• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

HD Size Limitation?

C

Civic2oo1x

Senior member
If I recall correctly I remember that 98se, and maybe 2k had a HD limit of somewhere near 130 gigs. I was wondering if there is such a thing on XP. I wanted to set up a Raid 0 configuration of 2 120 gig HD's and was wondering if XP would recognize all that space. Thanks a lot for any help.
 
IDE in general is limited to 127G unless you have an ATA/133 controller which supports larger drives. Win98 is not limited to 2G partitions, FAT16 is, FAT32 can theoretically handle several TB partitions although I wouldn't touch that with a 10 yard pole.
 
You could format it with NTFS after you get it set up (since FAT32 is bound to be a bit...slow with that much space). I imagine that everything would work fine with that large a RAID array, since the controller isn't actually seeing a single drive larger than 127MB, it's seeing your two 120 gig drives. However, it may be that due to the way it's having to map things for RAID, the controller will in fact not be able to deal with it. Interesting situation, can't hurt to try it. But you might think about checking with the controller maker and/or the controller chip maker and see what they say. They've hopefully tested that sort of configuration. The OS itself will work just fine with any size drive as long as the file system is capable. Wouldn't want to have to wait for a defrag on this setup though. 🙂

MMMm....two 120GB plus drive's RAIDed if it is possible. What the heck are you doing with that much space?
 
MMMm....two 120GB plus drive's RAIDed if it is possible. What the heck are you doing with that much space?

Wait for one of them to fail then post again about how to get his data back, I'd suspect.
 
If you can afford the extra bucks & have some space in your case you might want to try raid 0 on (4) 60 gb drives. I have this setup in my system with a highpoint ata 133 raid controller. It works great, especially for large graphics / sound files.
Either way you go, you should be happy with the improved performance.
 
Well, technically you double the chance of having a failure which causes you to lose your data. 🙂

I had such issues with a KT7-RAID that I won't use IDE RAID for anything important again. Too many times when I was working to get it set up that the RAID array was just lost for no reason.
 
I'd never risk a 4-way RAID 0 unless I had absolutely nothing vital on those drives.

Much better to go RAID 10 if you really need that kind of speed.
 
Size limitations (ignoring the 128GB limit and the ATA133/48-bit EIDE spec extensions) for each file system are listed here in the FAQ: FAT32 vs NTFS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top