If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
160gb HDD getting repeated corrupted FAT
Ran into what you're speaking of on a 200GB by WD. Have disabled scandisk,
and don't use the native 98SE defrag. Two partitions of various sizes less than 120GB were tried. Tried 3 different 3rd party partition managers as well. Results were always the same. When the total file data on the hard drive reach the vicinity of 120-128GB, massive file damage resulted from FAT problems. Files were split and renamed some off the wall filenames with odd characters in those names. Tried splitting the hard drive into one 100GB FAT32, and the remaining NTFS (for XP use). No dice. Once the data threshold was reached for the entire hard drive, FAT crashed in 98SE. Have since changed to NTFS for all for this hard drive. Its used strictly for week to week partition image files. Held for a month, then replaced when that week comes up again. DI2002 in 98SE environment sees the NTFS partition, but windows explorer does not. -- Jonny "saidean" wrote in message ups.com... Hi everyone, I'd like to find out from those win98se users who are using HDDs of over 120gb capacity. I have a Seagate Barracuda 160gb HDD which I've been using fairly happily until the last few weeks when FAT corruption occurs a bit too frequently for my liking. Firstly I've tried the following to prepare my 160gb HDD:- Method 1: Install HDD, use Partition Magic 7 to partition the HDD into 120gb and 40gb partitions. This was what I did originally. It was okay for the past 4 mths until recently. It could be that I was beginning to hit the 100gb capacity that problems occurred (one possible reason anyway). Method 2: Install HDD, used fdisk in command prompt (updated fdisk), fdisk it and then format it. Win98se recognises it as a 160gb HDD but was unable to scandisk (low memory error). I then use Partition Magic 7 to partition into 80gb and 80gb this time round. Again, errors occurred after transferring my backed up data back onto the HDD (one partition was used). Is there something I'm doing wrong with a 120+gb HDD? The odd thing is this. The latest corruption occurred on the partition that I NEVER used. The 2 partitions are F: and G:. F: is used most frequently - no errors there so far. But today, G: became corrupt (for no reason), with over 35mb of file****.chk files found, and 4 directories reinstated after a command prompt scandisk. I have never used G: at all. One of the chk files contained a CLSID which I tracked it to Norton Protection Recycle Bin. (But prior to this, I disabled Norton PRB for these 2 drives.) I'm beginning to wonder if Norton Protection Recycle Bin might have problems with running on win98se with a 120+ gb hdd. My specs: P4 2.ghz Intel CPU, 512mb Ram, Nvidia 5900fx card, Gigabyte 8IEXP mobo, 2xWestern Digital 60gb RAID HDDs, 1x Seagate 80gb HDD, 1x Seagate 160gb HDD. Windows 98SE (fully updated), Running Norton Systemworks Premier 2005 (NAV and Recycle Bin running), Blackice Defender, ZoneAlarm in memory. If anyone can help me that'd be great. Am I partitioning my 120+gb harddisk wrong? Should I instead get a 120gb harddisk? Is Norton Recycle Bin the cause of the problems - does it have issues with large HDDs on win98se? Is the mobo/cpu now incompatible with the newer HDDs? Any help appreciated! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
160gb HDD getting repeated corrupted FAT
Have you tried sending an email to Seagate Tech Support off their web site?
