Jump to content

What a single 8TB MBR Hard Disk Drive Looks like in Windows XP


98SE

Recommended Posts

 

On 10/25/2017 at 1:42 PM, rloew said:

That only helps if the Clusters are aligned on 64K boundaries. 

I haven't so far needed to use any alignment tools and WD or other companies no longer offer them on their website.  They probably figured out how to do it internally on newer drives.  I read some earlier documents there used to be a jumper to set these boundaries for XP and now these drives are jumperless.

Quote

No one is imposing 4KB Native Drives. I have never seen one. Only SCSI supports them. All AF Drives are 512e. USB Enclosure Manufacturers decided to make 4K translating adapters as a stopgap for XP users.

Located a 2TB 4KB Native drive.  I guess they are pushing these out.

Seagate 2TB 3.5 HDD V.5 (4Kn) 3.5" SATA Model ST2000NM0105

$120

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-2TB-SATA-Model-ST2000NM0105/dp/B01G3S8SGA

Vista supports 4KB so hard drive manufacturers and MS probably agreed to this standard to deal with larger capacities and squeezing more out of the platters.  But they wanted a transition period so that's why we still have 512 Bytes sectored drives which was the norm.  Now we are getting more of the newer drives with 4KB sectored 512 Bytes Emulated on the SATA connector end so they still work with our legacy systems though MBR capped to 2.2TB due to 32-Bit addressing Limits or using GPT to get around this.  So if Vista -> W10 only still supported 512 Bytes we probably wouldn't see these 4KB Bytes 512 Emulated drives for the transition period.  I'm sure they could have come up with a new drive scheme and kept 512 Byte drives and larger than 2.2TB without going to 4KB sector.  SSDs can pack more than hard drives so they could probably make 256TB SSDs that just have 512 Bytes sectors but you'll need GPT to use them or a special translation adapter for MBR.

Quote

Only  64K Physical 512e Drives are reasonable.

That's what I'm hoping for the near future.  If 64KB physical sector drives with 512e means higher capacity by squeezing more data on the platters and maintaining compatibility I'll take it.

Quote

No. It is just as fast to request 128 512B Sectors as it is to request 1 64KB Sector. The Drive is going to translate it into 1 64KB read operation either way.
Current Controllers transfer the data as one monolithic block anyway so there is no loss there either.

What about the ECC overhead?  That should add some extra data usage.  I think 64KB with one ECC segment than 512 Bytes with 128 ECC segments would show some noticeable impact.  Transferring TBs of data there might be a noticeable ECC overhead savings of 9-10% like the 512 Bytes to 4KB difference.

Quote

Physical Sectors are transparent to USB as well as SATA. The Drive can translate to 512e faster than the USB adapter, so there is no penalty to 512e.

You still need the extra Address Translation adapter or else XP 32-Bit couldn't see more than the 2.2TB.  A regular SATA to USB adapter wouldn't work.

Quote

My BOOTMAN3 DDO does the job with Internal Drives. How do you think I booted DOS with a 128TiB C: Partition. 

That's nice but booting to a large capacity drive and not being able to do everything like in Windows XP or accessing USB 3.0 speed drives makes DOS->ME too limited.  It's a shame the XP source code hasn't leaked yet as it probably could blow away W10 with the right programmers.

Quote

The E-Bay sellers are just selling unbranded Cards under this own name. Zero technical knowledge required.
PATA Controllers are far simpler than SATA. The one in the E-Bay picture is a very basic design using a microcontroller.

Nowadays they just slap an existing IDE Controller chip and some glue logic on a card. The Chip is manufactured in a foundry.

I think you could build a better SATA to SATA hardware address translating adapter given your evaluation of this eBay product.  All hardware based that supports DOS -> Windows 10 transparent to the user avoiding unnecessary patches to each OS.  The eBay example is just demonstrating the competition which isn't much at the moment.

Quote

I said, I had a 4TB USB Hard Drive that did not Translate. I never Partitioned it so it is neither MBR nor GPT. I'm not sure if I had tested it with XP. 

It's most likely one of the newer models and not XP compatible.  They usually come as GPT and NTFS preformatted if you check.  What brand and model is this you purchased?

Quote

Apparently NTFS has a 32-Bit Math limit at the Cluster Level. I would have to look at the ExFAT Spec.

Probably to keep with backward compatibility to the original NTFS spec when 32-Bit was the norm.  Users might need to decide to switch to ReFS to achieve 1 YB.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReFS

Quote

The compatibility tables are not correct. FAT32 is supported on all of the OSes listed up to 2TiB even if Microsoft refuses to let you create them

I have pushed the Cluster Size limit in Windows XP FAT32 to 256KB using 256 Byte Sectors.
If I could do the same with NTFS, it might be possible to increase the limit to 1PiB.

We are still using NTFS v3.1 since XP.  1PB is still 4 times the current Windows 256TB limit.  Strike a deal with MS if they decide to keep with NTFS and hold off from ReFS and offer this patch as NTFS v3.2.  Have you checked if the 256TB NTFS limit applies to MAC OS and Linux?

Quote

I use tray-less racks. This allow me to swap Drives easily. I do have to reboot though.

USB is a life savior here in plugging in drives real quick to move data and disconnect.  I would have considered eSATA if hot PnP was consistent for higher transfers speeds.  Firewire was actually a pretty good technology compared to USB 2.0.  Hooking up DV Cams for HD recording barely overwhelmed even a Pentium-M 1 GHz.  But USB is still more versatile being able to connect to more than just storage drives.

Quote

The USB limit is 128 per Root Controller.

