windows displays incorrect disk sizes

[janimal]

pentium4 2.4ghz
abit sa7 motherboard 533mhz bus
disks: 40gb(ok), maxtor.160Gb(shown as 128Gb), west.dig.200Gb(shown as 128Gb)

the sizes of all the above disks are displayed correctly in bios, but winxp (disk management) and partition magic only see 128Gb space on each of the large disks. the 160Gb disk has been low level formatted and the 200Gb disk is factory fresh. any suggestions?

[unhappy_mage]

service pack 2 + FAQ FTW

http://www.hardfolding.com/ftag1.php/mem/150072 (http://www.hardfolding.com?go=38&id=150072&tm=33)

[Volkum]

You have to enable LBA support I think.

[feigned]

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=754424

Might as well start putting stickies at the bottom of the page. Seems that people don't even bother to look anymore.

[defakto]

I blame television.

Whoa, whoa. That's enough. I don't want Kyle coming to Disk Storage Systems and saying that the flaming/name calling/disrespect is out of control. I'd suggest that you come up with something on-topic to contribute next time, and leave such disrespectful remarks aside. - DL

I apologize If my remark was taken personally or has offended anyone. It was intended more as a follow up to feigned's post and was not directed at a specific person but was more a small commentary on society its self. Never the less it was truly off topic and I will try to avoid that from happening again. -Defakto

[janimal]

i ran the maxtor big drive enabler, which is supposed to turn on 48-bit LBA, and updated my bios. according to the abit site my board supports 160Gb as standard and over 160Gb with bios update. i'm still hitting a ceiling of 128Gb or 137GB depending on where i look at the disk sizes.

[discochan]

First make sure your have service pack 2

Then go to control panal/adm tools/computer management/storage/disk management

See if there is some space on your hard drive that hasnt been partitioned yet. IF there is then make a new partition and then you can use the space. This happened on my new computer.

[janimal]

i installed xpsp2 straight after installing xp. disk manager shows both large disks as 128Gb.

[feigned]

i installed xpsp2 straight after installing xp. disk manager shows both large disks as 128Gb.
Because they were partitioned and formatted after you installed SP2.

[janimal]

so?

[defakto]

Once xp is installed, the partition size is what it was during install unless you use a program like partition magic or something of the like to extend it out to full size. Just installing service pack 2 afterwards won't do anything but make it so you can see data past the limit pre-SP2.

[janimal]

when i originally installed the 160Gb maxtor, it was post xp install. the full disk size was recognised and i had none of these problems until the disk header got corrupted. from what you're saying i should see usable unpartitioned space in partition magic, but this is not the case. partition magic hits much the same limit as disk manager.

[hulksterjoe]

you should see more space.. I'd recommend using Nlite and making yourself a new slipstreamed OS sp2 copy, so the next time you reload you wont have this problem

[janimal]

ok. i went into partition magic dos mode and found the unpartitioned space was visible there. it was not possible to resize the partitions, only to delete and recreate them. so, having two disks with duplicate data i went through the following sequence:

1 delete partition on 160 drive in dos partition magic and create newe to full size of drive
2 reboot to windows where disk size is now fine, run chkdsk in windows partition magic, shows no errors
3 copy data from 200 drive to 160 drive
4 repeat steps 1 and 2 on 200 disk

when i came to the last pass of copying the data from 160 to 200, i got the error message 'cannot copy, path is too deep'. i got this message when i tried to get a big file off 160 drive before starting the sequence, but didn't worry about it as the file wasn't critical. it seems to mean that i cannot copy off the resized drives file by file or en masse although i can access the data fine. the maximum path depth in the data is six folders deep from the drive letter, and has never given me any hassle before...

[kjm2003]

gawd, all these bigger disk sizes just seem to be a pain in the ass. Im glad ive never worked with anything higher than 120gig.
:\

kyle

[janimal]

http://codebetter.com/blogs/sahil.malik/archive/2004/08/30/23742.aspx
i went into the device manager, where i see 3 network devices. one is my modem, one is a pci network card and one is the onboard network device on the motherboard. i went into properties /advanced on my pci network device, because its the only one with an advanced tab, and turned the link speed to 100 full. hey presto, all data seems to be copying and moving fine. i'll have to test this a bit, but it all looks cool for now. very strange, as my machine hasn't been hooked up to a network over a year, and i don't see what it should have to do with data transfer between two ide devices, but then i am a mere mortal. the path is too deep looks like a many faceted world of pain judging by that thread, but then thats computing all round. at least you can shoot a horse!

[feigned]

http://codebetter.com/blogs/sahil.malik/archive/2004/08/30/23742.aspx
i went into the device manager, where i see 3 network devices. one is my modem, one is a pci network card and one is the onboard network device on the motherboard. i went into properties /advanced on my pci network device, because its the only one with an advanced tab, and turned the link speed to 100 full. hey presto, all data seems to be copying and moving fine. i'll have to test this a bit, but it all looks cool for now. very strange, as my machine hasn't been hooked up to a network over a year, and i don't see what it should have to do with data transfer between two ide devices, but then i am a mere mortal. the path is too deep looks like a many faceted world of pain judging by that thread, but then thats computing all round. at least you can shoot a horse!
That is quite odd.

Path depths shouldn't matter, but isn't there a 256 character limit on file names including the directory structure? Or is 512?

I like the humor in that last line.

[janimal]

i think its 256 but i never get anywhere near that.