They have always responded with me. Also, have you tried using any of the diagnostics, especially the DOS versions? Alan "saidean" wrote in message ups.com... Hi everyone, I'd like to find out from those win98se users who are using HDDs of over 120gb capacity. I have a Seagate Barracuda 160gb HDD which I've been using fairly happily until the last few weeks when FAT corruption occurs a bit too frequently for my liking. Firstly I've tried the following to prepare my 160gb HDD:- Method 1: Install HDD, use Partition Magic 7 to partition the HDD into 120gb and 40gb partitions. This was what I did originally. It was okay for the past 4 mths until recently. It could be that I was beginning to hit the 100gb capacity that problems occurred (one possible reason anyway). Method 2: Install HDD, used fdisk in command prompt (updated fdisk), fdisk it and then format it. Win98se recognises it as a 160gb HDD but was unable to scandisk (low memory error). I then use Partition Magic 7 to partition into 80gb and 80gb this time round. Again, errors occurred after transferring my backed up data back onto the HDD (one partition was used). Is there something I'm doing wrong with a 120+gb HDD? The odd thing is this. The latest corruption occurred on the partition that I NEVER used. The 2 partitions are F: and G:. F: is used most frequently - no errors there so far. But today, G: became corrupt (for no reason), with over 35mb of file****.chk files found, and 4 directories reinstated after a command prompt scandisk. I have never used G: at all. One of the chk files contained a CLSID which I tracked it to Norton Protection Recycle Bin. (But prior to this, I disabled Norton PRB for these 2 drives.) I'm beginning to wonder if Norton Protection Recycle Bin might have problems with running on win98se with a 120+ gb hdd. My specs: P4 2.ghz Intel CPU, 512mb Ram, Nvidia 5900fx card, Gigabyte 8IEXP mobo, 2xWestern Digital 60gb RAID HDDs, 1x Seagate 80gb HDD, 1x Seagate 160gb HDD. Windows 98SE (fully updated), Running Norton Systemworks Premier 2005 (NAV and Recycle Bin running), Blackice Defender, ZoneAlarm in memory. If anyone can help me that'd be great. Am I partitioning my 120+gb harddisk wrong? Should I instead get a 120gb harddisk? Is Norton Recycle Bin the cause of the problems - does it have issues with large HDDs on win98se? Is the mobo/cpu now incompatible with the newer HDDs? Any help appreciated! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
160gb HDD getting repeated corrupted FAT
"Eric P." wrote in message ... ++++Jack++++ wrote: Best would be to jumper the harddisk to 128/137GB when the disk has such a provision or do the same thing with manufacturer's software if available. Don't understand what you mean by this, can you please explain??? Some disk manufacturers make it possible to restrict the max. capacity of a bigger than 128/137GB disk to 128/137GB by setting a jumper on the drive, as some did in earlier years for over 8GB and over 32GB drives. This would make it possible to use the harddisk with Windows 98SE. In the ATA standard, that has many disk commands, are commands that have to do with setting a maximum capacity like command "Set Maximum Address". Some harddisk manufacturers have downloadable software that can change properties of a disk, like running slower for less noise and maybe also to set the maximum capacity to something like 128/137GB. Sorry, I can't show you an example of this at the moment. not required Eric , OP had two 80gb partitions ...as long as any given partition is lees that 127gb , windows 98 should have no problem with it ... (although there may be a problem running defrag / scandisk) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
160gb HDD getting repeated corrupted FAT
Rick Chauvin wrote:
snip Since W98SE in it's stock condition with it's Windows IDE controller driver does not support 48 bit LBA even though your new onboard bios mostlikely does, and so you must replace that W98 IDE controller driver (esdi_506.pdr) with a substitute/better driver that will support 48bit for your large HD's - and if you don't then corruption 'will occur' on that drive. Just to clarify; is this the case even if the drive is partitioned into normal sized chunks (i.e. under 100MB?) I'd thought if the drive is partitioned, W98 would just see it as two normal IDE drives of that capacity..? Ian |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
160gb HDD getting repeated corrupted FAT
Haggis wrote:
"Eric P." wrote in message ... ++++Jack++++ wrote: Best would be to jumper the harddisk to 128/137GB when the disk has such a provision or do the same thing with manufacturer's software if available. Don't understand what you mean by this, can you please explain??? Some disk manufacturers make it possible to restrict the max. capacity of a bigger than 128/137GB disk to 128/137GB by setting a jumper on the drive, as some did in earlier years for over 8GB and over 32GB drives. This would make it possible to use the harddisk with Windows 98SE. In the ATA standard, that has many disk commands, are commands that have to do with setting a maximum capacity like command "Set Maximum Address". Some harddisk manufacturers have downloadable software that can change properties of a disk, like running slower for less noise and maybe also to set the maximum capacity to something like 128/137GB. Sorry, I can't show you an example of this at the moment. not required Eric , OP had two 80gb partitions ...as long as any given partition is lees that 127gb , windows 98 should have no problem with it ... (although there may be a problem running defrag / scandisk) According the old discussions I read some time ago it's the total size of the disk that matters and not the size of partitions on the disk. But you will not notice immediately Windows 98SE doesn't support large