Yes I know since the advertisement signs of Windows 98 and USB.  But in reality no one is going to hook up 128 USB devices and the bandwidth is split among all the USB devices so there are pros and cons which is why USB 4.0 needs to be 100x USB 3.0 speeds or at least 1600 Gbps (The same factor jump from USB 1.0 to 2.0).

Quote

The listing is gone. It is obviously an AHCI Controller. You can have 32 Direct Ports. Each Port can be expanded with a FIS Multiplier.
It might work with XP if you add an AHCI Driver. The newest UNIATA appears to have AHCI Built-in.

It was up earlier probably not a hot seller so it was taken down.

Ableconn PEX10-SAT 10 Port SATA 6G PCI Express Host Adapter Card - AHCI 6 Gbps

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ableconn-PEX10-SAT-10-Port-SATA-6G-PCI-Express-Host-Adapter-Card-AHCI-6-Gbps/371982006638?hash=item569bdaf96e:g:asUAAOSwFqNZQbWB

Quote

You don't "chain" them. You put them in separate PCI/PCI-E Slots.

I didn't literally mean "daisy chaining" them like SCSI.  I meant all PCI/PCIe slots (7 max so far I've seen) all hooked up internally all lined up side by side taking all internal Motherboard slots looks like a chain of USB port cards.

Quote

I think the BIOS limits you to 31 Hard Disks. Windows 9x has some minor issues above 8.

Up to 31 Hard Disks for anything connected to the on board SATA ports?

What about previous generations from SCSI, ESDI, IDE, RLL and dating back MFM?

Do internal SATA cards count toward this 31HD BIOS limit?  If so would one SATA card be counted as "1" no matter how many ports or do all SATA ports count toward this limit even on the cards?

Do all 7 SATA cards work together in DOS or are they pretty much dead except only to provided driver supported Operating Systems?

Edited by 98SE
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Quote
Quote

That only helps if the Clusters are aligned on 64K boundaries. 

I haven't so far needed to use any alignment tools and WD or other companies no longer offer them on their website.  They probably figured out how to do it internally on newer drives.  I read some earlier documents there used to be a jumper to set these boundaries for XP and now these drives are jumperless.

I don't know if jumpers could be extended to 64K. I'm sure proper manipulation of the NTFS Partition can be done to align on 64K Boundaries. I can already do this with FAT32.

Quote
Quote

No one is imposing 4KB Native Drives. I have never seen one. Only SCSI supports them. All AF Drives are 512e. USB Enclosure Manufacturers decided to make 4K translating adapters as a stopgap for XP users.

Located a 2TB 4KB Native drive.  I guess they are pushing these out.

Seagate HDD ST2000NM0115 2TB SAS 12Gb/s Enterprise 7200

$148

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-ST2000NM0115-Enterprise-7200RPM-128MB/dp/B01E1XRKIQ

That is a SAS Drive. It uses SCSI protocol.

Quote

Vista supports 4KB so hard drive manufacturers and MS probably agreed to this standard to deal with larger capacities and squeezing more out of the platters.  But they wanted a transition period so that's why we still have 512 Bytes sectored drives which was the norm.  Now we are getting more of the newer drives with 4KB sectored 512 Bytes Emulated on the SATA connector end so they still work with our legacy systems though MBR capped to 2.2TB due to 32-Bit addressing Limits or using GPT to get around this.  So if Vista -> W10 only still supported 512 Bytes we probably wouldn't see these 4KB Bytes 512 Emulated drives for the transition period.  I'm sure they could have come up with a new drive scheme and kept 512 Byte drives and larger than 2.2TB without going to 4KB sector.  SSDs can pack more than hard drives so they could probably make 256TB SSDs that just have 512 Bytes sectors but you'll need GPT to use them or a special translation adapter for MBR.

The AF Format was designed for efficiency. They still have 512 Byte Sectors at the interface. SSDs do not have a defined Sector Size except for erase.

Quote
Quote

Only  64K Physical 512e Drives are reasonable.

That's what I'm hoping for the near future.  If 64KB physical sector drives with 512e means higher capacity by squeezing more data on the platters and maintaining compatibility I'll take it.

I'm not sure about the near future. The improvement over 4K is a lot less than the switch from 512B to 4KB.

Quote
Quote

No. It is just as fast to request 128 512B Sectors as it is to request 1 64KB Sector. The Drive is going to translate it into 1 64KB read operation either way.
Current Controllers transfer the data as one monolithic block anyway so there is no loss there either.

What about the ECC overhead?  That should add some extra data usage.  I think 64KB with one ECC segment than 512 Bytes with 128 ECC segments would show some noticeable impact.  Transferring TBs of data there might be a noticeable ECC overhead savings of 9-10% like the 512 Bytes to 4KB difference.

No. The ECC is at the Physical level. In either case there would be only one ECC per 64KB. You don't add ECC to the 512 Byte Sectors at the Interface unless you are emulating a "READ LONG" Command.

Quote
Quote

Physical Sectors are transparent to USB as well as SATA. The Drive can translate to 512e faster than the USB adapter, so there is no penalty to 512e.

You still need the extra Address Translation adapter or else XP 32-Bit couldn't see more than the 2.2TB.  A regular SATA to USB adapter wouldn't work.

Yes. But your response is unrelated to what I said.

Quote
Quote

My BOOTMAN3 DDO does the job with Internal Drives. How do you think I booted DOS with a 128TiB C: Partition. 

That's nice but booting to a large capacity drive and not being able to do everything like in Windows XP or accessing USB 3.0 speed drives makes DOS->ME too limited.  It's a shame the XP source code hasn't leaked yet as it probably could blow away W10 with the right programmers.

