1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Need to make a single 3TB partition

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by Yousuf Khan, Mar 29, 2010.

  1. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    Bought a dual-disk USB enclosure and a couple of 1.5TB drives to put
    into it. First of all, the enclosure has a built in concatenation
    feature. When using that, Windows and Linux both see it as an 800 GB
    drive, rather than a 3000 GB drive! So I put it back to regular mode,
    and we see two separate 1.5 TB drives again.

    Next I tried concatenating through Windows Disk Management. BTW, this is
    Windows 7 Ultimate Edition x64. When I use the Spanned Volume wizard, it
    gives the error message, "Operation is not supported by object". I then
    tried converting each disk from MBR partitions to the new GPT
    partitions, it accepted that. I then retried the Spanned Volume wizard,
    and the same message appeared. Then I tried converting them to Dynamic
    disks, but it showed the "Operation is not supported by object" message
    again. I think whatever the problem is, it's from this stage where it
    tries to convert to dynamic disks. So why isn't it accepting the
    conversion to dynamic disks?

    Yousuf Khan
     
  2. Rod Speed

    Rod Speed Flightless Bird

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > Bought a dual-disk USB enclosure and a couple of 1.5TB drives to put
    > into it. First of all, the enclosure has a built in concatenation
    > feature. When using that, Windows and Linux both see it as an 800 GB
    > drive, rather than a 3000 GB drive! So I put it back to regular mode,
    > and we see two separate 1.5 TB drives again.
    >
    > Next I tried concatenating through Windows Disk Management. BTW, this
    > is Windows 7 Ultimate Edition x64. When I use the Spanned Volume
    > wizard, it gives the error message, "Operation is not supported by
    > object". I then tried converting each disk from MBR partitions to the
    > new GPT partitions, it accepted that. I then retried the Spanned
    > Volume wizard, and the same message appeared. Then I tried converting
    > them to Dynamic disks, but it showed the "Operation is not supported
    > by object" message again. I think whatever the problem is, it's from
    > this stage where it tries to convert to dynamic disks. So why isn't
    > it accepting the conversion to dynamic disks?


    A much more fundamental question is whether you really want to do that.

    The shit hits the fan very comprehensively indeed if one of the drives dies.
     
  3. JW

    JW Flightless Bird

    On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:00:49 -0400 Yousuf Khan
    <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in Message id:
    <4bb16962$1@news.bnb-lp.com>:

    >Bought a dual-disk USB enclosure and a couple of 1.5TB drives to put
    >into it. First of all, the enclosure has a built in concatenation
    >feature. When using that, Windows and Linux both see it as an 800 GB
    >drive, rather than a 3000 GB drive! So I put it back to regular mode,
    >and we see two separate 1.5 TB drives again.
    >
    >Next I tried concatenating through Windows Disk Management. BTW, this is
    >Windows 7 Ultimate Edition x64. When I use the Spanned Volume wizard, it
    >gives the error message, "Operation is not supported by object". I then
    >tried converting each disk from MBR partitions to the new GPT
    >partitions, it accepted that. I then retried the Spanned Volume wizard,
    >and the same message appeared. Then I tried converting them to Dynamic
    >disks, but it showed the "Operation is not supported by object" message
    >again. I think whatever the problem is, it's from this stage where it
    >tries to convert to dynamic disks. So why isn't it accepting the
    >conversion to dynamic disks?


    Just guessing here, but do USB devices support spanning natively?
    See
    http://social.answers.microsoft.com.../thread/534f4fa0-7a61-4a23-952f-e034e1137e03/
     
  4. Arno

    Arno Flightless Bird

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Bought a dual-disk USB enclosure and a couple of 1.5TB drives to put
    > into it. First of all, the enclosure has a built in concatenation
    > feature. When using that, Windows and Linux both see it as an 800 GB
    > drive, rather than a 3000 GB drive! So I put it back to regular mode,
    > and we see two separate 1.5 TB drives again.


    > Next I tried concatenating through Windows Disk Management. BTW, this is
    > Windows 7 Ultimate Edition x64. When I use the Spanned Volume wizard, it
    > gives the error message, "Operation is not supported by object". I then
    > tried converting each disk from MBR partitions to the new GPT
    > partitions, it accepted that. I then retried the Spanned Volume wizard,
    > and the same message appeared. Then I tried converting them to Dynamic
    > disks, but it showed the "Operation is not supported by object" message
    > again. I think whatever the problem is, it's from this stage where it
    > tries to convert to dynamic disks. So why isn't it accepting the
    > conversion to dynamic disks?