disks, that happens while the disk is filled with data. Discussions like below are good enough for me to restrict myself to 120GB harddisks or smaller. QUOTE A source at MS told me that W98 does not support hard drives larger than 137gb regardless of how they are partitioned and that data loss is possible when a partition starts to approach being full. This site details a work around; however, I cannot vouch for it as I don't have a drive that large. http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm -- Regards Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98 Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour Knowledge Base Info: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo ***** Are you saying that a 160GB drive that has only 130GB partitioned and formatted is at risk, even though the remaining space is not partitioned, not formatted, and is unavailable for use in W98. If this is the case, then Seagate (and probably others) has made a grave error with their partitioning and formatting software since that is what it does when used on a W98 machine. It will not allow use of the drive beyond 137GB. The remaining space is left unused and unavailable. -- Pat ***** Yes. I am repeating what I was told by a MS source and I cannot speak to Seagate's procedures as I do not have a hard drive big enough to experiment. I throw the info out so the person can "error" on the side of caution and keep good back ups or upgrade to XP. -- Regards Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98 Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour Knowledge Base Info: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo ***** That is what I thought was the situation. As long as total data is less than 137Gb (128GiB) the problem isn't an issue. As I understand it, even having the drive formatted to over 137GB isn't a problem as long as the total data on the drive is less than 137GB. Obviously, formatting to less than 137GB insures that the total data will be less than this limit. This is a different problem than running ScanDisk and Defrag on large partitions. Per Ron Martell's post of a couple weeks ago, the ScanDisk and Defrag issue has to due with the number of clusters in a partition not the actual size of the partition. Although, as I understand it, there is a 120GB limit on ScanDisk and Defrag regardless of cluster size or cluster count. -- Pat ***** Neither Ron can't really confirm what I'm saying about this. MS has been terribly quiet about it for some reason. This has me baffled as they are usually up front about things like this. Am not expecting a fix, but MS acknowledging the problem would make it easier for people to believe me when I state the problem. Am defragging with Diskeeper. The only hard drive I have that may present the 128GB data problem is 200GB, have repartitioned and formatted NTFS type 3 for XP use. This is the hard drive I found the problem with 98 and ME. Tried all kinds of partition sizes, even two partitions FAT32 totallying120GB, and remainder NTFS type 3, didn't solve it. -- Jonny ****** The origin of the problem seems to be that Scandisk and Defrag were written in such a way that there are limits on the size of internal tables etc. The operations of these utilities requires that they construct a table in memory with one entry for each cluster on the drive, and when there are more than 4.1 million (2^22) total clusters the size of the required table exceeds the capabilities of the program. Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006) ***** AND Subject: Win98 SE 48bit LBA support for esdi_506.pdr driver From: (Svend Olaf Mikkelsen) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:36:53 GMT Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.disks.general Without commenting the conditions in which the 128 GB problem occur, I can say that it is a critical error and bug that a disk is reported by the operating system as larger than 32 GB or 128 GB, but all data written more than 32 GB or 128 GB into the disk are written to wrong locations. The Microsoft partition related bugs damages terabytes of data each day. -- Svend Olaf Subject: Win98 SE 48bit LBA support for esdi_506.pdr driver From: "Lil' Dave" Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 06:51:26 -0600 Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.disks.general MS will not make an official reply to this newgroup. That includes any MS official that monitors this newsgroup unofficially. I can assure you that MS is fully aware of the 48 bit LBA problem with the Win9X operating systems, and has been aware of it for quite some time. There is not just one, but many problems with this. Windows rides on the disk operating system (DOS), and has an environment called "windows". The 48 bit access problem has to be addressed in both environments. In addition, windows tools like scandisk and defrag were not designed to work in the environments if the OS can address 48 bit disk access. Am not sure, but windows explorer may have problems in this environment as well. There may be other unknowns that will have problems as well. So, as you can easily see, windows 9X needs a complete revamp to work in the environment that can access 48 bit LBA. MS has been developing their more current OSes to work properly in this area. So, I don't expect MS to revamp Win98/98SE for that purpose. My suggestion is to use their most current operating system if you require 48 bit LBA on your hard drives for full capacity use, and for windows disk tools to operate correctly as well. To avoid partition size limitations, use the NTFS for a filesystem vice FAT32. **** AND Subject: Limit on External HD size? From: "Jeff Richards" Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:20:42 +1000 Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.disks.general AFAICT the drive size problem won't arise with the correct controller, but the partition size will be a problem unless there are updated drivers available for W98. However, this is far from clear, and it's quite possible that the drive size is a problem, even with a partition limited to 137Gb, without the driver update. I believe that a drive that is limited to 137Gb by jumpers will be OK. This has the advantage of later using the full capacity when it is upgraded. Also, I don't know what the quality of the new drivers is. I can't see the point in installing drives this size. I can't use 40Gb. Perhaps some people have special requirements. