Read GPT hard disk on Windows XP

[Cixert]

On 7/9/2023 at 12:31 PM, Houfino said:

I still have a problem..I have a 3TB external drive and XP can't read or write to it... I used the Paragon GPT Loader program...Can't convert it to GPT...How should I solve it? Thank you
 

What brand is the USB box?
You should keep in mind that some modern boxes like the ones from Seagate are not compatible with Windows XP when the drives are larger than 2TB even if you use GPT. Also, most external boxes are limited to 2TB using MBR since these do not have LBA48 support.
You would have to remove the hard drive from the original box and connect it with a compatible USB adapter.
https//msfn.org/board/topic/183934-seagate-external-hard-drive-is-xp-incompatible/

Edited July 23, 2023 by Cixert

[jaclaz]

LBA48 has nothing to do with that.

 

Before LBA 48 (which came with ATA-6 in 2002) the method in use was LBA 28 that did not allow to address more than 128Gib/137 GB. (2^28-1)*512=137,438,952,960

Anything that can address more than that has LBA48 alright.

jaclaz

[Cixert]

On 7/23/2023 at 6:35 PM, jaclaz said:

LBA48 has nothing to do with that.

 

Before LBA 48 (which came with ATA-6 in 2002) the method in use was LBA 28 that did not allow to address more than 128Gib/137 GB. (2^28-1)*512=137,438,952,960

Anything that can address more than that has LBA48 alright.

jaclaz

So, what is the key where some USB adapters do not read MBR + 2 TB?
What is the difference between one that reads it and another that does not?
I have proven that it is not something physical in my adapter, it depends on the firmware version.
New firmware = does not read MBR +2TB
Old Firmware = OK

And the 4 TB limit that I am experiencing in new adapters?

Edited August 22, 2023 by Cixert

[jaclaz]

*Whatever* in the firmware.

The "switch" between LBA28 and LBA48 happens (happened) at a much smaller size, if *something* has not LBA48,it has LBA28, and it "chokes" around 137 GB.

So it is something else.

jaclaz

[Cixert]

I am experimenting with a new 6TB hard drive with GPT and all are problems in all operating systems (XP-Seven-10)

1- My four new Logilink USB adapters are limited with GPT partitions to 5TB (in MBR to 4TB). I have to use a single unit older than I have.

2- I initialize the GPT disk in XP with Acronis Disk Director 12.5 Lite and create 6 partitions (oh I want to try exFAT format and it doesn't have the option to format exFAT). Other programs do not support GPT on XP.

3- After several problems I format the USB hard drive with exFAT from MiniTool Partition Wizard 10.3 in Windows 10. Surprise, Windows 10 does not recognize the format. Ok, I format from Eassos DiskGenius and there is no problem. Windows 10 recognizes partitions.

4- I start Windows XP and it perfectly recognizes the USB hard drive partitions.

5- I disconnect the hard drive from USB and I connect it as SATA. So I boot XP and get blue screen on GPT_LO~1.SYS (ok, I'll check this later, I have Paragon Loader and Windows 2003 drivers installed at the same time).

6- So I boot Windows 10 and surprise, the hard drive system and partitions are not recognized by SATA Windows 10 a few minutes after recognizing it by USB. It looks like an MBR disk with a 2TB partition called GPT and a second RAW partition.

I test on Windows 7 and neither, it looks like a raw disk without partitions.

7-Then I recreate the GPT hard disk by USB from the Windows 10 Disk Manager and format the 6 partitions from it. Then I reinsert it as SATA and the result is the same.

WINDOWS SATA DOES NOT RECOGNIZE GPT HARD DRIVES that have been initialized and partitioned via USB.

When I'm thinking, s***, this is amazing. So I initialize the GPT hard drive from SATA and partition it from SATA. Then I connect the hard drive via USB and surprise, more crap, Windows does not recognize the hard drive created from SATA via USB.

This is a summary of many other problems that I have encountered and have taken away sleep hours. The most amazing thing is that GPT hard drives created by USB are not read by SATA and those created by SATA are not read by USB in both Windows 7 and Windows 10.

