Very Computer

by **Theodore Hei** » Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:44:41

Hi folks,

I know about the Large Disk HOWTO and plan to read through it, but
could use a quick answer to help decide whether I need to return
some hardware.

I have Red Hat 7.2 installed on a P-100 with a 1.2 GB hard drive.
I just bought a 120 GB WD IDE drive, planning to use it as a slave for
back-up. My BIOS only recognizes 8.2 GB on the new drive. If I
keep the 1.2 GB drive as the master and boot from it, is it possible
to use the entire capacity of the 120 GB as hdb from linux?

The HOWTO sounds like it is, but it's going to take me a while to
plow through it and reassurance on this would help.

Thanks!

--

by **B. Joshua Rose** » Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:41:00

Quote:> Hi folks,

> I know about the Large Disk HOWTO and plan to read through it, but could
> use a quick answer to help decide whether I need to return some
> hardware.

> I have Red Hat 7.2 installed on a P-100 with a 1.2 GB hard drive. I just
> bought a 120 GB WD IDE drive, planning to use it as a slave for back-up.
> My BIOS only recognizes 8.2 GB on the new drive. If I keep the 1.2 GB
> drive as the master and boot from it, is it possible to use the entire
> capacity of the 120 GB as hdb from linux?

> The HOWTO sounds like it is, but it's going to take me a while to plow
> through it and reassurance on this would help.

> Thanks!

Subconsciously you really want a new system, that's why you bought a 120G
disk instead of buying a drive that was more appropriate for this machine
like a 20G 5400RPM drive. OK now that we have that established what are
your options. You could buy a new low end motherboard with and AMD Duron
processor for not too much money. But as long as you are going to buy a
new motherboard and processor maybe you should just go for it and buy an
Athlon XP 2100+. OK maybe that's too much, an Athlon 1700+ is good
enough, Accubyte is selling a barebones system with an Athlon 1700+ for
$210, just throw in 256M of DDR RAM and your 120G drive, a cheap
graphics card and a $39 CDROM and your in business.

by **Theodore Hei** » Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:54:09

On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:41:00 -0500,

Quote:> Subconsciously you really want a new system, that's why you bought a 120G
> disk instead of buying a drive that was more appropriate for this machine
> like a 20G 5400RPM drive. OK now that we have that established what are
> your options. You could buy a new low end motherboard with and AMD Duron
> processor for not too much money. But as long as you are going to buy a
> new motherboard and processor maybe you should just go for it and buy an
> Athlon XP 2100+. OK maybe that's too much, an Athlon 1700+ is good
> enough, Accubyte is selling a barebones system with an Athlon 1700+ for
> $210, just throw in 256M of DDR RAM and your 120G drive, a cheap
> graphics card and a $39 CDROM and your in business.

You're not far off, but I can't do that right now. If I can't use
the HD on this system, I'm going to exchange it.

The HOWTO says something about the command line overriding the BIOS.
That sounds like I could use it as a a 120 GB drive despite what my
BIOS thinks. (Keep in mind I'm booting from hda, the 1.2 GB drive)
Am I misunderstanding this?

--

by **Christopher Brown** » Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:09:21

> On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:41:00 -0500,

>> Subconsciously you really want a new system, that's why you bought
>> a 120G disk instead of buying a drive that was more appropriate for
>> this machine like a 20G 5400RPM drive. OK now that we have that
>> established what are your options. You could buy a new low end
>> motherboard with and AMD Duron processor for not too much
>> money. But as long as you are going to buy a new motherboard and
>> processor maybe you should just go for it and buy an Athlon XP
>> 2100+. OK maybe that's too much, an Athlon 1700+ is good enough,
>> Accubyte is selling a barebones system with an Athlon 1700+ for
>> $210, just throw in 256M of DDR RAM and your 120G drive, a cheap
>> graphics card and a $39 CDROM and your in business.
> You're not far off, but I can't do that right now. If I can't use
> the HD on this system, I'm going to exchange it.
> The HOWTO says something about the command line overriding the BIOS.
> That sounds like I could use it as a a 120 GB drive despite what my
> BIOS thinks. (Keep in mind I'm booting from hda, the 1.2 GB drive)
> Am I misunderstanding this?

Yes, you may be misunderstanding this.

I had a motherboard failure last Saturday. (At, coincidentally, about
this very time.)

I tried taking the 40GB disk drive and hooking it up to my old
machine; when I did so, the old machine would no longer boot, because
it, with an older IDE interface, was quite displeased with the notion
of communicating with the newer ATA disk drive.

It's sort of the same matter as >2GB files; you might have a
filesystem that supports 16GB files, you might have a VFS that
supports this. You might even have a version of GLIBC that supports
it.

But if you need to write out 16GB tar files, and your version of tar
is using the older APIs, and can only cope with <2GB files, all those
other enhancements (to FS, VFS, GLIBC) do you very little good,
because one of the components in your system doesn't support the "new
stuff."

That is most likely what you are observing, albeit with the
combination of (Disk Drive, BIOS, ATA controller), where the
limitation is with the ATA controller.