Live with it.

Quote
Quote

The E-Bay sellers are just selling unbranded Cards under this own name. Zero technical knowledge required.
PATA Controllers are far simpler than SATA. The one in the E-Bay picture is a very basic design using a microcontroller.

Nowadays they just slap an existing IDE Controller chip and some glue logic on a card. The Chip is manufactured in a foundry.

I think you could build a better SATA to SATA hardware address translating adapter given your evaluation of this eBay product.  All hardware based that supports DOS -> Windows 10 transparent to the user avoiding unnecessary patches to each OS.  The eBay example is just demonstrating the competition which isn't much at the moment.

It might be possible to add translation to that Card because it probably has an EPROM. But you will end up with an ISA to PATA Card which is not very helpful.

SATA Controllers use dedicated hardware with built-in firmware so they cannot be changed. The BIOS may be updateable but that would not help with Windows.

Quote
Quote

I said, I had a 4TB USB Hard Drive that did not Translate. I never Partitioned it so it is neither MBR nor GPT. I'm not sure if I had tested it with XP. 

It's most likely one of the newer models and not XP compatible.  They usually come as GPT and NTFS preformatted if you check.  What brand and model is this you purchased?

It isn't particularly new. I bought them years ago. I'm not sure if they were pre-formatted. I don't remember what model.

Quote
Quote

The compatibility tables are not correct. FAT32 is supported on all of the OSes listed up to 2TiB even if Microsoft refuses to let you create them

I have pushed the Cluster Size limit in Windows XP FAT32 to 256KB using 256 Byte Sectors.
If I could do the same with NTFS, it might be possible to increase the limit to 1PiB.

We are still using NTFS v3.1 since XP.  1PB is still 4 times the current Windows 256TB limit.  Strike a deal with MS if they decide to keep with NTFS and hold off from ReFS and offer this patch as NTFS v3.2.  Have you checked if the 256TB NTFS limit applies to MAC OS and Linux?

They won't. I don't have a MAC. I haven't experimented much with Linux.

Quote
Quote

The listing is gone. It is obviously an AHCI Controller. You can have 32 Direct Ports. Each Port can be expanded with a FIS Multiplier.
It might work with XP if you add an AHCI Driver. The newest UNIATA appears to have AHCI Built-in.

It was up earlier probably not a hot seller so it was taken down.

Ableconn PEX10-SAT 10 Port SATA 6G PCI Express Host Adapter Card - AHCI 6 Gbps

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ableconn-PEX10-SAT-10-Port-SATA-6G-PCI-Express-Host-Adapter-Card-AHCI-6-Gbps/371982006638?hash=item569bdaf96e:g:asUAAOSwFqNZQbWB

Get it and see if it works.

Quote

I think the BIOS limits you to 31 Hard Disks. Windows 9x has some minor issues above 8.

Up to 31 Hard Disks for anything connected to the on board SATA ports?

What about previous generations from SCSI, ESDI, IDE, RLL and dating back MFM?

Do internal SATA cards count toward this 31HD BIOS limit?  If so would one SATA card be counted as "1" no matter how many ports or do all SATA ports count toward this limit even on the cards?

31 total. This is the limit of INT 13 Drive Numbers.

Quote

Do all 7 SATA cards work together in DOS or are they pretty much dead except only to provided driver supported Operating Systems?

If the BIOS supports it, DOS supports it. So should Windows.

Edited by rloew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

The AF Format was designed for efficiency. They still have 512 Byte Sectors at the interface.

SSDs do not have a defined Sector Size except for erase.

SSDs should be 512 Bytes on the SATA connector end as they work on DOS->XP.

Now if 3TB->18TB SSDs will be 512e that would make them useful.

6 hours ago, rloew said:

I don't know if jumpers could be extended to 64K. I'm sure proper manipulation of the NTFS Partition can be done to align on 64K Boundaries. I can already do this with FAT32.

I'm not sure about the near future. The improvement over 4K is a lot less than the switch from 512B to 4KB.

No. The ECC is at the Physical level. In either case there would be only one ECC per 64KB. You don't add ECC to the 512 Byte Sectors at the Interface unless you are emulating a "READ LONG" Command.

It might be possible to add translation to that Card because it probably has an EPROM. But you will end up with an ISA to PATA Card which is not very helpful.

SATA Controllers use dedicated hardware with built-in firmware so they cannot be changed. The BIOS may be updateable but that would not help with Windows.

It isn't particularly new. I bought them years ago. I'm not sure if they were pre-formatted. I don't remember what model.

They won't. I don't have a MAC. I haven't experimented much with Linux.

Get it and see if it works.

31 total. This is the limit of INT 13 Drive Numbers.

If the BIOS supports it, DOS supports it. So should Windows.

31 Total MFM drives on an IBM XT now that would be a sight.

I can't find any references to this limit.  How did you calculate this?

Did MFM Floppy drives and tape drives count against the 31 Total Drive Limit?

Quote

That is a SAS Drive. It uses SCSI protocol.

Copied the wrong link.  Here is the correct 4KB Native SATA model.

Seagate 2TB 3.5 HDD V.5 (4Kn) 3.5" SATA Model ST2000NM0105

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-2TB-SATA-Model-ST2000NM0105/dp/B01G3S8SGA

 

Two more higher capacity 4KB Native SATA drive models.

