Print

[celinedrules]

Are you using just an f: partitoin? I think with a drive that big, you need to use both f and g.

[rtheil]

That's exactly what it is. I don't understand it either.  I bought this 250GB drive for a server at work as a temporary solution to a serious need for a large amount of space to drop some data. So, I install this drive in the server, get it up and running, create a 250GB partition, and start loading it with data. Well, it craps out and loses everything after a few hours of loading data. So, I wipe it and try again. This time checking the drive for bad sectors, thinking it may be a bad new drive. So, I load everything on it again. (about 110GB worth) and it seems to be working ok. SO, life goes on for a few days, then one day I notice I'm trying to write to that drive over the network, and I can't. I walk to the server, and it's got errors all over it "delayed write failed" and all kinds of other crap. Well, I lost everything. and this time I really lost it. LUCKILY for me, I had taken care of making good tape backups.

I lost that drive a total of 3 times. Well, I got brave, and decided to put it in the xbox since I have no use for it anymore. I let slayers format it for me, so it's f & g each about 120GB F has about 25GB free, and g has about 80 free... I haven't had one single problem with that drive. It works PERFECTLY!

I'm sure it's the partition problem, and I don't think it's specifically related to the xbox. I bet it's drive size, and software or hardware supporting that drive size.

[lordvader129]

there are only 2 solutions

1: use .67 and make a G drive

2: use xbpartitioner to change to 32k clusters so you cna use large F (.06)



FATx corrupts data on partitions over 256gb (it has to do with the hex value for the number of clusters, theres a thread where nghtshd and ozpaulb have a nice in depth discussion on it)

[fiurico]

I think I fixed the prob...report back later...

[crazycooljeff]

I had the same problem with my 400GB Seagate.  You need to use 32k cluster size.  If you use xbpartitioner 0.9+ then reformat the f: drive and it will automatically use 32k cluster size instead.

[velocityboy]

Just another data point -- I've got 4981.06, formatted C and E normally, then used xbpartitioner to format F at ~380GB (Seagate 400GB) using 32k clusters and it works brilliantly. Tested it out by filling the drive and deleting half a few times over, no corruption whatsoever under UnleashX. The drive supports locking as well, even though I leave mine unlocked. I don't use XBL and I'd hate to have a $200 paperweight.

[hogfan]

Ok, I'm about to do this, so let me get this straight.  If I change the cluster size of F: partition to 32K then I DON"T need to enable the G: drive?  Or do I need to have a g: drive also?

[lordvader129]

you need G drive OR 32k clusters, if you use one there is no need for the other

so if you use 32k clusters you do not need a bios that uses the G drive

[lordvader129]

no, 32k clusters isnt required for a 300gb or even a 400gb drive if you use F+G, however some people prefer to have a single large partiton as opposed to 2 smaller ones


normally a partition over 256gb would cause corruption when it filled past that point

an F+G bios would format F up to 137gb (around 129gb for F since 8gb is taken for system partitons) and the rest onto G (around 235gb, since 400gb isnt 400 binary gb, its only like 372gb) this is fine for a 400gb drive

however, using 32k clusters (xbpartitioner will automatically use 32k clusters on any partion over 256gb) you can go up to 512gb per partiton (or 1024gb per partiton using 64k clusters, it goes on like this) so using this method even a 400gb drive would be fine with everything on F

[fiurico]

Hey lordvader129,

You are a beast.  The only reason i mention the information is via this post by luma on Post # 10 (had the link in favorites, think you provided it with me back in this thread).

http://forums.xbox-s...=262108&hl=fatx

His nubmers are obviously wrong b/c they do not include the system partitions.

Again, thx for all your help.  If I could ask you, can I and should I upgrade my bios to a higher release (highest being..)?

Also, I have a friend which also has a 400 gigger but has an x3 chip.  He is all setup but will end up getting data corruption.  I assume the partition tables are readable by the x3 bios since they said they would in fututre bios releases support it?

Thanks for your quick and informative posts again!

/me bows down

Rico

[lordvader129]

QUOTE

any more word on this? i've had a 320gb maxtor for almost a year now, and was one of the first people here to bring up this problem, but there's still no resolution on it. i'm eyeing the new hitachi 400gb these days....yummy - except that a 137GB partition would leave me with a 263GB partition for G:, which puts me somewhere back into the danger zone for corruption.

right, F isnt actually 137gb, its 129 (with the other 8 goign towards C, E, X, Y and Z) and G would actually come out closer to 230-240 due to the difference in decimal gb and binary gb

just to clarify, for HD manufacturers 1gb = 1,000,000,000 bytes (1000 bytes = 1kb)

for the computer (this is the number that counts) 1gb = 1,073,741,824 byts (1024 bytes = 1kb)


1000 vs 1024 is a very common error

[lordvader129]

for a 1.6 the only bios there is is evox m8+

for 1.0-1.5 i suggest x2 4983.06 (large F) or 4983.67 (F+G)

i have no idea about the x3, ive never used one

[ChipInABox]

lordvader is on the ball. Great posts!

The X24981.06 bios should work on XBPartitioner, so you can use those if I'm not mistaken. I've only installed several 300gb HDs, no 400's yet.

[fiurico]

Yeah, hes definetly an asset.

The only reason I am expanding on this so much is because I did not find much information that was n00b friendly and so I am trying to expand this as much as possible so people have somewhere to go on these large drives.

Night!

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(fiurico @ Jan 22 2005, 12:15 AM)

I thought I had read that 4983.06 CANT be used with xbpartitioner so i didnt use it.