    > Yousuf Khan


    Maybe Windows thinks that you cannot possibly want to span on
    removable devices? It has this habit of thinking it knows
    what you do and do not want but at the same time is far too
    stupid to pull it off.

    Incidentially the 800GB seems to be a problem with the enclosure,
    there is no limit (that I know of) at 39.5 bit adress length.
    Maybe give this pice of trash back?

    USB storage supports both SCSI 32 and SCSI 64 bit sector numbers.

    Arno

    --
    Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
    GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    ----
    Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
     
  5. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

  6. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > A much more fundamental question is whether you really want to do that.


    Yeah, I do, I don't care about the points of failure argument. This is
    going to be used as a backup device, for my other drives. It's going to
    be unplugged and/or unpowered most of the rest of the time.

    Yousuf Khan
     
  7. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    Arno wrote:
    > Maybe Windows thinks that you cannot possibly want to span on
    > removable devices? It has this habit of thinking it knows
    > what you do and do not want but at the same time is far too
    > stupid to pull it off.


    Yeah, it looks like the case here. The technote says Microsoft doesn't
    support this on USB or Firewire drives.

    > Incidentially the 800GB seems to be a problem with the enclosure,
    > there is no limit (that I know of) at 39.5 bit adress length.
    > Maybe give this pice of trash back?


    Is it possible that there is a BIOS limitation, beyond 2TB? The
    motherboard I'm using is a rather plain desktop mobo, it may not be
    expecting such huge devices to join in?

    > USB storage supports both SCSI 32 and SCSI 64 bit sector numbers.


    Does the Windows USB mass storage driver treat them as SCSI devices?

    Oh, BTW, when I tried spanning them through Windows' spanning wizard
    (during initial setup prior to receiving the error message), it accepted
    the combined size as 2794 GB, however it would only allow a filesystem
    size of half of that to be created, 1397 GB! That's also the exact size
    of each individual drive. So it looks like it wasn't going to accept
    being spanned over two disks no matter what.

    I also tried using Linux's LVM to do this, and it created similarly
    sloppy results. I don't think it's got anything to do with any
    limitations that the enclosure has, as the problems seem to be universal
    throughout Windows and Linux.

    Yousuf Khan
     
  8. Rod Speed

    Rod Speed Flightless Bird

    Yousuf Khan wrote
    > JW wrote


    >> Just guessing here, but do USB devices support spanning natively?
    >> See
    >> http://social.answers.microsoft.com.../thread/534f4fa0-7a61-4a23-952f-e034e1137e03/


    > Well according to that, it looks like (at least as of Windows 2000)
    > dynamic disks weren't supported on USB or Firewire disks.


    It wouldnt be surprising if it isnt supported in any version of win,
    essentially because thats very risky with removable drives.
     
  9. Rod Speed

    Rod Speed Flightless Bird

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > Arno wrote:
    >> Maybe Windows thinks that you cannot possibly want to span on
    >> removable devices? It has this habit of thinking it knows
    >> what you do and do not want but at the same time is far too
    >> stupid to pull it off.

    >
    > Yeah, it looks like the case here. The technote says Microsoft doesn't
    > support this on USB or Firewire drives.
    >
    >> Incidentially the 800GB seems to be a problem with the enclosure,
    >> there is no limit (that I know of) at 39.5 bit adress length.
    >> Maybe give this pice of trash back?

    >
    > Is it possible that there is a BIOS limitation, beyond 2TB? The
    > motherboard I'm using is a rather plain desktop mobo, it may not be
    > expecting such huge devices to join in?
    >
    >> USB storage supports both SCSI 32 and SCSI 64 bit sector numbers.

