98SE 137Gb Limit - Quick Question

[risk_reversal]

I just need to be clear on the following please.

Native 98SE has 28 bit-LBA support and therefore has issues with any partition (or multiple partitions) greater than 137Gb. Is this correct please?

So for total clarity corruption will occur with native / unpatched 98SE if:

1. A system has a single visible partition >137Gb

2. A system has two or more visible partitions (ie primary/active and an extended) >137Gb.

3. A system has two or more visible partitions >137Gb on multiple HDDs.

I guess the question I trying to ask is that irrespective of the number of HDDs or visible partitions, 98SE cannot address single or combined partitions >137Gb, irrespective of the partition's location.

Many thanks for any info provided

Cheers

Edited February 25, 2008 by risk_reversal

[Mijzelf]

The LBA28 limit is a disk limit, not a partition limit. Partitionsize is unimportant. You can have a problem as soon as W98 tries to access a sector with a number > 2²⁸ ~ 268*10⁶.

There is a partition limit which is slightly smaller than the LBA28 disk limit, but it's less hard. These partitions will work fine, but you should not use standard Scandiskw and defrag.

[risk_reversal]

Many thanks for yor reply Mijzelf.

The LBA28 limit is a disk limit

So for clarity, you are saying (and as an example) that I could hook up 4x 200Gb HDD on my motherboard's IDE controllers, partition the 4HDDs to 120Gb as per schematic below and 98SE would have no problem.

HDD1 120Gb Primary active partition 98SE

HDD2 120Gb Extended Partition (visible)

HDD3 120Gb Extended Partition (visible)

HDD3 120Gb Extended Partition (visible)

So when I boot into HDD1, 98SE will work without any issues and see the 4 other extended partitions. Is this correct?

So for clarity, 98SE has problems addressing space above 137Gb on any single disk but can work in the example described above. In this particular example Sandisk and Defrag will also work without issues because the partition sizes are <128Gb.

Have I understood this correctly now please?

Many thanks

Cheers

Edited February 25, 2008 by risk_reversal

[Mijzelf]

This is correct, as long as you don't use fancy partitionmanagers which put the partition(s) at the end of the disk. FDISK doesn't.

BTW, are you aware LLXX wrote a LBA48 patch for all W9x flavors?

http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA-B...ier-t78592.html

[risk_reversal]

Many thanks for your reply Mijzelf.

as long as you don't use fancy partitionmanagers which put the partition(s) at the end of the disk. FDISK doesn't.

I do use partitioning software PM8 and BiNG, however I am conscious of where I situate partitions.

BTW, are you aware LLXX wrote a LBA48 patch for all W9x flavors?

http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA-B...ier-t78592.html

I was aware of this patch but I have not found any info that using this patch would present no issues on my set up: K8T800Pro board with a Via Chipset (VT8237 southbridge) running a SATA HDD from the on board [sATA] Promise controller in IDE mode.

Your clarification in respect of the 137Gb single disk limit will be fine for me (for now at least).

Many thanks again for helping me to clear up my confusion

Cheers

Edited February 25, 2008 by risk_reversal

[Fredledingue]

The issue is with disk material size exceeding 137 Gb. As said above, the way you partition doesn't matter except that the only work-around on an unpatched W98 is to create a single partition per HD less than 137 Gb.

If you do that you won't have problem because no data will be written beyond the 137 Gb barrier.

Problems come not because the disk itself is large, but as soon as datas are writen on sectors beyond that limit.

TBS, I strongly recommand you to using one of these patch allowing to use the full capapcity of your HD.

It's very easy to do, but you may have to try one or another version of the patch.

Check if the "system is configured for best performance" in the System control applet after applying the patch.

Edit: I just read that SATA doesn't need the patch

With a SATA drive, there isn't even a need for the 48LBA patch because the Windows driver isn't used, rather the Via (or whatever motherboard you have) SATA/RAID driver installed with the Hyperion's (must use an old version like 4.56v otherwise 98SE has problems). Until that's installed Windows runs it in dos compatibility mode. First thing I install though so that gets fixed quickly!

HTH

Edited February 25, 2008 by Fredledingue

[Eck]

Gotta run in SATA mode, not IDE mode, if using a 9x operating system and install the Via Sata/Raid driver, or Promise in your case I guess. Only XP and up can be run in IDE mode using the new Via Sata hotplug style IDE driver. That driver doesn't work in 98. I'm not talking about RAID here, just using the SATA mode which works without making a RAID configuration.