ST4000NM0085

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Seagate-4TB-Ent-3-5-4Kn-SATA-MPN-ST4000NM0085/152658137978?epid=1679560179&hash=item238b22537a:g:ASsAAOSw66pZjGh3

 

 

ST6000NM0125

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-ST6000NM0125-Enterprise-7200RPM-256MB/dp/B01E1XS3W8

 

Edited by 98SE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote
Quote

The AF Format was designed for efficiency. They still have 512 Byte Sectors at the interface.

SSDs do not have a defined Sector Size except for erase.

SSDs should be 512 Bytes on the SATA connector end as they work on DOS->XP.

Now if 3TB->18TB SSDs will be 512e that would make them useful.

Since SSDs do not have a defined Sector Size they would be 512 Byte Drives not 512e. The "e" means it is emulated. 

Quote
Quote

I don't know if jumpers could be extended to 64K. I'm sure proper manipulation of the NTFS Partition can be done to align on 64K Boundaries. I can already do this with FAT32.

I'm not sure about the near future. The improvement over 4K is a lot less than the switch from 512B to 4KB.

No. The ECC is at the Physical level. In either case there would be only one ECC per 64KB. You don't add ECC to the 512 Byte Sectors at the Interface unless you are emulating a "READ LONG" Command.

It might be possible to add translation to that Card because it probably has an EPROM. But you will end up with an ISA to PATA Card which is not very helpful.

SATA Controllers use dedicated hardware with built-in firmware so they cannot be changed. The BIOS may be updateable but that would not help with Windows.

It isn't particularly new. I bought them years ago. I'm not sure if they were pre-formatted. I don't remember what model.

They won't. I don't have a MAC. I haven't experimented much with Linux.

Get it and see if it works.

I'm not interested in MACs. If you want me to run tests, send me one.

Quote
Quote

31 total. This is the limit of INT 13 Drive Numbers.

If the BIOS supports it, DOS supports it. So should Windows.

31 Total MFM drives on an IBM XT now that would be a sight.

I can't find any references to this limit.  How did you calculate this?

INT 13 ID 0x9F is reserved leaving 0x80-0x9E.

Quote

Did MFM Floppy drives and tape drives count against the 31 Total Drive Limit?

Anything that is accessed through the INT 13 Interface and is not treated as a Floppy Drive ID 0 or 1.

Quote
Quote

That is a SAS Drive. It uses SCSI protocol.

Copied the wrong link.  Here is the correct 4KB Native SATA model.

Seagate 2TB 3.5 HDD V.5 (4Kn) 3.5" SATA Model ST2000NM0105

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-2TB-SATA-Model-ST2000NM0105/dp/B01G3S8SGA

Two more higher capacity 4KB Native SATA drive models.

ST4000NM0085

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Seagate-4TB-Ent-3-5-4Kn-SATA-MPN-ST4000NM0085/152658137978?epid=1679560179&hash=item238b22537a:g:ASsAAOSw66pZjGh3

ST6000NM0125

https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-ST6000NM0125-Enterprise-7200RPM-256MB/dp/B01E1XS3W8

Interesting. A bit pricey and not a brand that I would trust though.

You might want to stock up.

Edited by rloew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. The Toshiba MG04ACAxxxA are 4Kn. It seems the WDC Gold series is 4Kn, too. It seems WDC isn't selling 4Kn HDDs, at least not explicitly. Then again, those external WDC drives that say 4096 bites/sector might just as well be really 4Kn, and not doubly emulated (4Kn==>512e ==> 4Ke)... but that remains to be confirmed or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those WDC Drives would probably be 4Kn. There would be no point to doubly emulate inside the Hard Drive since I assume there is no access to a 512e Port. There would also be no SATA Controller inside either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rloew said:

Since SSDs do not have a defined Sector Size they would be 512 Byte Drives not 512e. The "e" means it is emulated. 

Yes I know the "e" stood for emulated but if SSDs don't have a defined Sector Size wouldn't they be emulating 512 Bytes?  If it can appear as 512 Bytes then there is no reason they can't appear as 4KB or 64KB.

Quote

I'm not interested in MACs. If you want me to run tests, send me one.

MACS are Intel based now so yours probably can be made into a Hackintosh quite easily on the Z87.

https://www.tonymacx86.com/

Quote

Anything that is accessed through the INT 13 Interface and is not treated as a Floppy Drive ID 0 or 1.

INT 13 ID 0x9F is reserved leaving 0x80-0x9E.

Is UEFI still stuck with this old limit?

Quote

Interesting. A bit pricey and not a brand that I would trust though.

That was one of the cheaper ones available since you hadn't seen a 4KB bare SATA drive.  Not a fan of Seagate either as far as reliability back in the day had a bad reputation except some of their recent laptop drives absorbed from Samsung are pretty reliable.  Options are limited these days and prices goes up for everyone.  SSDs are probably going to be the future so I'm not sure if 4KB drives will actually be mainstream.

Quote

You might want to stock up.

Why? They don't work with XP nor the adapter.  It'll be quite awhile before I switch to 4KB Native drives assuming 512 Bytes and 512e disappear.  Those would be the ones to stockpile for legacy support.

Edited by 98SE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote
Quote

Since SSDs do not have a defined Sector Size they would be 512 Byte Drives not 512e. The "e" means it is emulated. 

Yes I know the "e" stood for emulated but if SSDs don't have a defined Sector Size wouldn't they be emulating 512 Bytes?  If it can appear as 512 Bytes then there is no reason they can't appear as 4KB or 64KB.

Since it is not changing Sector Size, it would not be considered "emulation". There is no reason why it could not report 4K or 64K.

Quote
Quote

I'm not interested in MACs. If you want me to run tests, send me one.