    >
    > Does the Windows USB mass storage driver treat them as SCSI devices?
    >
    > Oh, BTW, when I tried spanning them through Windows' spanning wizard
    > (during initial setup prior to receiving the error message), it
    > accepted the combined size as 2794 GB, however it would only allow a
    > filesystem size of half of that to be created, 1397 GB! That's also
    > the exact size of each individual drive. So it looks like it wasn't
    > going to accept being spanned over two disks no matter what.
    >
    > I also tried using Linux's LVM to do this, and it created similarly
    > sloppy results. I don't think it's got anything to do with any
    > limitations that the enclosure has, as the problems seem to be
    > universal throughout Windows and Linux.


    Likely because they all decide that its much too risky to allow with removable drives.

    Corse in your case both drives are in the same box, but its clear why they are being
    so conservative when the result when one of the drives is removed is so catestrophic.
     
  10. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > Yousuf Khan wrote
    >> JW wrote

    >
    >>> Just guessing here, but do USB devices support spanning natively?
    >>> See
    >>> http://social.answers.microsoft.com.../thread/534f4fa0-7a61-4a23-952f-e034e1137e03/

    >
    >> Well according to that, it looks like (at least as of Windows 2000)
    >> dynamic disks weren't supported on USB or Firewire disks.

    >
    > It wouldnt be surprising if it isnt supported in any version of win,
    > essentially because thats very risky with removable drives.



    Now the question is what would let me span these two drives together?

    Yousuf Khan
     
  11. Arno

    Arno Flightless Bird

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Arno wrote:
    >> Maybe Windows thinks that you cannot possibly want to span on
    >> removable devices? It has this habit of thinking it knows
    >> what you do and do not want but at the same time is far too
    >> stupid to pull it off.


    > Yeah, it looks like the case here. The technote says Microsoft doesn't
    > support this on USB or Firewire drives.


    Well, it does make some sense. Personally, I think the idea
    of "removable" devices is fundamentally flawed, and mounting and
    umounting as in Linux/unix is the far better approach. Bit apparently
    MS customers just yank out devices if it is mechanically possible.
    That could be a deisaster if the devices are RAIDed/


    >> Incidentially the 800GB seems to be a problem with the enclosure,
    >> there is no limit (that I know of) at 39.5 bit adress length.
    >> Maybe give this pice of trash back?


    > Is it possible that there is a BIOS limitation, beyond 2TB? The
    > motherboard I'm using is a rather plain desktop mobo, it may not be
    > expecting such huge devices to join in?


    USB does not go over the BIOS, at least not in Linux. 2TB is 41
    bit. No limit on byte level I can see. Number of sectors would
    be 32. Ah, I think I see the problem. USB is using the storage
    SCSI command set. It has either 32 bit or 64 bit for the sector
    number. If the enclosure is resonably current, it should
    support 64 bit sector numbers. Linux need compiled in kernel
    support for large block devices to be able to handle block
    devices > 2TB. This support has been there for some years, but
    may be missing from your kernel. The config option is
    CONFIG_LBDAF and found under "enable block layer" in 2.6.32.

    I have no idea whether XP supports 64 bit sector numbers, but
    apparently not.

    >> USB storage supports both SCSI 32 and SCSI 64 bit sector numbers.


    > Does the Windows USB mass storage driver treat them as SCSI devices?


    Yes., but may be missing support for 64 bit sector numbers.

    > Oh, BTW, when I tried spanning them through Windows' spanning wizard
    > (during initial setup prior to receiving the error message), it accepted
    > the combined size as 2794 GB, however it would only allow a filesystem
    > size of half of that to be created, 1397 GB! That's also the exact size
    > of each individual drive. So it looks like it wasn't going to accept
    > being spanned over two disks no matter what.


    > I also tried using Linux's LVM to do this, and it created similarly
    > sloppy results. I don't think it's got anything to do with any
    > limitations that the enclosure has, as the problems seem to be universal
    > throughout Windows and Linux.


    See above. I have had the large block device support enabled
    for ages in my own kernels, no negative effect so far.

    Arno
    --
    Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
    GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    ----
    Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
     
  12. Arno

    Arno Flightless Bird

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >> Yousuf Khan wrote
    >>> JW wrote

    >>
    >>>> Just guessing here, but do USB devices support spanning natively?
    >>>> See
    >>>> http://social.answers.microsoft.com.../thread/534f4fa0-7a61-4a23-952f-e034e1137e03/

    >>
    >>> Well according to that, it looks like (at least as of Windows 2000)
    >>> dynamic disks weren't supported on USB or Firewire disks.

