Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (
More info?)
"Jeff W" <ms-newsRemoveForSpam@kwcpa.com> wrote in message
news:OEhd$r2zEHA.2636@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Vanguard - reducing the size didn't fix it. nor was it
> visible
> on another PC (that didn't have the limitation).
>
> I ended up re-formating it (into NTFS)- however,I DIDN'T do my math
> right, and the binary sizes of the 2 partitions add up to 141GB.
>
> Seems to work though.....so now I'm debating using PM8 to shrink it a
> bit....
>
> /j
>
> Vanguard wrote:
>
>>"Jeff W" <ms-newsRemoveForSpam@kwcpa.com> wrote in message
>>news:%23IymmfyzEHA.1400@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>>> This is so simple, it's tragic.
>>>
>>> OS: WINXP HOME SP2
>>> Pentium III, 733MHz, 384MB. No ATA card or other weirdness.
>>> My hard disk (before): 160GB total. FAT32. (MAXTOR IDE)
>>> Partitions: C: (system) 16GB D: 102GB
>>>
>>> The D partition is used to hold backups and 'scratch' data, and
>>> installations of kids games. Nothing I can't afford to lose, but
>>> too
>>> much to backup elsewhere, and a bit of a time hit to rebuild it.
>>>
>>> I directed PM 8 to extend the D partition from 102GB to 120GB
>>> (allowing
>>> me to use 136GB of the disk, as my BIOS has a 137GB limitation).
>>>
>>> PartitionMagic did the operation totally successfully. However, now
>>> I
>>> cannot access any files on my D partition.
>>>
>>> Windows XP believes the partition needs formatting. I tried a
>>> convert
>>> to NTFS and it says it can't convert RAW partitions.
>>>
>>> PartitionMagic can see the correct amount of usage on the partition,
>>> but
>>> it can't convert to NTFS or browse (I think it calls windows
>>> utilities
>>> for both function).
>>>
>>> I successfully used PM8 to reduce the partition back to its old
>>> size,
>>> and used system recovery to roll my registry back to before I did
>>> the
>>> extend.
>>>
>>> Nothing helped. I'd really like to get this back. I'm peeved that
>>> PM8
>>> can trash a partition so shamelessly.
>>>
>>> Any ideas?
>>>
>>> thanks!
>>> /j
>>
>>
>>No, your BIOS has a 128GB limitation in the addressing it affords to
>>access the hard disk.
>>
>>128 GB = 2^7 * 2^30 bytes = 2^37 bytes = 137,438,953,472 bytes
>>
>>When folks talk of the 137GB boundary, that is the decimal value.
>>Marketers use decimal because it inflates the specs for their wares.
>>Computers don't do decimal. So when you told PartitionMagic to
>>increase
>>the partition's size to 137 GB, you actually told it to create a
>>partition that was 137 * 2^30 bytes in size, which is 9 GB bigger than
>>the 128GB limit.
>>
>>If you use PartitionMagic to list the partitions, the sizes you see
>>are
>>the binary sizes. It's a computer program, not a marketer promoting
>>more than is there. Right-click on any partition. For example, it
>>lists my D: partition as 74,465.3 MB in size and the right-click
>>Properties shows that size and its decimal equivalent which is
>>78,082,550,272. Both are the real size of the partition but one is
>>binary-based and the other is decimal-based. Remember to use
>>binary-based numbers when computing the actual size of your partition
>>and other disk operations. Be careful when selecting size to know if
>>you are selecting a binary-based value or a decimal-based value.
>>137GB
>>decimal = 128GB binary, but 137GB binary is definitely larger than
>>128GB
>>binary.
>>
>>You made your partition too big for your BIOS to handle. If you
>>haven't
>>used that partition, or whatever files on it were not touched, what
>>happens if you use PartitionMagic to resize the partition so it is
>>under
>>128GB in size? If you haven't used the space beyond the 128GB
>>boundary
>>(which is likely) then you should be able to resize it back to its
>>original size or even up to the 128GB boundary. If that doesn't work,
>>come back and maybe we can figure out how to edit the partition table
>>(after resizing the partition) to denote the correct partition type if
>>that is what got screwed up, but this is hazardous work.
>>
>>Even if your current BIOS has the 128GB limitation, there might be a
>>update for your BIOS that adds 48-bit LBA ATAPI support so you can
>>have
>>larger partitions ... and then you'll have to apply Windows XP Service
>>Pack 1, or later, to have the OS also support 48-bit addressing mode
>>(see http://support.microsoft.com/?id=303013).
>>
>>
>>
How big is the first partition (presumably for C
? Does the extended
partition (containing the logical drive for D
start immediately after
the first partition (i.e., is there any unallocated space between the
primary and extended partitions)? It is not the *sum* of the partition
sizes that imposes the 128GB addressing limit. That is a limit *per*
partition. However, you might run into a problem if a partition starts
too far back. With your current hard disk, you should be able to make
D: just shy of 128GB (137GB decimal) and C: occupy the rest up front.
As long as the bootstrap loader in the MBR can reach the partition
offset specified in the partition table (so it can load the boot sector
of that partition) then each an every partition could be 128GB in size
(if you had a really huge hard disk). With a 400GB Barracuda drive, you
could have two 137GB partitions with a remaining 126GB partition (these
are all decimal values). That's with basic volumes. Windows 2000/XP
supports dynamic volumes (but I don't recall that the OS partition can
be included) which will let you far exceed the 128GB addressing
limitation but I suspect that is not something you want to get into
right now.
PartitionMagic will warn you if you create a partition at a cylinder
count greater than 1023. I haven't had a problem with a partition at
the end of the disk and of ignoring this PM warning because my BIOS
supports LBA mode which performs geometry translation so there is always
a max of 1024 cylinders (0 to 1023, inclusive). If you ever turned off
LBA mode in the BIOS then a partition past cylinder 1023 would be
unreached by the standard bootstrap loader in the MBR (although 3rd
party boot managers might not have this limitation). However, I would
think turning off LBA mode would have other consequences since you are
changing the geometry translation used for the drive (i.e., you might
have to delete all partitions and recreate them to build a new partition
table). I've never turned off LBA mode (since I always want the full
size available for my hard disk).
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/bios/modesLBA-c.html
Note that I have seen PartitionMagic screw up if you have it commit LOTS
of changes all at once. Sometimes it reports an error but it can be
ignored (it really was warning rather than an error). However, I have
had it pend around a dozen operations and it screwed up and rendered one
of my partitions in an somewhat unknown state (but the partition table
was okay both for offset, size, and partition type so I just had to redo
the formatting). If, say, you were going to reduce C: (primary active
partition #1) so you could enlarge D: (logical drive in an extended
partition #2), I would have PM just reduce the size of C: by itself,
reboot, and then use PM to resize the extended partition (to move the
front of it to abut against the primary partition for C
and also
resize the logical drive D: (i.e., just those 2 operations to resize
D
, reboot, and then have it format the partitions if needed. However,
before ever using PM, I always run CHKDSK. PM does its integrity check
of the file system but I'd rather use the OS that defined the file
system so it checks itself and uses its own methods to fix any problems
before letting PM have at it.
--
_________________________________________________________________
******** Post replies to newsgroup - Share with others ********
Email: lh_811newsATyahooDOTcom and append "=NEWS=" to Subject.
_________________________________________________________________