MACS are Intel based now so yours probably can be made into a Hackintosh quite easily on the Z87.

https://www.tonymacx86.com/

You need a MAC to follow the instructions given.

Quote
Quote

Anything that is accessed through the INT 13 Interface and is not treated as a Floppy Drive ID 0 or 1.

INT 13 ID 0x9F is reserved leaving 0x80-0x9E.

Is UEFI still stuck with this old limit?

No idea.

Quote
Quote

Interesting. A bit pricey and not a brand that I would trust though.

That was one of the cheaper ones available since you hadn't seen a 4KB bare SATA drive.  Not a fan of Seagate either as far as reliability back in the day had a bad reputation except some of their recent laptop drives absorbed from Samsung are pretty reliable.  Options are limited these days and prices goes up for everyone.  SSDs are probably going to be the future so I'm not sure if 4KB drives will actually be mainstream.

I found much better prices.

Quote
Quote

You might want to stock up.

Why? They don't work with XP nor the adapter.  It'll be quite awhile before I switch to 4KB Native drives assuming 512 Bytes and 512e disappear.  Those would be the ones to stockpile for legacy support.

Apparently they do work with XP 32 not XP 64 according to the website I linked earlier.

Edited by rloew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found my notes on my USB tests.

The VANTEC NSP-D400S3 and the ByteCC Duplicating Docks use 512 Byte Sectors on their USB Ports regardless of Disk size.

The Hitachi 2TB ST Touros use 4K Sectors. I have not disassembled them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2017 at 4:30 AM, rloew said:

Since it is not changing Sector Size, it would not be considered "emulation". There is no reason why it could not report 4aK or 64K.

4aK?

Quote

You need a MAC to follow the instructions given.

Which step?  If you need the MAC OS it is free to all unlike Windows.  :angry:.  Some people have made it easy to transfer to a USB flash drive simplifying the process.

Quote

I found much better prices.

Good any 2.5" models?

Quote

Apparently they do work with XP 32 not XP 64 according to the website I linked earlier.

This I'm not 100% on just yet.  I have to try hooking up this 3TB 4KB 512e drive to XP 32-Bit to check if direct access of all 3TB of MBR data still works.  My guess is you can't write to the drive in XP 32-Bit to the entire 3TB directly.  I think it will still be capped at 2.2TB without the address translation adapter.  Now if it turns out I can read / write to the entire 3TB then that would mean any 2.5" 3TB or larger could do the same.

 

I found some more comments on that website:

Quote

XP 32-bit can work with 512e just fine, minus some possible alignment issues. The problem is the master boot record with its 32-bit address field. 232 = 4 binary billion sectors addressable, right? That’s 2TiB when each logical sector is 512 bytes large. As soon as you boost the sector size to 4096 bytes, the address space grows automatically, to 16TiB. There are always two ways of increasing addressable space:

1.) Increase the address field, e.g. from 32-bit to 64-bit

or

2.) increase the smallest addressable atoms’ size, e.g. from 512b to 4k.

And that’s why Windows NT5.1 / XP 32-bit needs 4Kn for making drives >2TiB fully usable.

Because it can only use 32-bit MBR partitions.

Windows NT5.2 / Server 2003 / XP x64 doesn’t have that problem, because it can use 64-bit GPT, at least for data volumes.

So given what is said there I'm not sure if this guy is saying as long as the drive is 512e or 512 Bytes to the OS no matter if the physical sector size is 8KB->64KB it won't make any difference and larger physical sector sizes would give larger and larger reachable MBR capacities without needing to go to GPT.

4KB would get at least 18TB

8KB would boost to 36TB

16KB would boost to 72TB

32KB would boost to 144TB

64KB would boost to 288TB, capped at 256TB Windows NTFS/exFAT limit.

But since Step 1 won't happen with XP 32-Bit that is out of the question but looking at

Step 2 increasing to 8KB->64KB Physical sector size seems to be the only way hard drives can boost MBR capacity limits.

Since we discussed SSDs not having an actual physical sector size then it is possible for SSDs to mimic 128KB and 256KB sector hard drives that show 512 Bytes on the SATA connector end to continue the legacy MBR support on 32-Bit Operating Systems like Windows 2000 and XP.

128KB would give you 576TB

256KB would give you 1152TB breaking the 1 PB barrier.

Edited by Tripredacus
1a/b content removed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote
Quote

You need a MAC to follow the instructions given.

Which step?  If you need the MAC OS it is free to all unlike Windows.  Just look for a torrent of it to get the ISO.  Some people have made it easy to transfer to a USB flash drive simplifying the process.

Since a MAC is required, I assume that it is not freely redistributable. 

Quote
Quote

I found much better prices.

Good any 2.5" models?

Didn't look. Probably would be too low a capacity to be of interest.

Quote
Quote

Apparently they do work with XP 32 not XP 64 according to the website I linked earlier.

This I'm not 100% on just yet.  I have to try hooking up this 3TB 4KB 512e drive to XP 32-Bit to check if direct access of all 3TB of MBR data still works.  My guess is you can't write to the drive in XP 32-Bit to the entire 3TB directly.  I think it will still be capped at 2.2TB without the address translation adapter.  Now if it turns out I can read / write to the entire 3TB then that would mean any 2.5" 3TB or larger could do the same.

I'm talking about a 4Kn Drive. It would behave the same as a 512e drive with a 4K translating USB Adapter. There would be no reason why access would stop at 2TiB.

The size of the Drive, 2.5" or 3.5", has nothing to do anything we have been talking about.