    >>
    >> It wouldnt be surprising if it isnt supported in any version of win,
    >> essentially because thats very risky with removable drives.



    > Now the question is what would let me span these two drives together?


    I think it is an OS issue, see my other posting.

    Arno
    --
    Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
    GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    ----
    Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
     
  13. Rod Speed

    Rod Speed Flightless Bird

    Yousuf Khan wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> Yousuf Khan wrote
    >>> JW wrote


    >>>> Just guessing here, but do USB devices support spanning natively?
    >>>> See
    >>>> http://social.answers.microsoft.com.../thread/534f4fa0-7a61-4a23-952f-e034e1137e03/


    >>> Well according to that, it looks like (at least as of Windows 2000)
    >>> dynamic disks weren't supported on USB or Firewire disks.


    >> It wouldnt be surprising if it isnt supported in any version of win,
    >> essentially because thats very risky with removable drives.


    > Now the question is what would let me span these two drives together?


    The drive itself clearly does that. You need to ask the manufacturer why
    it doesnt appear as the full size, presumably its a common problem.
     
  14. Char Jackson

    Char Jackson Flightless Bird

    On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:58:28 -0400, Yousuf Khan
    <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:

    >Rod Speed wrote:
    >> Yousuf Khan wrote
    >>> JW wrote

    >>
    >>>> Just guessing here, but do USB devices support spanning natively?
    >>>> See
    >>>> http://social.answers.microsoft.com.../thread/534f4fa0-7a61-4a23-952f-e034e1137e03/

    >>
    >>> Well according to that, it looks like (at least as of Windows 2000)
    >>> dynamic disks weren't supported on USB or Firewire disks.

    >>
    >> It wouldnt be surprising if it isnt supported in any version of win,
    >> essentially because thats very risky with removable drives.

    >
    >
    >Now the question is what would let me span these two drives together?
    >
    > Yousuf Khan


    You might have some luck by using a true RAID controller, perhaps with
    eSATA port(s), rather than messing with USB, unless this thing needs
    to be semi-portable. If you went with RAID the drive enclosure would
    still be used as a physical home and to supply power to the drives,
    but the data connection would be to the RAID controller instead of
    USB.
     
  15. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    Arno wrote:
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> Arno wrote:
    >>> Maybe Windows thinks that you cannot possibly want to span on
    >>> removable devices? It has this habit of thinking it knows
    >>> what you do and do not want but at the same time is far too
    >>> stupid to pull it off.

    >
    >> Yeah, it looks like the case here. The technote says Microsoft doesn't
    >> support this on USB or Firewire drives.

    >
    > Well, it does make some sense. Personally, I think the idea
    > of "removable" devices is fundamentally flawed, and mounting and
    > umounting as in Linux/unix is the far better approach. Bit apparently
    > MS customers just yank out devices if it is mechanically possible.
    > That could be a deisaster if the devices are RAIDed/
    >
    >
    >>> Incidentially the 800GB seems to be a problem with the enclosure,
    >>> there is no limit (that I know of) at 39.5 bit adress length.
    >>> Maybe give this pice of trash back?

    >
    >> Is it possible that there is a BIOS limitation, beyond 2TB? The
    >> motherboard I'm using is a rather plain desktop mobo, it may not be
    >> expecting such huge devices to join in?

    >
    > USB does not go over the BIOS, at least not in Linux. 2TB is 41
    > bit. No limit on byte level I can see. Number of sectors would
    > be 32. Ah, I think I see the problem. USB is using the storage
    > SCSI command set. It has either 32 bit or 64 bit for the sector
    > number. If the enclosure is resonably current, it should
    > support 64 bit sector numbers. Linux need compiled in kernel
    > support for large block devices to be able to handle block
    > devices > 2TB. This support has been there for some years, but
    > may be missing from your kernel. The config option is
    > CONFIG_LBDAF and found under "enable block layer" in 2.6.32.


