Need to make a single 3TB partition
in [Storage]
|
Prev: Housing two 2.5-inch hard disks in one 3.5-inch drive bay?
Next: Problem with Promise PCI SATA controller
From: Arno on 30 Mar 2010 17:22 In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)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/Forums/en-US/vistahardware/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(a)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
From: Rod Speed on 30 Mar 2010 17:46 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/Forums/en-US/vistahardware/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.
From: Char Jackson on 30 Mar 2010 21:34 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:58:28 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)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/Forums/en-US/vistahardware/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.
From: Yousuf Khan on 31 Mar 2010 13:40 Arno wrote: > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)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
From: Char Jackson on 31 Mar 2010 14:03
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:40:32 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >Arno wrote: >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)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? |