And on an ATA hard drive (not your Sata drive though), you need the 48LBA patch otherwise as soon as 98 writes or changes something in one of those Extended partitions you're talking about you will start having corrupted files.

You're okay without the patch on Sata since Windows will be using your Via/Promise Sata driver rather than its own driver.

[risk_reversal]

Many thanks for your replies.

Ok so just to be clear for a PATA HDD the following applies

The issue is with disk material size exceeding 137 Gb. As said above, the way you partition doesn't matter except that the only work-around on an unpatched W98 is to create a single partition per HD less than 137 Gb.

As regards SATA, have some confusion.

My system currently as follows

Asus A8V Deluxe Rev2.0

Via K8T800Pro with VT8237 Southbridge

Via Sata Controller

Promise SATA controller (on board)

Seagate 250Gb SATA HDD

After fresh install of 98SE:

1. I installed the 98SE Promise SATA Controller driver in folder 378ATA (this enables the Promise controller to run in non raid mode). In Device Manager, I have an entry headed SCSI Controller and if I expand it says Win98-ME Promise SATA 378 IDE Controller.

2. I installed the Via 4-1 v4.43

In the main bios I have disabled the Via SATA bios and enabled the Promise bios and selected it to run in IDE mode.

So when system boots, the main bios shows, then the Promise bios which shows the following:

SATA 378TX2 Plus Bios version 1.00.0.33

DO ST3250823AS 232Gb ULTRA DMA 6

IDE BUS MASTER ENABLED

Now am I to understand from you comment Eck

You're okay without the patch on Sata since Windows will be using your Via/Promise Sata driver rather than its own driver.

that the 98SE 28bit LBA drivers are not being used and instead the Via / Promise Sata Controller drivers are being used instead ie the Promise SATA controller is acting in the same way as a PCI ATA card and adding 48bit LBA functionality.

If what I have said above is correct Eck, then I am more confused when you say

Only XP and up can be run in IDE mode using the new Via Sata hotplug style IDE driver. That driver doesn't work in 98. I'm not talking about RAID here, just using the SATA mode which works without making a RAID configuration.

Many thanks for your help

Cheers

Edited February 25, 2008 by risk_reversal

[j7n]

There are also VIA controllers for Parallel ATA, no just SATA. I'm not sure how many devices VT6410 can take but it can surely serve four PATA harddisks with its own driver.

I do not understand your configuration, risk_reversal, how it is possible to have 2 BIOSes for the same HDD ports. But you are most likely safe. The hard disk should appear in Device Manager under the "scsi" controller (when viewed by connection).

Edited February 26, 2008 by j7n

[risk_reversal]

I do not understand your configuration, risk_reversal, how it is possible to have 2 BIOSes for the same HDD ports.

I have no HDD attached to the mobo's IDE (PATA) controllers. My 250Gb SATA HDD is connected to a SATA port of the on board Promise SATA controller.

When the post sequence begins, it shows the main 'post' screen relating to the AMI bios. The AMI bios only detects the (2) optical drives which I have connected to the IDE connectors. Then the Promise bios in turn posts with the info which I listed above.

The hard disk should appear in Device Manager under the "scsi" controller (when viewed by connection).

In my Device Manager, when viewed by connection, I have and entry headed

Win98-ME Promise SATA378 IDE Controller, and if I expand this I get the following

ST3250823AS (ie my HDD model)

The reason I have my HDD connected to the on board Promise SATA controller instead of the VIA SATA controller (VT6420) is because my cpu AMD SanDiego 4000+ is o/ced and on this mobo the VIA SATA controller cannot handle o/cing and leads to HDD corruption.

I hope that I have clarified the point.

The reason for this thread is because I want to add another HDD to this system (which has been fuly functional since I built it just over 2 years ago). I wanted to attach the new HDD to the on board Promise SATA controller which has 2 SATA ports / connectors and wanted clarification in respect of issues with 98se as I stated in my earlier posts.

The info which I would appreciate and which Eck brought to my attention is confirmation (or not) that my current set up is free of the 137Gb limitation imposed natively by 98SE.

Apologies if I had not clearly explained myself previously.

Many thanks for your help.

Cheers

Edited February 26, 2008 by risk_reversal