    I asked the same question to Janos Mathe, the developer of HD Sentinel,
    he believes that the USB-SATA chipset is to blame here. These are his words:

    > It seems it is an overflow issue in addressing.
    > I'm sure it is not related to BIOS as the BIOS would only cause troubles
    > on disks which are under its control (for example if they were connected
    > to the motherboard and you'd try to boot from it). USB devices are controlled by the USB drivers of the OSes (Windows/Linux).
    >
    > I suspect the problem is related to the JMicron USB-ATA bridge which
    > translates the USB packets to ATA commands sent to the SATA drives.
    > I quickly checked the specs of this chip at http://www.jmicron.com/PDF/JM20336/JM20336.pdf
    > but as I see, JMicron do not mention the maximum drive capacity to be used.
    > However, I think at the time of release (2005) they were not prepared
    > for such BIG concatenated array and that's why the LBA addressing wraps around over 2 TB.
    > If I can help, please let me know.


    So it looks like there may be nothing that can be done here.

    Yousuf Khan
     
  16. Char Jackson

    Char Jackson Flightless Bird

    On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:40:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan
    <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:

    >Arno wrote:
    >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>> Arno wrote:
    >>>> Maybe Windows thinks that you cannot possibly want to span on
    >>>> removable devices? It has this habit of thinking it knows
    >>>> what you do and do not want but at the same time is far too
    >>>> stupid to pull it off.

    >>
    >>> Yeah, it looks like the case here. The technote says Microsoft doesn't
    >>> support this on USB or Firewire drives.

    >>
    >> Well, it does make some sense. Personally, I think the idea
    >> of "removable" devices is fundamentally flawed, and mounting and
    >> umounting as in Linux/unix is the far better approach. Bit apparently
    >> MS customers just yank out devices if it is mechanically possible.
    >> That could be a deisaster if the devices are RAIDed/
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Incidentially the 800GB seems to be a problem with the enclosure,
    >>>> there is no limit (that I know of) at 39.5 bit adress length.
    >>>> Maybe give this pice of trash back?

    >>
    >>> Is it possible that there is a BIOS limitation, beyond 2TB? The
    >>> motherboard I'm using is a rather plain desktop mobo, it may not be
    >>> expecting such huge devices to join in?

    >>
    >> USB does not go over the BIOS, at least not in Linux. 2TB is 41
    >> bit. No limit on byte level I can see. Number of sectors would
    >> be 32. Ah, I think I see the problem. USB is using the storage
    >> SCSI command set. It has either 32 bit or 64 bit for the sector
    >> number. If the enclosure is resonably current, it should
    >> support 64 bit sector numbers. Linux need compiled in kernel
    >> support for large block devices to be able to handle block
    >> devices > 2TB. This support has been there for some years, but
    >> may be missing from your kernel. The config option is
    >> CONFIG_LBDAF and found under "enable block layer" in 2.6.32.

    >
    >I asked the same question to Janos Mathe, the developer of HD Sentinel,
    >he believes that the USB-SATA chipset is to blame here. These are his words:
    >
    >> It seems it is an overflow issue in addressing.
    >> I'm sure it is not related to BIOS as the BIOS would only cause troubles
    >> on disks which are under its control (for example if they were connected
    >> to the motherboard and you'd try to boot from it). USB devices are controlled by the USB drivers of the OSes (Windows/Linux).
    >>
    >> I suspect the problem is related to the JMicron USB-ATA bridge which
    >> translates the USB packets to ATA commands sent to the SATA drives.
    >> I quickly checked the specs of this chip at http://www.jmicron.com/PDF/JM20336/JM20336.pdf
    >> but as I see, JMicron do not mention the maximum drive capacity to be used.
    >> However, I think at the time of release (2005) they were not prepared
    >> for such BIG concatenated array and that's why the LBA addressing wraps around over 2 TB.
    >> If I can help, please let me know.

    >
    >So it looks like there may be nothing that can be done here.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan


    Was my suggestion (RAID controller versus USB controller) considered?
     
  17. JEDIDIAH

    JEDIDIAH Flightless Bird

    On 2010-03-30, Arno <me@privacy.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
    >> Arno wrote:
    >>> Maybe Windows thinks that you cannot possibly want to span on
    >>> removable devices? It has this habit of thinking it knows
    >>> what you do and do not want but at the same time is far too
    >>> stupid to pull it off.

    >
    >> Yeah, it looks like the case here. The technote says Microsoft doesn't
    >> support this on USB or Firewire drives.