So, will it be recognized, if I create it via USB and then change the brand of adapter,?
What if I create by SATA and change the computer hard drive will it be recognized?

Surely everything has a logical explanation, but the problem has not been one, but many.
And most of the GPT applications have not worked well on Windows 10.
Is there a dark hand that doesn't want us to use big hard drives to prevent us from having a lot of content?

Other various problems that I had is that when a GPT partition worked with a program that does not work well in XP or Windows 10 was damaged, the files contained in the other partitions were affected until I corrected the defective partitions from Windows 10.

Test on Eassos Disk Manager on Windows 10

Edited August 24, 2023 by Cixert

[jaclaz]

It is entirely possible that your USB to SATA adapter(s) are translating sector size.

You should check first thing (as already said) how the same hard disk physical and logical sector sizes are seen when connected directly to SATA or via the USB adapter.

As well it is entirely possible that *something else* in the USB adapter creates the issues, the limit to 5 TB for the new ones is strange, and possibly the old one only seemingly works but introduces some kind of problem.

On one side your using each and every (potentially crappy) third party tools is a good thing as it evidences their limits/issues, on the other if you throw at the disks many tools and they give different results you won't likely ever be able to pinpoint the underlying issue (provided that there is a single basic issue that creates different issues to different programs)

Personally there are only two programs that I trust for troubleshooting this kind of issues, though they are not exactly "easy" to use:

#1 gdisk:

https://www.rodsbooks.com/gdisk/

#2 dmde:

https://dmde.com/

Now, if you compare the GPT partition tables (as seen by gdisk p) created by the SAME tool on the SAME OS once when connected via USB and once via SATA, then maybe we can find out what the base issue(s) is(are).

jaclaz

 

[Saxon]

7 hours ago, jaclaz said:

the limit to 5 TB for the new ones is strange, and possibly the old one only seemingly works but introduces some kind of problem

It depends on what you consider old. I perfectly remember those limited crappy Seagate (in cheap-n-ugly plastic boxes) external storage units with that precise limit. Made somewhere in 2015 (2014?). Almost a decade ago.

It tried to put a 8TB HDD (somewhere in 2018) into that box, instead of the unsurprisingly failed Seagate crap, and it showed as 5TB only. Maybe, just maybe the OP was granted with that cheap chip they used in the crappy Seagate?

[jaclaz]

Yep , OP (Cixert) knows very well how Seagate's enclosures may have issues:

https://msfn.org/board/topic/183934-seagate-external-hard-drive-is-xp-incompatible/

but in your specific case that could be due to using a "proprietary" enclosure with another disk (i.e. the firmware of the Seagate enclosure might well have been "paired" to the original 5TB disk), the USB enclosures he is now using are "generic" and - at least in theory - should be compatible with *any* disk.

And the even "stranger" thing is that - according to Cixert's experiences/reports - some limitations appear to be in the (new) firmware/hardware and not on older models from the same "generic" brand .

I am calling the 5 TB as "strange" as it is not one of the more common (mathematical or from specifications) limits, the last one that I can remember is about the width of the emulated SCSI read and write commands in the USB layer, but that "jumps" from 32 bit (making the same 2.2 TB limit as other 32 bit related limits) to 64 bits, i.e. virtually unlimited:

https://superuser.com/questions/308492/is-there-a-size-limit-on-external-usb-hard-drives

This 5TB one seems more like an artificial cap (that could be explained on your Seagate enclosure) imposed by the "generic" manufacturer (or by the chip maker) for no apparent reason.

Looking around on specs for USB external cases, I can find old ones with a 2 TB limit specified and some new ones with a (yet another) limit at 6 and another one at 8 TB (as well without AFAIK a math/spec reason for it), and even more setting the limit at 20 or 22 TB, most have no capacity limits explicited, .

All in all it is a confusing mess.

jaclaz

[Dixel]

5 hours ago, jaclaz said:

I am calling the 5 TB as "strange" as it is not one of the more common (mathematical or from specifications) limits

5TB HDD is itself strange, looks like it's an outsorted 6TB, with a damaged platter, reduced to 5TB with its firmware. It's nothing new, it had been done before. 