Quote

I found some more comments on that website:

  Quote

Quote

XP 32-bit can work with 512e just fine, minus some possible alignment issues. The problem is the master boot record with its 32-bit address field. 232 = 4 binary billion sectors addressable, right? That’s 2TiB when each logical sector is 512 bytes large. As soon as you boost the sector size to 4096 bytes, the address space grows automatically, to 16TiB. There are always two ways of increasing addressable space:

1.) Increase the address field, e.g. from 32-bit to 64-bit

or

2.) increase the smallest addressable atoms’ size, e.g. from 512b to 4k.

And that’s why Windows NT5.1 / XP 32-bit needs 4Kn for making drives >2TiB fully usable.

Because it can only use 32-bit MBR partitions.

Windows NT5.2 / Server 2003 / XP x64 doesn’t have that problem, because it can use 64-bit GPT, at least for data volumes.

So given what is said there I'm not sure if this guy is saying as long as the drive is 512e or 512 Bytes to the OS no matter if the physical sector size is 8KB->64KB it won't make any difference and larger physical sector sizes would give larger and larger reachable MBR capacities without needing to go to GPT.

He said nothing about larger sizes than 4K. He also didn't make the mistake of confusing Physical Sector size with Logical Sector size that you keep making.

Quote

4KB would get at least 18TB

8KB would boost to 36TB

16KB would boost to 72TB

32KB would boost to 144TB

64KB would boost to 288TB, capped at 256TB Windows NTFS/exFAT limit.

You are confusing TB and TiB. 64KB and NTFS are limited to 256TiB.

Quote

But since Step 1 won't happen with XP 32-Bit that is out of the question

Paragon did it. This is the reason for using GPT.

Quote

but looking at Step 2 increasing to 8KB->64KB Physical sector size seems to be the only way hard drives can boost MBR capacity limits.

No. My EMBR can do it also and would be a lot easier to implement than larger Sectors.

Quote

Since we discussed SSDs not having an actual physical sector size then it is possible for SSDs to mimic 128KB and 256KB sector hard drives that show 512 Bytes on the SATA connector end to continue the legacy MBR support on 32-Bit Operating Systems like Windows 2000 and XP.

There is nothing to mimic.  The SSD Memory array is addressed in 512 Byte Blocks via the SATA interface. The addressing Block size is arbitrary so it can be set to anything in firmware.

Quote

128KB would give you 576TB

256KB would give you 1152TB breaking the 1 PB barrier.

Now you are getting ridiculous.

In any case, the NTFS limit probably would increase with Sector size as the maximum Cluster size should increase.
I think the NTFS limit would be 2PiB with 4K Sectors.

Edited by rloew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

The VANTEC NSP-D400S3 and the ByteCC Duplicating Docks use 512 Byte Sectors on their USB Ports regardless of Disk size.

The unit reminds me of a toaster.  The way two drives are vertically inserted worries me if it were to tip over.  Try 3TB and larger with XP 32-Bit to see if translates and allows the entire drive as MBR.

Quote

The Hitachi 2TB ST Touros use 4K Sectors. I have not disassembled them.

These are probably the drives that have a soldered USB connection from the looks of the shell.  You won't be able to use these internally.  The Seagate external drives seem to be the only ones I've seen that still can be extracted with the SATA connectors intact.

11 hours ago, rloew said:

Since a MAC is required, I assume that it is not freely redistributable. 

A MAC isn't required.  Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge have done it.  You can get Snow Leopard for cheap and get the Hackintosh working.  Then login to the Mac Store to download the newer versions for free or if you know someone with a MAC they can download it to a flash drive.  Like I said many have made a USB method to simplify the install process.

https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard

Quote

Didn't look. Probably would be too low a capacity to be of interest.

I'm sure they would have 2TB 2.5" drives.  These will be USB powered making them portable.

Quote

I'm talking about a 4Kn Drive. It would behave the same as a 512e drive with a 4K translating USB Adapter. There would be no reason why access would stop at 2TiB.

4KB Native drives currently have no USB adapters that I've seen that work with XP.  The drive inside the XP compatible USB enclosures use a 4KB Physical -> 512e model.

Quote

The size of the Drive, 2.5" or 3.5", has nothing to do anything we have been talking about.

Indirectly 2.5" drives also work with the adapter taking up less space.

Quote

He said nothing about larger sizes than 4K.

Looks like I confused what he wrote but it's also irrelevant now until further tests.

I examined the 3TB drive hooked up directly to the SATA controller and the Sector Size is indeed 512 Bytes.

 

 

Identified as BIOS Drive (Int13x 81h)

DOS only sees 782.7GB capacity.

Cylinders: 364801

Heads: 255

Sectors: 63

Sector Size: 512 Bytes

Total Sectors: 1565565872

 

 

Quote

You are confusing TB and TiB.

No offense but there is no naming confusion.  I choose or refuse to use the computer naming standard of Kilo Binary Bytes.  Also as a purist I would never call a 360KB floppy drive a 360 KiBiByte floppy drive.  360 KiB looks lame.  They should have just kept all the Prefixes the same and made it KBB, MBB, GBB, TBB, PBB, EBB, ZBB which would have been accepted more easily as all you are indicating is the extra B is for "Binary".

You're welcome to try and spread the ISO/IEC 80000 standard but I think it's liberal "PC" gone amok.  The original already existing standards sound better, but adding an extra letter adds 50% more waste going from 2 to 3 bytes.  If they were going to use that then just spell out the prefix or go with the extra B.

 

Ask anyone which they would rather pronounce, learn, and use?

KILO byte or KiBiByte? You were born saying Kilo. Kibi? What is this the Keebler elve?