    >
    > Well, it does make some sense. Personally, I think the idea
    > of "removable" devices is fundamentally flawed, and mounting and
    > umounting as in Linux/unix is the far better approach. Bit apparently
    > MS customers just yank out devices if it is mechanically possible.
    > That could be a deisaster if the devices are RAIDed/


    Any good RAID setup is going to have removable devices. That's kind
    of part of the point of the whole thing. So the fact that you can
    disconnect a USB drive isn't a terribly distinctive thing here. It really
    shouldn't matter.

    [deletia]

    --
    Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
    / | \
     
  18. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    Char Jackson wrote:
    > Was my suggestion (RAID controller versus USB controller) considered?



    The problem with putting the drives through a RAID controller is that
    I'd have to bring these drives into the computer case and and connect
    them permanently. I am trying to keep them as backup drives, therefore
    they need to remain in the external case.
     
  19. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > Any good RAID setup is going to have removable devices. That's kind
    > of part of the point of the whole thing. So the fact that you can
    > disconnect a USB drive isn't a terribly distinctive thing here. It really
    > shouldn't matter.



    Well, they don't want the drives to be *that* removable. There's a
    difference between being swappable and portable. USB drives would be
    considered portable.

    Yousuf Khan
     
  20. Arno

    Arno Flightless Bird

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
    > Arno wrote:
    >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>> Arno wrote:
    >>>> Maybe Windows thinks that you cannot possibly want to span on
    >>>> removable devices? It has this habit of thinking it knows
    >>>> what you do and do not want but at the same time is far too
    >>>> stupid to pull it off.

    >>
    >>> Yeah, it looks like the case here. The technote says Microsoft doesn't
    >>> support this on USB or Firewire drives.

    >>
    >> Well, it does make some sense. Personally, I think the idea
    >> of "removable" devices is fundamentally flawed, and mounting and
    >> umounting as in Linux/unix is the far better approach. Bit apparently
    >> MS customers just yank out devices if it is mechanically possible.
    >> That could be a deisaster if the devices are RAIDed/
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Incidentially the 800GB seems to be a problem with the enclosure,
    >>>> there is no limit (that I know of) at 39.5 bit adress length.
    >>>> Maybe give this pice of trash back?

    >>
    >>> Is it possible that there is a BIOS limitation, beyond 2TB? The
    >>> motherboard I'm using is a rather plain desktop mobo, it may not be
    >>> expecting such huge devices to join in?

    >>
    >> USB does not go over the BIOS, at least not in Linux. 2TB is 41
    >> bit. No limit on byte level I can see. Number of sectors would
    >> be 32. Ah, I think I see the problem. USB is using the storage
    >> SCSI command set. It has either 32 bit or 64 bit for the sector
    >> number. If the enclosure is resonably current, it should
    >> support 64 bit sector numbers. Linux need compiled in kernel
    >> support for large block devices to be able to handle block
    >> devices > 2TB. This support has been there for some years, but
    >> may be missing from your kernel. The config option is
    >> CONFIG_LBDAF and found under "enable block layer" in 2.6.32.


    > I asked the same question to Janos Mathe, the developer of HD Sentinel,
    > he believes that the USB-SATA chipset is to blame here. These are his words:


    >> It seems it is an overflow issue in addressing.
    >> I'm sure it is not related to BIOS as the BIOS would only cause troubles
    >> on disks which are under its control (for example if they were connected
    >> to the motherboard and you'd try to boot from it). USB devices are controlled by the USB drivers of the OSes (Windows/Linux).
    >>
    >> I suspect the problem is related to the JMicron USB-ATA bridge which
    >> translates the USB packets to ATA commands sent to the SATA drives.
    >> I quickly checked the specs of this chip at http://www.jmicron.com/PDF/JM20336/JM20336.pdf
    >> but as I see, JMicron do not mention the maximum drive capacity to be used.
    >> However, I think at the time of release (2005) they were not prepared
    >> for such BIG concatenated array and that's why the LBA addressing wraps around over 2 TB.
    >> If I can help, please let me know.


    > So it looks like there may be nothing that can be done here.


    > Yousuf Khan


    Hmm. Could be right. Missing large block device support in Linux
    should not make it show up as smaller, just prevent it from being
    used in its full capacity. Seems indeed that you are out of luck.

    Arno
    --
    Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: arno@wagner.name
    GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    ----
    Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
     

Share This Page