Okay. This is slightly annoying. Partitioning woes...

[Eli]

Okay. I got my new IBM 75GXP 45gb.

I put it on my Promise/66, it detected it, all was well. I booted into Windows 2000, and went into Disk Management. It saw it, so I began partitioning it.

First partition; FAT32 1.5gb for Win9x/ME. Partitioned and formatted fine.
Second partition; NTFS 2gb for Win2000. Partitioned and formatted fine.
Third partition; FAT32 39.5gb(as reported by windows) for programs. Partitioned fine, but when it tries to format it, it goes through the processs, and when it's done, it pops up with an error, "Volume size is too big.", and it's not formatted.

I tried deleting the partition and re-making it. Same thing. I even tried making it an Extended partition(instead of Primary). Same.

WTF is going on here? :Q

:|:|:|

 

[Eli]

Going to try some things.. Heh.. Hopefully someone will clue me in here.

Tried making it smaller. I made it 39.45gb, with 78mb still unallocated. Didn't work, same error.

 

[Eli]

Made it even smaller. This time 34.18gb, with 5.35gb unallocated. Waiting on the format...

12%..


Done.....


Didn't work. :|:Q:disgust::frown:

 

[AngelOfDeath]

Have you tried the NTFS just for the fun of it???.

AoD

 

[Eli]

But then Windows9x wouldn't be able to see it.. or at least read it, right?

 

[AngelOfDeath]

Right. But I ask b/c NTFS as well as Fat32 should be able to format the HD witout any problems. So I was wondering if it did the same with NTFS.

AoD

 

[AngelOfDeath]

By the way....who needs Win98 . I've been running win2k for about 3/4 of a year now. Almost all gamez worked .

AoD

 

[NicColt]

that's bizare man.... I don't know what to say.

 

[Fisher999]

<<<<<< subscribing to this thread for future reference

 

[Eli]

I booted up into DOS and formatted it. That worked. But my cluster size is 32k. Is there any way to change it?

 

[Floyd]

You can alter cluster size with add-on utilities like Partition Magic, but I don't think it can be decreased due to limitations in the file allocation table. Put simply, the larger your partition becomes, the larger the clusters must be because the FAT can only supply so many entries (pointers) to the clusters. It's been a while since I've toyed with cluster sizes so I might be wrong. I have, for example, forced larger clusters to aid in video applications...less disk I/O processing overhead.

Looking at it objectively, do 32kB clusters adversely affect you in any meaningful way? 40GB is a lot of space to fill up unless of course you're storing many large files like multimedia, in which case cluster waste is irrelevant. Your operating systems, on the other hand, have many small files but they are on smaller partitions with smaller clusters...all is well.

[edit] I just re-read your post, since you intend to install programs onto this large partition (cluster waste is more relevant, but probably still insignificant), you could either resize (increase) your 98 and 2k partitions or create a separate 3-5GB partition for your apps. [/edit]

Best regards,
Floyd

 

[ArkAoss]

why not make 2-3 parts out of that one, one for audio vid, one for apps like office/ adn system utils, another for cd copying and games

 

[Eli]

Well no, it's not a terribly big deal, but I would have liked to change it, if possible.

I'm just spoiled, I guess. My 18gb is formatted with 4k clusters, when it &quot;should&quot; be 16k for an 18gb drive.

I don't think I want to split it up anymore. Having 3 partitions will be weird enough

I'm keeping my old WD Expert 18gb for mp3s and the like.

Do you think putting the WD Expert on it's own channel, and putting the swap file on it would increase performance? Rather than having it on the NTFS partition of the 75GXP?

 

[Floyd]

> &quot;Do you think putting the WD Expert on it's own channel, and putting the swap file on it would increase performance? Rather than having it on the NTFS partition of the 75GXP?&quot;

Yes, most definitely. Placing your apps and swap file on separate physical drives will improve load times and overall performance. Just as an example, you launch an application from your IBM, and the system is simultaneously swapping data off to the WD.

Best regards,
Floyd

 

[Eli]

Cool, thanks. So should I cancel this download of PM6 and just leave the cluster size alone? I don't want to screw anything up..

 

[Floyd]

Nah, I definitely wouldn't cancel the download. Even if you won't use it right away, it is an emminently useful piece of software. If you want, go ahead and resize the clusters...PM will warn you of any issues/limitations before the changes are applied.

Best regards,
Floyd

 

[Fisher999]

If I'd have had the time I would have posted to this thread earlier instead of just subscribe, having used two Promise Ultra66's with Maxtor drives for over a year now I would have suggested, as did another member, that you partition that large 30 something partition into smaller logical volumes to keep the cluster size down. DOS will recognize and PM will create up to 4 Primary partitions but I believe (don't have my documentation here over at my folks place)there is a limitation as to how many &quot;extended partitions&quot; (PM's terminology) can be created in a SINGLE primary partition. As you probably already know, that is the weird way PM creates, or should I say, &quot;labels&quot; &quot;extended partitions&quot;, they are classified, so to speak, as &quot;primary partitions&quot;, but contain &quot;extended partitions&quot;. In OS talk, of course, what this really means is &quot;logical drives in an extended partition&quot;.

I have had best all-around performance in Win98 with cluster sizes of no larger than 8 kB.

In terms of your swap file question; in both Win98 and WinNT 4.0 I have seen significantly improved performance by moving the swap file to the a small partition I create at the beginning of the drive which is usually about 400-600 MB in size, depending upon the amount of RAM in the system and the size I want to &quot;set&quot; the swap file. However, I realize, that if one has the means to do so, that moving the swap file to a seperate hd is the way to go.

BTW ANGEL.... I'd LOVE to make the move to w2k. However, even with a CD burner at hand....I have no original of w2k to &quot;burn&quot; a copy from (Microsoft usually allows one such &quot;burned&quot; copy for back-up purposes) and can't afford to pay MS's high price for a complete copy right now. My NT 4.0 are evaluation copies so they don't qualify for the upgrade price. If you know of a solution to this dilemma I'm sure you would be justly rewarded!

Keep us posted on the results of your partitioning ELI and NEVER,EVER use a Promise FastTrak66
with Maxtor drives using RAID 0!!!! I did, what a nightmare!!!!