MEGA Byte or Mebi Byte?   Mega Millions or Mebi Millions? Mega wins.

GIGA Byte or GiBi Byte? GIGA wins.  No contest.

TERA Byte or TeBi Byte? Who doesn't love Tera or closely resembling Terra like Earth?

PETA Byte or PeBi Byte? Toss up.  PETA stands for you know what so pro pets I'm game.  But Pebi? Sounds tiny like a pebble.

EXA Byte or ExBi Byte? Exa looks and sounds better.

ZeTTa Byte or ZeBi Byte? Zetta definitely.

YoTTa Byte or YoBi Byte? --- this one is toss up as Yobi doesn't sound that bad although Yotta Byte sounds like Ya Outta Bite.

 

And are you going to get the United States to change from Miles to Kilometers next?

Anyone using computers since the 1970s knows what a Bit, Nibble, and Byte is and that 1KB = 1024 Bytes and there is no confusion.

Hard disk manufacturers aren't going to switch and neither are the newest graphics cards.

Any software program I see using it I junk it since it breaks the standard.

 

Quote

64KB and NTFS are limited to 256TiB.

I still stand by my 256TB standard or TeraByte standard.

Even wiki and Microsoft do as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS
 

Quote

Limits

Max. volume size264 clusters − 1 cluster (format);
256 TB − 64 KB (implementation)[3]

 

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional (MVP) award is given to "technology experts who passionately share their knowledge with the community."[1] The awarded are people who "actively share their ... technical expertise with the different technology communities related directly or indirectly to Microsoft". An MVP is awarded for contributions over the previous year.

Windows File System Troubleshooting 1st Edition, Kindle Edition, Publication Date: June 26, 2015

https://www.amazon.com/Windows-File-System-Troubleshooting-Halsey-ebook/dp/B00UBYYY34/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509174353&sr=1-1&keywords=9781484210161

Page 22:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ylQwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&focus=viewport&dq=256tb+ntfs+limit

 

 

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn466522(v=ws.11).aspx

Quote

Support for large volumes. NTFS can support volumes as large as 256 terabytes. Supported volume sizes are affected by the cluster size and the number of clusters. With (232 - 1) clusters (the maximum number of clusters that NTFS supports), the following volume and file sizes are supported.

 

Cluster size                              Largest volume     Largest file

64 KB (maximum size)     256 TB                       256 TB

 

 

Quote

Paragon did it. This is the reason for using GPT.

That's GPT and not MBR and it's still confined to internal drives and not external drives.

Quote

There is nothing to mimic.  The SSD Memory array is addressed in 512 Byte Blocks via the SATA interface. The addressing Block size is arbitrary so it can be set to anything in firmware.

Still to be tested with 3TB+ SSDs when they get cheap if MBR can exceed 18TB.

Quote

Now you are getting ridiculous.

It's a matter of perspective.  1PB today is what 1TB looked like to us then when we were using 8GB drives.  How long did it take for us to get from 8GB to 1TB?  Not that long.  It's going to happen and we are going to find ways to consume that space and want more.

Quote

In any case, the NTFS limit probably would increase with Sector size as the maximum Cluster size should increase.
I think the NTFS limit would be 2PiB with 4K Sectors.

2PB on NTFS would be tremendous but only if MS updates NTFS to v4.0 to exceed 256TB.

 

Since 2PB is like the 2TB of today it really seems to be not a lot of space once we get there.

I recall a 1GB SCSI drive seemed to be enormous during the 386 days but who am I to judge what capacity seems ridiculous today.

Edited by 98SE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote
Quote

The VANTEC NSP-D400S3 and the ByteCC Duplicating Docks use 512 Byte Sectors on their USB Ports regardless of Disk size.

The unit reminds me of a toaster.  The way two drives are vertically inserted worries me if it were to tip over.  Try 3TB and larger with XP 32-Bit to see if translates and allows the entire drive as MBR.

I tested it on 9x not on XP. Obviously MBR will not work. EMBR and GPT would work if it can access above 2TiB.

Quote
Quote

Since a MAC is required, I assume that it is not freely redistributable.

A MAC isn't required.  Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge have done it.  You can get Snow Leopard for cheap and get the Hackintosh working.  Then login to the Mac Store to download the newer versions for free or if you know someone with a MAC they can download it to a flash drive.  Like I said many have made a USB method to simplify the install process.

https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard

I am aware of Pirate Bay. I was referring to legal methods.

Quote
Quote

Didn't look. Probably would be too low a capacity to be of interest.

I'm sure they would have 2TB 2.5" drives.  These will be USB powered making them portable.

You are confused. I was looking at 4Kn Internal Drives, not laptop drives or USB 

Quote
Quote

I'm talking about a 4Kn Drive. It would behave the same as a 512e drive with a 4K translating USB Adapter. There would be no reason why access would stop at 2TiB.

4KB Native drives currently have no USB adapters that I've seen that work with XP.  The drive inside the XP compatible USB enclosures use a 4KB Physical -> 512e model.

I said that a 4Kn Drive would behave the same. I did not say they could be used with an USB adapter. Since I do not have a 4Kn Drive, I can't test my various USB adapters to see if any work.
I also don't know what USB interface size it would use.

Quote
Quote

The size of the Drive, 2.5" or 3.5", has nothing to do anything we have been talking about.

Indirectly 2.5" drives also work with the adapter taking up less space.

No one was talking about space.

Quote
Quote

You are confusing TB and TiB.