It's entirely likely that your new 120GB drive is using some newer
IDE/ATA variation that older motherboards have no ability to
communicate with.
--

http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/advocacy.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #224. "I will build machines which simply
fail when overloaded, rather than wipe out all nearby henchmen in an
explosion or worse yet set off a chain reaction. I will do this by
using devices known as "surge protectors"."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>

by **Theodore Hei** » Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:25:42

On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 19:09:21 -0500,

Quote:> I tried taking the 40GB disk drive and hooking it up to my old
> machine; when I did so, the old machine would no longer boot, because
> it, with an older IDE interface, was quite displeased with the notion
> of communicating with the newer ATA disk drive.

Well, my system boots fine from the 1.2G drive with the 120G on
the same cable as a slave. But it sounds like you're saying I
may not be able to write to it as more than an 8G hard drive
anyway. Thanks for the feedback.

I'd be more willing to consider a newer motherboard (and BIOS)
if I hadn't put a few bucks into 128M of EDO RAM for this one.

Bummer.

--

by **B. Joshua Rose** » Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:37:17

> On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 19:09:21 -0500,

>> I tried taking the 40GB disk drive and hooking it up to my old machine;
>> when I did so, the old machine would no longer boot, because it, with
>> an older IDE interface, was quite displeased with the notion of
>> communicating with the newer ATA disk drive.

> Well, my system boots fine from the 1.2G drive with the 120G on the same
> cable as a slave. But it sounds like you're saying I may not be able to
> write to it as more than an 8G hard drive anyway. Thanks for the
> feedback.

> I'd be more willing to consider a newer motherboard (and BIOS) if I
> hadn't put a few bucks into 128M of EDO RAM for this one.

> Bummer.

I'd look for a 10G drive some where, check on pricewatch to see if
someone has some old stock that they are selling cheap. Your controller
is at best ATA 16 so the drive performance doesn't matter. The smallest
drives that are currently in production are 20G, they sell for $50 bucks.
There is a pretty good chance that Linux will be able to see the whole
drive. Also have you checked to see if there is a BIOS update for your
motherboard? The next step up from 8G was 32G and that usually could be
accomplished with a BIOS update.

by **John-Paul Stewar** » Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:57:19

> Well, my system boots fine from the 1.2G drive with the 120G on
> the same cable as a slave. But it sounds like you're saying I
> may not be able to write to it as more than an 8G hard drive
> anyway. Thanks for the feedback.

Have you actually tried passing kernel parameters through
LILO (or whatever boot loader)?

With hdb=c,h,s you can tell the kernel to ignore the BIOS
and use the specified size for the disk. Suitable CHS
values should be on a label on the disk.

by **Michael Heimin** » Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:19:22

>> Well, my system boots fine from the 1.2G drive with the 120G on
>> the same cable as a slave. But it sounds like you're saying I
>> may not be able to write to it as more than an 8G hard drive
>> anyway. Thanks for the feedback.

> Have you actually tried passing kernel parameters through
> LILO (or whatever boot loader)?

> With hdb=c,h,s you can tell the kernel to ignore the BIOS
> and use the specified size for the disk. Suitable CHS
> values should be on a label on the disk.

Pretty good advice, I would just try it out. Linux doesn't use the
BIOS for disc access, so it might work. Perhaps, the OP could give
us some info, if/how it worked?

For more info, hopefully the kernel sources are installed:
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/ide.txt

Good luck

Michael Heiming
--
Remove the +SIGNS case mail bounces.

by **Theodore Hei** » Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:41:30

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 02:19:22 +0100,

> > Have you actually tried passing kernel parameters through
> > LILO (or whatever boot loader)?

> > With hdb=c,h,s you can tell the kernel to ignore the BIOS
> > and use the specified size for the disk. Suitable CHS
> > values should be on a label on the disk.

> Pretty good advice, I would just try it out. Linux doesn't use the
> BIOS for disc access, so it might work. Perhaps, the OP could give
> us some info, if/how it worked?

Thanks for the suggestions, guys. I'll give it a try tomorrow
and report back. If it doesn't work, I'll take the drive back
and give Joshua's suggestion a try.

--

by **Eric P. McC** » Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:27:52

> I have Red Hat 7.2 installed on a P-100 with a 1.2 GB hard drive.
> I just bought a 120 GB WD IDE drive, planning to use it as a slave for
> back-up. My BIOS only recognizes 8.2 GB on the new drive. If I
> keep the 1.2 GB drive as the master and boot from it, is it possible
> to use the entire capacity of the 120 GB as hdb from linux?

No.

--

"I woke up this morning and realized what the game needed: pirates,
pimps, and gay furries." - Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka

by **linuxuse** » Tue, 19 Mar 2002 02:56:03

Hi Theodore,

It sound like your bios will not support a drive larger than 8 gig. You have
3 options.

Option 1: Flash Bios to upgrade to higher firmware if possible

Option 2: Purchase bios upgrade card, or Purchase a Harddrive controller
card. Either will take over for the Bios in regards to the drives.

