13621675.mspx John Lil' Dave wrote: > Well, am still waiting like you for the answer to your question. Seen > replies on file sizes, and NTFS maximum size. But, none answered your > question. > Dave > > "bluechair" <bluechair@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:9946AFAF-5AE2-47F5-AC4E-98B18977AE4D@microsoft.com... > >>Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize?? > > >
Guest Lil' Dave Posted September 14, 2007 Posted September 14, 2007 Re: hard drive size The reason I mention this is past experience with 98/98SE. Some parts of the operating system can have problems with the hard drive exceeding 128GB formatted size. No mention was or is mentioned with regards to that by MS. I'm not speaking of defrag or any other filesystem or partitioning tool in that operating system. Its been well documented in a MS 98 newsgroup. Problem has nothing to do with bios 48 bit lba capability as that is in place. Problem is not a partition size problem as small ones are used. Basically, around the 128GB mark, any further file writes may result in garbled folder names, garbled filenames, garbled file internal data. This occurs even if all partitions are less than 128GB formatted. This occurs even if alternate partitions are NTFS, not FAT32. I don't expect an answer as MS still hasn't acknowledged 98/98SE's problem regarding this. Yes, I am suggesting something similar MAY exist in XP just not at the same total file data saved total size. I'm talking usability here, not partition size recognition. There's no point in a super-sized partition if the operating system can't write to its full potential without error. Similar with a super-size hard drive with multiple partitions. Dave "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message news:%23clHkIc9HHA.4200@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Well, am still waiting like you for the answer to your question. Seen > replies on file sizes, and NTFS maximum size. But, none answered your > question. > Dave > > "bluechair" <bluechair@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:9946AFAF-5AE2-47F5-AC4E-98B18977AE4D@microsoft.com... >> Is there an upper limit on the hard drive size XP will recognize?? > >
Guest John John Posted September 14, 2007 Posted September 14, 2007 Re: hard drive size Lil' Dave wrote: > The reason I mention this is past experience with 98/98SE. Some parts of > the operating system can have problems with the hard drive exceeding 128GB > formatted size. No mention was or is mentioned with regards to that by MS. > I'm not speaking of defrag or any other filesystem or partitioning tool in > that operating system. Its been well documented in a MS 98 newsgroup. > Problem has nothing to do with bios 48 bit lba capability as that is in > place. Problem is not a partition size problem as small ones are used. > Basically, around the 128GB mark, any further file writes may result in > garbled folder names, garbled filenames, garbled file internal data. This > occurs even if all partitions are less than 128GB formatted. This occurs > even if alternate partitions are NTFS, not FAT32. > > I don't expect an answer as MS still hasn't acknowledged 98/98SE's problem > regarding this. Yes, I am suggesting something similar MAY exist in XP just > not at the same total file data saved total size. I'm talking usability > here, not partition size recognition. There's no point in a super-sized > partition if the operating system can't write to its full potential without > error. Similar with a super-size hard drive with multiple partitions. There never was a 128GB size limit problem with XP and the 137GB 48-bit LBA problem is addressed with SP1. Windows XP has no problems using large partitions, the data will not corrupt if it writes beyond those boundaries if SP1 is installed. John
Recommended Posts