Re: Using a 48 bit LBA HD on a comp without 48 bit LBA bios support
- From: "Anna" <myname@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:30:33 -0400
> <nil_einne1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1128066767.014499.97080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Helping a friend upgrade their comp. Unfortunetely it has a Asus P2B
>> motherboard with a 440BX and so doesn't have 48 bit LBA support (last
>> bios is a beta release in 2002 but they didn't bother or couldn't
>> enable 48bit LBA support). My friend doesn't really need that much
>> space but given the ridiculous price of 120 gb HDs, I would really like
>> to avoid them (a 160gb HD cost about ~8.5% more). Using only 137gb (128
>> real gb) of a 160gb HD will turn out to be cheaper/gb then using a
>> 120gb HD and there will also be the advantage of the extra capacity
>> available should there ever be an upgrade (unlikely though).
>>
>> I've been doing some testing with a 160gb HD and reading and as far as
>> I can tell, using only 137gb (128 real gb) of the HD i.e. disabling
>> 48bit LBA support in Windows should be fine even without proper bios
>> support. The bios detects the HD I've been testing as a 8gb and I'm
>> likely to be buying a Seagate HD which doesn't have the ability to
>> limit to 128gb so I suspect this will be similar. But as said, as far
>> as I can tell this should not cause any problems nor should there ever
>> be any risk I think. Can anyone clarify/confirm?
>>
>> BTW, interestingly, I've tried enabling 48bit LBA support in Windows
>> and using the extra capacity and there was no data corruption. Go
>> figure! But this is a bit too risky for me even though it seemed fine
>> so I'm not interested in trying it.
>>
>> Also a SATA or ATA raid card is not being considered since it's noth
>> worth it given my friends need.
>>
>> Cheers and thanks for help all
"Yves Leclerc" <yleclercNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23RN1tIcxFHA.2792@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> You do not have to buy a RAID card. Just a plain ATA/133 or SATA add-in
> card will give you the max caacity the drives would allow.
Well, although you stated that your friend doesn't want to invest in a
RAID-supported controller card, I assume from that that he or she similarly
doesn't want to purchase *any* controller card which would yield
large-capacity disk support. So I suspect Yves' suggestion may not be
practical in your situation although frankly it *would* do the job at a
relatively small cost - about $35 or so and really be the best solution,
assuming there was a real need for the system to recognize the full capacity
of the disk..
As a practical matter, it probably would be best if your friend installs the
160 GB (or larger) drive and simply live with the fact that the system will
recognize (approx) 128 GB (137 GB decimal) of the drive. There is a kind of
workaround - see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B303013, but it's
kind of iffy and I wouldn't recommend it on a day-to-day basis. There are
also so-called "large disk enablers" (or some such) available from some HD
manufacturers - Maxtor probably being the most popular, but it's another
"workaround" I discourage. They make non-standard, proprietary changes in
the registry and elsewhere in the system that are nearly certain to cause
future problems. No doubt your friend could live with the truncated capacity
of a large-capacity drive in his or her present system and, as you say,
later use the drive in an updated system.
BTW, make sure SP2, or at least SP1 has been installed.
Anna
.
- References:
- Using a 48 bit LBA HD on a comp without 48 bit LBA bios support
- From: nil_einne1
- Using a 48 bit LBA HD on a comp without 48 bit LBA bios support
- Prev by Date: Re: Disk Security
- Next by Date: Re: Disk Security
- Previous by thread: Using a 48 bit LBA HD on a comp without 48 bit LBA bios support
- Next by thread: Re: RAM
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