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) "Ron Badour" wrote in message ... Hi Jeff, I checked with BrianB some time ago about this and the word he got from the W98 people is the disk size, not the partition size, is what counts--that using a drive over 137 gb can result in data loss. I don't ever plan on buying a drive this big so I guess I will never be able to test it myself. -- Regards Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98 Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour Knowledge Base Info: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo "Jeff Richards" wrote in message ... You can probably use a 160Gb disk if you either limit the visible disk size to 137Gb (some disks have jumpers to allow this), or partition it to use only the first 137Gb. You need to be sure that the device driver is compatible with both Windows 98 and your version of USB/Firewire interface. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) "Ryan" wrote in message ... Ron, Thanks so much for the quick response, I do appreciate it. Rather than upgrading a computer to XP that's on its last leg, it'd just be easier to get a 120 gb HD. The 160 gb is not THAT important, just found a good price on one. /QUOTE |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
160gb HDD getting repeated corrupted FAT
Eric P. wrote: According the old discussions I read some time ago it's the total size of the disk that matters and not the size of partitions on the disk. [...] No, actually the truth is that it is Both! First you have the 137/128 max HD size issue because of the limitation of the W98 IDE stock controller driver (esdi_506.pdr) not supporting 48 bit, but realize that is Easily overcome as I've previously outlined (preferably by using an appropriate 48 bit LBA supported pci controller card). Second, once you overcome the first now you have the Max Partition issue (limitations of windows utilities) to overcome, but again this is easily overcome as well by making sure All partitions are under 128 GB ..if both of those are done then end of discussion and there is no more limitations; scandisk and defrag work just as they were intended and Win98 can properly//fully see larger hard drives and use all of its partitions safely. Rick ...and ps http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm ..is a good site yes, but imho could more clearly outline the pertinent facts in context order. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
160gb HDD getting repeated corrupted FAT
Jaxtraw wrote: Rick Chauvin wrote: snip Since W98SE in it's stock condition with it's Windows IDE controller driver does not support 48 bit LBA even though your new onboard bios mostlikely does, and so you must replace that W98 IDE controller driver (esdi_506.pdr) with a substitute/better driver that will support 48bit for your large HD's - and if you don't then corruption 'will occur' on that drive. Just to clarify; is this the case even if the drive is partitioned into normal sized chunks (i.e. under 100MB?) Yes I'd thought if the drive is partitioned, W98 would just see it as two normal IDE drives of that capacity..? Yes that's true too, but, there's more to it than that and just left like you said it is trouble. Understanding it is one, two, and three. 1. ...esdi_506.pdr 2. & 3. ...scandisk & defrag 1, 2, 3 explained is that once you dissolve the original limitation of the windows driver (esdi_506.pdr) preferable by using an appropriate 48 bit LBA supported pci controller card like the one I've always mentioned, and so that takes care of the limitation of using any Hard Drive over 137/128 GB; but also take notice, now you have to deal with the other Win9x OS limitation that will always exist which is the fact that now you also cannot have any one partition over 128 GB (when using W98 (FAT32)) since the Windows utilities of defrag and scandisk will still not work properly with anything over 128 GB and will corrupt ....that's why I have always said realize that you really have two limitations (both easily overcome) ...again the first to overcome is the HD size limitation, but then once you do that then you Still have to deal with the Windows Utilities limitation (which as it now stands will be forevermore unless MS rewrites the Scandisk/Defrag which is not going to happen) but no problem because that's easily to overcome as well if you always remember to partition up a larger hard drive so that no one partition is ever over 128 GB then scandisk and defrag works just fine. With both situations taken care of you now have no limitations to Win9x (within the context of what we are speaking of) Rick Ian |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
160gb HDD getting repeated corrupted FAT | saidean | General | 16 | July 6th 06 12:32 AM |
SCREENSAVER corrupted (win 98) | BoazBoaz | General | 3 | May 17th 06 10:10 AM |
Ron Martell, question on 160GB drives and Win 98 | Ron Badour | Improving Performance | 0 | November 30th 05 05:56 AM |
REPAIRING A Corrupted Windows (not internet) Explorer | mrbigbry | General | 6 | October 29th 05 09:48 PM |
Corrupted partition | farledagain | General | 4 | September 2nd 04 08:56 PM |