New HD not showing proper capacity!

creep · Post by **creep** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:24 pm

Ok, I got a new HD, 160gb and am using it as my main slave to my 13gb drive.

I know, but I just did a format etc. so I'm gonna use it as the slave.

The problem is, it only shows up as 127gb... eventhough I paid for 160gb.

Is this normal or is this drive defective?

aagiants · Post by **aagiants** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:31 pm

its not defective, the drive should have came with a controller card becuase ur mobo can not handle that much capacity.

creep · Post by **creep** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:35 pm

I bought it as an OEM so all I got was the drive.

I'm running XP and have an ASUS P4P800 w/a p2.6c 800mhz and 512 400mhz ddr ram

aagiants · Post by **aagiants** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:36 pm

u can try to partition it.. i honestly dont work if that will work, but youd bios cant recgonize over a certain capacity... Try using partition magic or wait for someone to give you more detail... sry

creep · Post by **creep** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:45 pm

Yeah, I tried using PartitionMagic and it only shows up as 131gb in there.

Where's my other 30gb?!?!

JTMON · Post by **JTMON** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:59 pm

what about a bios update?

creep · Post by **creep** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:13 pm

hmmm, i'll go check out the asus site right now.

RoundEye · Post by **RoundEye** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:13 pm

Like mentioned, you may have a bios limitation, try to partition it.

Also you'll never see the full 160 gig after formatting because of what Microsoft considers 1 gig to be. You can read about it here.

Your drive will be roughly 1.0737 times smaller, after formatting so you should see 160 / 1.0737 = 149 gig.

Check my math, it's not my strong point.

I have four 100 gig drives in a raid5, after parity and formatting it's only 279 gig. I don't like losing 121 gigs

, but I do like the safety and speed of a raid 5.

creep · Post by **creep** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:27 pm

Someone suggested that I install the SP1 update.

aagiants · Post by **aagiants** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:34 pm

Originally posted by creep
Someone suggested that I install the SP1 update.

?? i dont know how that would help.

creep · Post by **creep** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:43 pm

[21:36] <FFFire> windows xp without sp1
[21:36] <buffoon> ?
[21:36] <FFFire> wont see any HD bigger than 137gb
[21:36] <buffoon> nod
[21:36] <FFFire> and if the drive is bigger
[21:36] <FFFire> it'll see it as only 137gb or smaller

http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-6255-5055171.html

TrevGlas · Post by **TrevGlas** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:48 pm

Try making two partitions. For a drive that big you need at least two partitions anyways.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:56 pm

Originally posted by creep
Someone suggested that I install the SP1 update.

try that and run the floppy utility from the drive maker to see if your bios supports it and see if it has some registry edits it may do

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:57 pm

Originally posted by TrevGlas
Try making two partitions. For a drive that big you need at least two partitions anyways.

i don't i just use mine for storage.

shadrach · Post by **shadrach** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 9:50 am

Originally posted by RoundEye
You can read about it here.

This makes no sense to me:

** Note: Although technically speaking, the term kilobit should have a lowercase initial letter, most published reports capitalize it in abbreviation, resulting in "56 Kbps," or even the really confusing "56K." That leaves you with the sometimes omitted lowercase "b" to distinguish between bits (b) and bytes (B). When used as a measurement of network data transfers, or throughput, always assume the word is bits first.

kilobit kb 1000 bits
kilobyte (binary) KB 1024 bytes
kilobyte (decimal) KB 1000 bytes
Megabit Mb 1000 kilobits
Megabyte (binary) MB 1024 Kilobytes
Megabyte (decimal) MB 1000 Kilobytes
Gigabit Gb 1000 Megabits
Gigabyte (binary) GB 1024 Megabytes
Gigabyte (decimal) GB 1000 Megabytes

Why would the unit's abbreviation change for KILO, but not MEGA or GIGA? The K should be capitalized for anything meaning KILO, but then the B=Byte and b=bit is universal across the other measurements.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 1:27 pm

It's been my experience that if the BIOS doesn't see the full capacity trying to use two partitions won't work. You need to either use a drive overlay , a PCI controller with onboard BIOS, or update your BIOS. If you can't find a new bios try the drive overlay. Should be able to get what you need at the drive makers site, max blast, etc.
160 gig @1000 is really 156gig @ 1024. The formated capacity will be smaller still.

Gibbs · Post by **Gibbs** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 2:45 pm

hey..if you havent got it yet i got a solution..

i have a 200 gig hd , had the same exact problem

go into partition magic...and do "resize the partition"

put it at like 160000 i believe it is , and press resize , this will maximize the space. You will only get like 148-152 due to other files the hd needs. This should work.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:11 pm

if you're running intel:

http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/lba.htm

that might work or at least provide some info

A_old · Post by **A_old** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:03 am

It is true that there is a 127GB limit, but why would a brand new 865p chipset board not have an updated controller w/ and updated bios? It seems fishy to me that the 127GB limitation would still be in effect on a brand new board. It seems likely since there's only 127GB being shown, although generally one must force cylinder limitation mode for that sort of thing to work -- otherwise, most boards just hang on HDD detection at the boot screen. Normally, I would say the drive has a large, defective area on it, however, it is extremely unlikely that it would show up as exactly 127GB. I believe it is a BIOS/Controller limitation.

I would check the specifications of your board and get the latest BIOS (as it may contain a fix for the issue). I quickly browsed the Asus site, and as usual--it was as unhelpful as any other manufacturer's site. The people making the site generally don't use the product--so little or no relevant information makes it on the page.

Partitioning the drive isn't the issue as the BIOS/Controller is not physically addressing the entire size of the drive, assuming it is a BIOS/Controller issue. I would check the above link--making sure you have XP SP1 installed as well.

creep · Post by **creep** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:18 pm

Ok, I'm back, on another computer, though.

I seemed to solve the problem. I installed the SP1 for winXP and now it shows up as 152gb.

I'd rather the 152gb over the 127gb so...

But now I think I'm gonna have to format it because my internet doesn't work for it now, and I can't install OR uninstall my norton firewall/AV app. So even if i did get my net working, i still wouldn't feel comfortable w/o having a firewall/av app.

And to think, I thought this'd go through like nothing... Just set the new drive as SLAVE and plug it in and boom, but NOOOOOo....

It's always good to have 2 comps in the house.

one more thing, since adding the second HD, I've noticed that it takes much longer to boot up now. Just now, I did check the jumper settings on the old HD that should be running as the MASTER drive and i tried all 4, yeah 4, settings and the only one that seemed to work was the one it was in in the first place. It's a Quantum Fireball drive, with no labelling as to the jumper settings. Unlike the new WD drive, which clearly labels the jumper setting slots.