Asus K7M 48 bit LBA support for >128Gb HDDs

Discussion in 'Asus' started by Arhi, Apr 17, 2004.

  1. Arhi

    Arhi Guest

    Hi,

    Has anybody managed to enable 48 bit LBA support on a K7M? I just got
    a 200Gb WD2000JB hard drive and my Windows XP SP1 only recognizes it
    as 128Gb without the 48 bit LBA support. I couldn't find any info on
    BIOS upgrades for K7M that would add 48 LBA support. Is none
    available? Is there then no way to use a hard drive larger than 128Gb
    with K7M?

    Please share if you had a similar experience.

    Thank you,
    -a
     
    Arhi, Apr 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Arhi

    Paul Guest

    http://www.asuscom.de/support/FAQ/faq076_32gb_ide_hdd.htm

    "P3B-1394/P2..-/ME..-/K7..-/P5..- Serien Aktuelle Beta
    bis einschl. 128 GB"

    so 128GB is the limit. If it said "Uber", it would be a different
    story. Perhaps a PCI ATA133 disk controller board, used to
    control the disk drives, instead of the Southbridge, would
    remedy this problem.

    HTH,
    Paul
     
    Paul, Apr 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Not only perhaps, but quite certainly. It needn't be ATA133 BTW, a
    Promise Ultra100 TX2 should also do, provided one is using a recent BIOS
    (like 2.20 build 15) and current drivers (like 2.00 build 42). We're
    using exactly that combo with a Samsung SP1604N on an MSI K7 Master
    here, works just fine.

    Stephan
     
    Stephan Grossklass, Apr 17, 2004
    #3
  4. Arhi

    end user Guest

    Same problem with my p4p800dlx, it didn't recognise my new 160 gig.
    The drive was set up as a slave so when XP was up and running I used
    Partition Magic 8 to partition the new drive. I now have the full
    capacity divided in 3 partitions.

    Locust
     
    end user, Apr 17, 2004
    #4
  5. This was certainly *not* the same problem, since a P4P800, as opposed to
    the old K7M, should support 48 bit LBA and thus recognize the full
    capacity of a 160 gig drive just fine. (And even if it didn't, the drive
    would still be visible, only with just 128 GiB accessible.)

    Stephan
     
    Stephan Grossklass, Apr 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Arhi

    Arhi Guest

    Are you saying that as long as I use a program like Partition Magic to
    slice the hard drive into partitions that are smaller than 128Gb, it
    will work fine? I don't mind doing that.

    Thank you.

    -a
     
    Arhi, Apr 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Arhi

    Arhi Guest

    The interesting thing is that I am actually using the hard drive with
    a Highpoint Rocket 133 PCI IDE controller. The datasheet for the
    controller claims support for capacities exceeding 137Gb.
    http://www.highpoint-tech.com/datasheets/R133_R133s_R133SB.pdf
    However, as I mentioned before, the 200Gb drive is recognized as
    128Gb.

    What is not clear to me is whether it is a requirement that the
    motherboard BIOS support 48 bit LBA or you can make it work with a
    proper PCI IDE controller?

    Thank you,
    -a
     
    Arhi, Apr 17, 2004
    #7
  8. Arhi

    S.Heenan Guest



    Reg48bitLBA for Windows XP SP1 and Windows 2000 SP3
    From here:
    http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/utils.html

    This makes the necessary registry changes. Have your hard drive connected to
    the HighPoint controller at this time. After, check for the correct version
    of atapi.sys
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013
     
    S.Heenan, Apr 18, 2004
    #8
  9. Arhi

    Arhi Guest

    I have run the Reg48bitLBA utility. The EnableBigLba registry key is
    now set to 1. I have also upgraded Atapi.sys to version 5.1.2600.1135
    as per the MS KB article. My problem remains -- Windows XP SP1
    recognizes the drive as 128Gb only even if it's connected by means of
    a Highpoint Rocket 133 PCI IDE controller.