[jaclaz]

21 minutes ago, Dixel said:

5TB HDD is itself strange, looks like it's an outsorted 6TB, with a damaged platter, reduced to 5TB with its firmware. It's nothing new, it had been done before. 

It doesn't seem to me a "strange" capacity AFAIK 5 TB is a "common enough" size, both in 3.5" and 2.5" form factor.

jaclaz

[Dixel]

14 hours ago, jaclaz said:

It doesn't seem to me a "strange" capacity AFAIK 5 TB is a "common enough" size, both in 3.5" and 2.5" form factor.

jaclaz

Which makes me think it's simply too many outsourced platters with bad sectors. Why I think so? Hard disks contain equal sized platters, example, 6TB and 8TB have 3x2TB and 4x2TB. Old 3TB models (from 15 years ago) had 2x1.5TB or even 1x1.5 (as one disk, they had such disks. WD green, for example), so what platters they use in 5TB, if we are to consider your theory, jaclaz, I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just curious. What I want to say, perhaps the limit is also in the controller, to make sure no one hacks the original HDD firmware to be able to use the full 6TB (real size).

[jaclaz]

Yes, I find probable that the Seagate controller Saxxon Saxon referenced has been artificially (and intentionally) limited by Seagate to their original (5 TB) hard disk.

I am perplexed by the "third party" enclosures limitations, I could not find a valid reason (from specifications or math) why there should be a limitation at 4 or 5 TB (or at 8, etc.), nor I can imagine how the manufacturer would save even 0.01 $ on the BOM unless the actual chip(s) used come with different cpabilities at different prices (but then why would the chip manufacture produce several different models and I don't think that capacity can be the result of "lower quality" ascertained by post-production tests - like it was the case for the original 386's clock frequency) .

About 5 TB disks being "decommissioned" 6 TB, It is entirely possible if - say - a 3 platters x 2TB hard disk has had a head (defective) disabled in firmware, but it is IMHO not probable for two reasons:

1) there are simply too many 5 TB disks around and at the time they came out there weren't 6 TB or they were very few
2) at least for the older hard disks the (few) cases I have had experience with the heads were disabled in pairs (i.e. both heads of a same platter) so to reduce a 6 TB to 5 TB it would have been a 6 platters by 1 TB each.

Anyway the exact nature of the 5 TB disks is not at all relevant, the current mystery is about these limitations in the enclosure/converter hardware or firmware.

jaclaz

P.S. Addition/correction, after having had a quick look at this it seems like WD tends to keep 2 heads per platter (even), while Seagate seemingly uses "odd" ones, however I couldn't find and example of a 6 TB downsized  to 5 TB, only of 3 and 4 TB disks made on the same "platform" maxing out at 5 TB:

https://www.hddheadtools.com/st3000lm024-head-map-and-head-replacement-tool/

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by jaclaz

[Saxon]

10 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Saxxon

Hello, it's Saxon, not Saxxon. 

 

10 hours ago, jaclaz said:

to reduce a 6 TB to 5 TB it would have been a 6 platters by 1 TB each.

I don't think they make them with 1tb platters, it would be a jet, too noisy, hot and vibrating. Those what they call "high capacity" are 2TB platters. About the controller chip, I'm not sure I read all, did he say his enclosure has one or two chips? Sorry, if I missed. There are two types of enclosures. The most "evil" are with two chips.

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

Those what they call "high capacity" are 2TB platters

And 12TB and up are 4TB, it seems. 

 

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

The most "evil" are with two chips.

I even remember cutting those pins to remove all artificial blocks. Don't do it, if you're not sure! The second chip is usually the culprit. (not always).

https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/c46men/problem_with_wd_my_book_enclosure_snipping_pins_7/

[jaclaz]

14 hours ago, Saxon said:

Hello, it's Saxon, not Saxxon.

Oops, sorry, my bad.

jaclaz