Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 02:58:47 +0000
From: "Matt Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [LIB] MaxBlast allegedly able to move Lib100 hibernation area?
>From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Are
> > you saying that your FAT32 partitions are logical drives above the 8GB
> > boundary, and FDISK either can't display any data on them, or displays
> > incorrect data?
>
>Yes. To be more precise: FDISK shows the correct extended partition size
>*and* the logical FAT32 partitions below 8 GB, but not the ones above
>(nor can DOS access the latter). Your question suggests I don't have
>FAT32 partitions below 8 GB, but I do.
>Yet this may be due to some tweaking I did there. My extended partition
>is of type 5, not f as Win9x seems to want (perhaps if it were f some
>int13 routines are loaded in FDISK which then may see all logical
>partitions). It is 5 because otherwise OS/2 Warp 3 won't recognize the
>extended partition at all. Win2K, Linux and -a bit to my surprise- Win98
>itself don't seem to care much about the extended partition type. All I
>know Win98 needs the FAT32 logical partitions beyond 8GB to be of type c
>rather than b.
“type c rather than b.” Perhaps no so. The topic of partition types is
relatively new to me. But looking at Partition Magic’s PartInfo output for
my 20GB HDD, the primary partition and all the logical drives there are
reported as 0B, or 1B (hidden). Though the next line of data for the 1st 2
logical drives seems to show the same drives as also being of a type 05:
============================ Partition Tables ==============================
Partition -----Begin---- ------End----- Start Num
Sector # Boot Cyl Head Sect FS Cyl Head Sect Sect Sects
---------- - ---- ---- ---- ---- -- ---- ---- ---- ---------- ----------
0 0 80 0 1 1 0B 324 254 63 63 5221062
0 1 00 [ 325 0 1] 0F [1023 254 63] 5221125 24884685
325 0 1 1873 254 63
5221125 0 00 325 1 1 0B 1015 254 63 5221188 11100852
5221125 1 00 1016 0 1 05 [1023 254 63] 16322040 208845
1016 0 1 1028 254 63
16322040 0 00 1016 1 1 1B [1023 254 63] 16322103 208782
1016 1 1 1028 254 63
16322040 1 00 [1023 0 1] 05 [1023 254 63] 16530885 13574925
1029 0 1 1873 254 63
16530885 0 00 [1023 1 1] 0B [1023 254 63] 16530948 13574862
1029 1 1 1873 254 63
Data in brackets indicates: [Large Drive Placeholders] - *
Lines following data in brackets indicates: Actual Values - *
* - Lines 1 and 3 above aren't described as either [Large Drive
Placeholders] or Actual Values
============================ Partition Tables ==============================
The difference between 0B and 05 would seem to be related to whether the
drives are being interpreted with ‘[Large Drive Placeholders]’ or as ‘Actual
Values’. But I confess, I don’t understand what that means. I was thinking
one might be read as Int 13, and one as Ext Int 13. But the information
here on partition types doesn’t seem to support that assumption:
http://www.powerquest.com/support/primus/id4279.cfm
The my partition types 05, 0B, 0C, 0F and 1B are defined there as:
05 Extended partition or Extended volume
0B 32-bit FAT
0C 32-bit FAT, EXT INT 13
0F Extended partition, Ext INT 13
1B Hidden 32-bit FAT
Bear in mind this PartInfo was run on my corrupted 20GB HDD, and I don’t
understand why the there’s no 2nd line showing the 3rd logical drive as type
05 like the 1st 2. But the 3 primary partitions in my 70CT ‘s 40GB HDD are
reported as 0B, 0B and 0C, where the 0C partition contains all space >8GB.
I notice that the 1st 2 logical drives on the 20GB are <8GB, and the 3rd
>8GB, yet are all referred to as type 0B.
So it seems like an extended partition that straddles the 8GB point is
considered type 0F ‘32-bit FAT’. If the entire extended partition was <8GB,
it would likely be a type 05.
I’m not clear on why logical drives within the extended partition are
defined both as type 05 ‘32-bit FAT’, and as *B as ‘32-bit FAT’. I wonder
if >all< logical drives within extended partitions that straddle the 8GB
barrier are always going to contain type 0B/05 drives, even the ones beyond
8GB. Or maybe there’s a problem with my last logical drive, and it ought to
be designated as a type 0C/05 or 0C/0F.
>To answer your question from an earlier post:
> > > But if I load Bockey's LDS100CT in DOS FDISK can.
> >
> > I assume you're saying that you did that just before writing about it.
> > Right? You didn't try that when the drive was new, and un-partitioned,
>did
> > you?
>
>The behaviour described is without LDS100CT loaded.
>I just repeated it but now LDS100CT makes no difference - I guess
>because it can handle only up-to-32GB HDs, mine is 60 GB.
>But I remember it did work OK on my 15 GB hard disk:
>FDISK w/o LDS100CT: not able to see logical FAT32 > 8 GB
>FDISK with LDS100CT: able.
>
>FYI: I made the complete partitioning scheme on the 60 GB HD without any
>overlay. I used OS/2 Warp's FDISK, ...
What I was wondering was whether or not you ran MS-DOS FDISK immediately
after you created all your partitions, and whether or not MS-DOS FDISK could
see all of the partitions at that point. I know both MS-DOS FDISK >and<
Partition Magic booted from FD couldn’t see the entire drive until I 1st
installed Windows 98. After that point I partitioned with PM booted into
Windows, as at that point, PM could then see the whole drive.. So it seems
Windows and/or PM wrote something to the drive that has enabled FDISK to see
the entire drive now, even when the system is booted from a FD containing
just the basic 4 system files.
> > I just checked the partitions on my problem 20GB HDD with FDISK, and it
>was
> > able to report the size of both D: and E: logical drives on an extended
> > partition accurately. And that's both >with< EZ-Drive installed, and
>with
> > it removed.
>
>Can you see what type your extended partition is?
Yes ... 0F (see PartInfo data above) But I wonder if you might have been
able to create a type 05 >within< a type 0F extended partition the way PM
seems to have done with my HDD. Do you understand why the PartInfo data
from my drive shows info for both 0B and 05 partition types for the same
logical drives?
Matt
Attaching my PartInfo file in case formatting is corrupted on the list post.
_________________________________________________________________
Click, drag and drop. My MSN is the simple way to design your homepage.
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/
**************************************************************
http://libretto.basiclink.com - Libretto mailing list
http://www.silverace.com/libretto/ - Archives
-------TO UNSUBSCRIBE-------
Reply to any of the list messages. The reply mail should be
addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Then replace any text
on the message's subject line: cmd:unsubscribe
--------TO UNSUBSCRIBE DIGEST------
Do above but with this on subject line: cmd:unsubscribe digest
**************************************************************
Attached files are not permitted on this list, attachment has been removed.