    I guess I am still looking for an authoritative answer to the question
    as to whether a system whose BIOS doesn't support 48 bit LBA can
    support drives > 137Gb when a controller that supports > 137Gb drives
    is used? From my personal experience, the answer seems to be No. This
    would make sense since it is the system routines in the BIOS that have
    to be aware of 48 bit addressing. However, there seems to be
    conflicting information out there. For example, this article on
    Western Digital's site:
    http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=533&p_created=1031763968
    states that using a 48 bit addressing aware add-on IDE controller
    should be sufficient and they recommend Promise controllers:
    "Another possibility is the use of an add-on EIDE controller that
    supports 48-bit addressing. "
    However, another WD article:
    http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc...p?p_faqid=928&&p_sid=UI5Hjc9h&p_lva=533&p_li=
    says:
    "The system must have a 48-bit LBA-compatible Basic Input/Output
    System (BIOS) installed. This includes EIDE controller card BIOSs."

    So, which is true?

    Somebody please shed some light on this.

    -a
     
    Arhi, Apr 18, 2004
    #9
  10. Arhi

    S.Heenan Guest


    Odd. Download and install the newest BIOS for the Rocket133 and the Load
    Utility from here:
    http://www.highpoint-tech.com/USA/bios.htm

    Windows XP drivers are also included in the v1.22 package.

    Part of the reason ATA-100 controllers exist is to allow the use of larger
    drives on older motherboards. The limitation of the motherboard BIOS is
    negated.
     
    S.Heenan, Apr 18, 2004
    #10
  11. Arhi

    Rob Stow Guest

    I have used that card with 200 and 250 GB drives with W2K SP4,
    but unfortunately not with XP.
    Yes those controllers can. They have their own BIOS on them
    for their own ports. In otherwords, the limitations of the
    motherboard's BIOS only affects the ports on the motherboard.
    No. Again, the limitations of the motherboard's BIOS only
    affects the ports on the motherboard. It is the BIOS
    on the card that determines what drives that card supports.

    If you used a card that supported 48 bit LBA but could not
    see, for example, all of a 250 GB drive that was attached
    to that card, then that indicates a configuration error on
    your part. You might not have successfully enabled 48 bit LBA
    support in Windows, for example.

    You mention updating Atapi.sys, but you don't say whether
    the HighPoint driver was installed.

    Both. It all makes sense once you recognize that the ports on
    those PCI-IDE cards are controlled by a BIOS on that card and
    not by the BIOS on the motherboard.
    At my age, the only thing I shed is hair.
     
    Rob Stow, Apr 18, 2004
    #11
  12. Arhi

    Arhi Guest

    Rob,
    Thank you for shedding more than hair ;)

    I _did_ install the XP drivers from the floppy disk that came with the
    card. The only thing I can think of at this point is to try to upgrade
    the driver and the card BIOS.

    -a
     
    Arhi, Apr 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Arhi

    Arhi Guest

    Will do. Thanks for the tip. If that fails I can't think of anything
    else I could do to get it all to work.

    -a
     
    Arhi, Apr 21, 2004
    #13
  14. Arhi

    Arhi Guest

    Gosh, I finally have some progress to report. Turns out it was drivers
    and firmware indeed. I somehow lucked out to buy a controller card
    that had 1.0 (Nov 2002) drivers included with it while the current
    version is 1.22. I had to flash the card BIOS. I then had to resort to
    some trickery to upgrade the driver. The problem was that even though
    I obtained the new drivers, they still report their version as 1.0.0.0
    -- same as the original driver. Because of that to my puzzlement XP
    didn't want to upgrade the driver. After scratching my head for a
    while, I solved that by removing the existing driver and installing
    the new one. My system finally recognizes the 200 gig drive as such.

    Overall, it's been a VERY frustrating experience with the Highpoint
    Rocket 133 controller. Got old drivers with the card, upgrade was a
    serious hurdle, the original driver didn't support 48 bit LBA
    correctly (driver release notes mention bugs in 48 bit LBA support)
    despite the claim. I hope now that I have gone though all this it will
    at least work fine and not mess up my data.

    Major thanks to everyone who helped me out with info here!

    -a
     
    Arhi, Apr 24, 2004
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.