No offense but there is no naming confusion.  I choose or refuse to use the computer naming standard of Kilo Binary Bytes.  Also as a purist I would never call a 360KB floppy drive a 360 KiBiByte floppy drive.  360 KiB looks lame.  They should have just kept all the Prefixes the same and made it KBB, MBB, GBB, TBB, PBB, EBB, ZBB which would have been accepted more easily as all you are indicating is the extra B is for "Binary".

You're welcome to try and spread the ISO/IEC 80000 standard but I think it's liberal "PC" gone amok.  The original already existing standards sound better, but adding an extra letter adds 50% more waste going from 2 to 3 bytes.  If they were going to use that then just spell out the prefix or go with the extra B.

 

Ask anyone which they would rather pronounce, learn, and use?

KILO byte or KiBiByte? You were born saying Kilo. Kibi? What is this the Keebler elve?

MEGA Byte or Mebi Byte?   Mega Millions or Mebi Millions? Mega wins.

GIGA Byte or GiBi Byte? GIGA wins.  No contest.

TERA Byte or TeBi Byte? Who doesn't love Tera or closely resembling Terra like Earth?

PETA Byte or PeBi Byte? Toss up.  PETA stands for you know what so pro pets I'm game.  But Pebi? Sounds tiny like a pebble.

EXA Byte or ExBi Byte? Exa looks and sounds better.

ZeTTa Byte or ZeBi Byte? Zetta definitely.

YoTTa Byte or YoBi Byte? --- this one is toss up as Yobi doesn't sound that bad although Yotta Byte sounds like Ya Outta Bite.

 

And are you going to get the United States to change from Miles to Kilometers next?

Anyone using computers since the 1970s knows what a Bit, Nibble, and Byte is and that 1KB = 1024 Bytes and there is no confusion.

Hard disk manufacturers aren't going to switch and neither are the newest graphics cards.

Any software program I see using it I junk it since it breaks the standard.

 

I don't like it either but improper usage leads to confusion. You use TB for both Decimal and Binary based sizes. You even came to an incorrect assumption because of it.

You said:

Quote

64KB would boost to 288TB, capped at 256TB Windows NTFS/exFAT limit.

They are both the same limit, 256TiB or 281TB. There is no cap here. You also abused the roundoff of 18TB to get 288TB.

Quote
Quote

64KB and NTFS are limited to 256TiB.

I still stand by my 256TB standard or TeraByte standard.

Even wiki and Microsoft do as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS

Limits

Max. volume size264 clusters − 1 cluster (format);
256 TB − 64 KB (implementation)[3]

 

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

Microsoft Most Valuable Professional (MVP) award is given to "technology experts who passionately share their knowledge with the community."[1] The awarded are people who "actively share their ... technical expertise with the different technology communities related directly or indirectly to Microsoft". An MVP is awarded for contributions over the previous year.

Windows File System Troubleshooting 1st Edition, Kindle Edition, Publication Date: June 26, 2015

https://www.amazon.com/Windows-File-System-Troubleshooting-Halsey-ebook/dp/B00UBYYY34/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509174353&sr=1-1&keywords=9781484210161

Page 22:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ylQwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&focus=viewport&dq=256tb+ntfs+limit

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn466522(v=ws.11).aspx

You are not the only that doesn't follow the standard. Fortunately the context usually is enough to tell the difference, although as you get to higher numbers the discrepancy increases.

Quote

Support for large volumes. NTFS can support volumes as large as 256 terabytes. Supported volume sizes are affected by the cluster size and the number of clusters. With (232 - 1) clusters (the maximum number of clusters that NTFS supports), the following volume and file sizes are supported.

 

Cluster size                              Largest volume     Largest file

64 KB (maximum size)     256 TB                       256 TB

The maximum Cluster size max increase with larger Sectors, increasing this limit. This works with FAT16 and FAT32.

Quote
Quote

Paragon did it. This is the reason for using GPT.

That's GPT and not MBR and it's still confined to internal drives and not external drives.

Scenario #1 requires GPT since it needs 64 Bits.
It proves the concept even if it doesn't cover all drives.

If I wrote a GPT Loader, it would work with External Drives in DOS and Windows 9x.

Quote

There is nothing to mimic.  The SSD Memory array is addressed in 512 Byte Blocks via the SATA interface. The addressing Block size is arbitrary so it can be set to anything in firmware.

Still to be tested with 3TB+ SSDs when they get cheap if MBR can exceed 18TB.

If it is 512 Byte then the MBR limit is 2TiB. If it is 4K then the MBR limit is 16TiB. If you want larger, you would probably have to order custom firmware and write a new set of drivers.

Quote
Quote

Now you are getting ridiculous.

It's a matter of perspective.  1PB today is what 1TB looked like to us then when we were using 8GB drives.  How long did it take for us to get from 8GB to 1TB?  Not that long.  It's going to happen and we are going to find ways to consume that space and want more.

I'm not referring to PetaByte drives. I'm referring to your suggestion of super large Sectors. to support MBR.

Quote
Quote

In any case, the NTFS limit probably would increase with Sector size as the maximum Cluster size should increase.

I think the NTFS limit would be 2PiB with 4K Sectors.

2PB on NTFS would be tremendous but only if MS updates NTFS to v4.0 to exceed 256TB.

I'm referring to the current NTFS. A future version that exceeds 256TiB on it's own would not be compatible..

Quote

Since 2PB is like the 2TB of today it really seems to be not a lot of space once we get there.

I recall a 1GB SCSI drive seemed to be enormous during the 386 days but who am I to judge what capacity seems ridiculous today.

My first hard Drive was 12MB.

Edited by rloew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...