Option 3: Purchase new motherboard

cheers!

> Hi folks,

> I know about the Large Disk HOWTO and plan to read through it, but
> could use a quick answer to help decide whether I need to return
> some hardware.

> I have Red Hat 7.2 installed on a P-100 with a 1.2 GB hard drive.
> I just bought a 120 GB WD IDE drive, planning to use it as a slave for
> back-up. My BIOS only recognizes 8.2 GB on the new drive. If I
> keep the 1.2 GB drive as the master and boot from it, is it possible
> to use the entire capacity of the 120 GB as hdb from linux?

> The HOWTO sounds like it is, but it's going to take me a while to
> plow through it and reassurance on this would help.

> Thanks!

> --

by **Michael Heimin** » Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:18:01

** Since micro$oft is stupid it doesn't mean
** that you should be stupid too - do NOT toppost

Quote:> Hi Theodore,

> It sound like your bios will not support a drive larger than 8
> gig. You have 3 options.

> Option 1: Flash Bios to upgrade to higher firmware if possible

> Option 2: Purchase bios upgrade card, or Purchase a Harddrive
> controller card. Either will take over for the Bios in regards to
> the drives.

> Option 3: Purchase new motherboard

Dear linuxuser,

1. Linux does not use the BIOS for disc access.
2. You should follow the thread.

Michael Heiming
--
Remove the +SIGNS case mail bounces.

by **linuxuse** » Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:08:05

> ** Since micro$oft is stupid it doesn't mean
> ** that you should be stupid too - do NOT toppost

> > Hi Theodore,

> > It sound like your bios will not support a drive larger than 8
> > gig. You have 3 options.

> > Option 1: Flash Bios to upgrade to higher firmware if possible

> > Option 2: Purchase bios upgrade card, or Purchase a Harddrive
> > controller card. Either will take over for the Bios in regards to
> > the drives.

> > Option 3: Purchase new motherboard

> Dear linuxuser,

> 1. Linux does not use the BIOS for disc access.
> 2. You should follow the thread.

> Michael Heiming
> --
> Remove the +SIGNS case mail bounces.

Greetings Michael...
The bios will load ahead of Linux... So the 3 options for him would not
change.. Although Linux does not have this limitation, his bios does and in
that case he will only have 3 option available to him..

cheers..

by **Paul Bristo** » Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:33:27

Even if his BIOS has problems, he should be able to set the salve drive
to "none" in the BIOS, and let linux find the drive. The only problem
with big drives (>32G) has been that some bioses lock up when they try
to boot. As he wants to use the drive as a slave even this should not
be a problem. *The drive will most probably work.*

I've had 30G drives running on 486s in this way.

>>** Since micro$oft is stupid it doesn't mean
>>** that you should be stupid too - do NOT toppost

>>>Hi Theodore,

>>>It sound like your bios will not support a drive larger than 8
>>>gig. You have 3 options.

>>>Option 1: Flash Bios to upgrade to higher firmware if possible

>>>Option 2: Purchase bios upgrade card, or Purchase a Harddrive
>>>controller card. Either will take over for the Bios in regards to
>>>the drives.

>>>Option 3: Purchase new motherboard

>>Dear linuxuser,

>>1. Linux does not use the BIOS for disc access.
>>2. You should follow the thread.

>>Michael Heiming
>>--
>>Remove the +SIGNS case mail bounces.

> Greetings Michael...
> The bios will load ahead of Linux... So the 3 options for him would not
> change.. Although Linux does not have this limitation, his bios does and in
> that case he will only have 3 option available to him..

> cheers..

by **Theodore Hei** » Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:37:18

On 17 Mar 2002 02:41:30 GMT,

Quote:> Thanks for the suggestions, guys. I'll give it a try tomorrow
> and report back. If it doesn't work, I'll take the drive back
> and give Joshua's suggestion a try.

Well, so far it looks promising. The 120G drive says LBA 234441648
on the case, the manual says CHS are 1023, 63, and 16. I left the
BIOS on AUTO for hdb (detected 8.2G) and booted linux on the 1.2H hda.

Fdisk showed cylinders: 14593, heads: 255, and sectors: 63. This
comes out pretty close to 234441648, so I just left it alone.

Next, I created three primary partitions and wrote the partition table
to disk:

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hdb1 1 3825 30724281 83 Linux
/dev/hdb2 3826 7650 30724312+ 83 Linux
/dev/hdb3 7651 14593 55769647+ 83 Linux

After that I created a file system on each partition (mke2fs), fsck'd
them (with the -f flag), created three new directories, and mounted one
on each. Checking with `df' indicated they were the expected size.

I tar'd my entire RH7.2 installation (~550M) onto one directory and
am making copies of it to fill the partition. I'll probably do some
of the same for the other partitions, but first try rebooting. I'm
guessing since fdisk saw the whole 120G, the kernel not only doesn't
need what BIOS reports, it doesn't care. It may be I don't even need
a boot parameter for the disk.

More later.

--

Very Computer

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?

Can 120 GB HD work as slave?