Dibya Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 2 hours ago, roytam1 said: IMHO it's worth mentioning that XP with srv2k3's disk.sys doesn't make your XP accessing >2.2TB disk in full capability. and storport support is missing in XP so no workaround for accessing >2.2TB disk besides Paragon GPT loader w/ (S)ATA controller working in IDE mode. Storport of 2k3 work in XP but need to change some thing i386 folder of installer . I donot know what with 2k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 The standard MBR is limited to 32-Bits so the maximum entry is 4Gi Sectors. The "stretched" MBR would allow one Partition to use another 4Gi Sectors. I have developed an extended MBR that supports 40-Bit LBA or 64Gi Sectors. All IDE Hard drives I know of only use 512 Byte Sectors so this limit becomes 2TiB. USB Hard Drive Controllers may or may not use 4KiB Sectors. I have seen Drives larger than 2TiB use 4KiB and others not. Same with Drives smaller than 2TiB. 4KiB Sectors allow 16TiB with MBR. Neither unmodified 9x, 2000, nor XP support more than 32 Bits so the "Stretched" MBR approach will not work. I have been looking into modifying XP in the same way I modified 9x to see if I can break this barrier. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibya Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 On 5/5/2017 at 4:50 AM, rloew said: The standard MBR is limited to 32-Bits so the maximum entry is 4Gi Sectors. The "stretched" MBR would allow one Partition to use another 4Gi Sectors. I have developed an extended MBR that supports 40-Bit LBA or 64Gi Sectors. All IDE Hard drives I know of only use 512 Byte Sectors so this limit becomes 2TiB. USB Hard Drive Controllers may or may not use 4KiB Sectors. I have seen Drives larger than 2TiB use 4KiB and others not. Same with Drives smaller than 2TiB. 4KiB Sectors allow 16TiB with MBR. Neither unmodified 9x, 2000, nor XP support more than 32 Bits so the "Stretched" MBR approach will not work. I have been looking into modifying XP in the same way I modified 9x to see if I can break this barrier. cool ! i want you break it . I am working on do same by back-porting some server 2003 component Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Atapi.sys needs to be upgraded. The ASPI interface will need to support READ(16) and WRITE(16) SCSI Commands. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibya Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 15 hours ago, rloew said: Atapi.sys needs to be upgraded. The ASPI interface will need to support READ(16) and WRITE(16) SCSI Commands. Will it help if I replace with server 2003 one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 On 5/10/2017 at 11:24 PM, Dibya said: Will it help if I replace with server 2003 one? If it doesn't crash, maybe. It will have to be SP1 or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibya Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 7 hours ago, rloew said: It will have to be SP1 or later. Server 2003 Sp2 ATapi.sys is working on XP with disk.sys from server 2003 sp2 hotfix. I have no big size disk to check so fa.r . All 2TB HDD & 1TB I have to repair or take out 3TB one from skylake build . i have new mobo . I will fix the system soon do i need to have all ACPI files from server 2003 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 I already tried atapi.sys and scsiport.sys. More files need to be updated. ACPI updates should not be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 I have replaced: ntfs.sys mf.sys fastfat.sys disk.sys atapi.sys scsiport.sys Still no access above 2TiB. A total replacement produces a Stop 7B BSOD. storport.sys is not in my System. diskdump.sys is a crash dump Driver. It would not be part of the main stack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 USB HDDs > 2TB do work (there's a thread about that). ATA HDDs don't. Can you trace the messages path on both and compare? I don't know how to do it, but I bet it can be done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibya Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 Guys disk.sys from WindowsServer2003-KB929161-x86-ENU.exe of SErver2003 unlocks GPT in XP even usb 4tb GPT drive work with out heck. WindowsServer2003-KB919117-x86-ENU.exe added high partition support to srv2003 sp1 may it can help . please see here https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/919117/a-hotfix-is-available-that-adds-support-for-guid-partition-table-gpt-volumes-that-are-larger-than-2-terabytes-on-a-windows-server-2003-based-server-cluster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 The thread title references explicitly MBR: this means support for > 512-bytes sectors are required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibya Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 56 minutes ago, dencorso said: The thread title references explicitly MBR: this means support for > 512-bytes sectors are required. Then it will be hybrid MBR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 Not at all. AFAIK, there's nothing in the de-facto standard tha is the MBR that requires it to have 512-bytes sectors. In fact, the question of sector-size is not dealt with in any field of the MBR. It's simply ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 8 hours ago, dencorso said: Not at all. AFAIK, there's nothing in the de-facto standard tha is the MBR that requires it to have 512-bytes sectors. In fact, the question of sector-size is not dealt with in any field of the MBR. It's simply ignored. Sure. The OS interrogates the device to know sector size, issue is - generally speaking - that a number of components may ASSUME the disk block size to be 512 bytes, if there were not these assumptions, 4 Kb "native" drives would work nicely (BTW they do work nicely, only they cannot usually be booted). Though I doubt that it will actually help our friend to understand the matter, some not-so-unrelated info: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173265-formatting-an-external-drive-using-different-interfaces/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173642-mkprilog-batch-to-access-a-same-disk-under-two-different-interfaces/ jaclaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now