Losing NTFS drive in Win 2k

[bevills1]

The NTFS drive I have as last drive in the extended DOS partition keeps getting lost on reboot. Other drives in the extended DOS partition are FAT32 for Win 98 compatibility. The NTFS drive shows okay after creating and formatting but is lost on reboot, and I'm running Win 2k SP4. Has anyone else had this problem or know a fix? Could it be possibly a bad hard drive, or could it be NTFS drives can't be in a partition with FAT32 drives?

[SLK001]

Could it be possibly a bad hard drive, or could it be NTFS drives can't be in a partition with FAT32 drives?

Probably not a bad hard drive.

NTFS and FAT32 can be on the same physical drive.

Does it show up on a REFRESH?

Does is show up in a DOS window?

You might have better luck by adding NTFS drivers to Win98.

[bevills1]

It shows up in DOS window after creating and partitioning but disappears after reboot just as it does for explorer. Where is refresh, and how could adding NTFS drivers for Win 98 affect whether that drive is lost on reboot, and where are NTFS drivers for Win 98 available? I thought Win 98 is incompatible with NTFS.

[bevills1]

This problem ocurred on same system which had the other problem of losing all drives past the Win 2k drive in the extended DOS partition when the DVD burner was opened while DVDShrink was running that I posted here in another thread. I just happened to remember there was a System Volume Information folder on that drive as well as on the last drive on the extended DOS partition of the slave drive, but that folder was missing after recreating all drives in the extended DOS partition. I decided to do repartition, reformat and fresh Win 2k install in the extended DOS partition after which the System Volume Information folder was recreated in the last drive. There've been no more losses of the drive since which indicates that System Volume Information folder is quite important although I'm uncertain of its purpose. Hope the solution may help others if they have such problems.

[normcar]

I just reinstalled W2k, and had the same problem. I downloaded a program from Maxtor (or Western Digital) that overroad the max partition size. It must be a problem with Win 2k SP4.

I had no problem with the SATA drive, or with drives on the IDE controller card, but only had problems with drives (not the OS drive) hooked directly to the motherboard IDE controller. All the drives worked ok in my external HD box, but not in the system.

[SLK001]

The problem that you had, normcar, is that you need to enable the large drives in the registry (manually) in W2K before you can get the full storage of drives over ~133GBytes. I think that the key is "ENABLELARGELBA" or something like that.

WinXP defaults with this key enabled. Win2k defaults with this key disabled.

[normcar]

I thought one of the SPx updates fixed this so I never thought about it again. Good info though.

[bevills1]

What SLK001 refers to is called "Enable LBA" I believe, and it's a BIOS setting. I've partitioned up to 40 GB with no problem, and I suspect much larger partitions will work. The key is to have the BIOS set correctly to enable LBA.

[Seeker47]

What SLK001 refers to is called "Enable LBA" I believe, and it's a BIOS setting. I've partitioned up to 40 GB with no problem, and I suspect much larger partitions will work. The key is to have the BIOS set correctly to enable LBA.

Yeah, that makes more sense to me. (I'm still running W2K SP4 as my Windows. For my taste, XP just dumbed things down for the masses, and Mickey Mouse'd the user interface . . . . ) I don't have a > 133Gb drive inside the box, but I use 160 to 300 Gb external drives for some tasks. They have partitions in the 40G or larger range -- some FAT32, some NTFS -- and none of them have ever gone missing.

[SLK001]

What SLK001 refers to is called "Enable LBA" I believe, and it's a BIOS setting. I've partitioned up to 40 GB with no problem, and I suspect much larger partitions will work. The key is to have the BIOS set correctly to enable LBA.

This statement is true, but it isn't what I was referring to. If you don't set the registry key to enable the system to see the large block drives, you won't be able to address any of the memory above 137GB on the hard drive. The BIOS may be reporting that you have a 250GB hard drive installed, but Windows will only see 137GB.

From the MS support site (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305098):

48-Bit LBA Support for ATAPI Disk Drives in Windows 2000

The following conditions are necessary for the correct functioning of 48-bit LBA ATAPI support:
• A computer with a 48-bit LBA-compatible Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) installed.
• A computer with a hard disk that has a capacity of greater than 137 gigabytes (GB).
• You must enable the support in the Windows registry by adding or changing the EnableBigLba registry value to 1 in the following registry subkey:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\atapi\Parameters

To enable 48-bit LBA large-disk support in the registry:
1. Start Registry Editor (Regedt32.exe).

2. Locate and then click the following key in the registry:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Atapi\Parameters

3. On the Edit menu, click Add Value, and then add the following registry value:
Value name: EnableBigLba
Data type: REG_DWORD
Value data: 0x1

4. Quit Registry Editor.
+--------------------End of Article------------------+

Win2k SP3 and above have the 48 bit support, but by default, it is DISABLED.
WinXP has 48 bit support and is ENABLED by default.

[bevills1]

It must have been enabled as default with SP4 because I have 2 systems running with SP4 which see all 200GB of 1 drive and all 160GB of the other drive with no registry edits done.

[SLK001]

It must have been enabled as default with SP4 because I have 2 systems running with SP4 which see all 200GB of 1 drive and all 160GB of the other drive with no registry edits done.

No, it's not. In W2K SP4 the default is OFF. Been there, done that. Are you running any disk software other than native Win crap?

[RLT69]

Win2k SP3 and above have the 48 bit support, but by default, it is DISABLED.
WinXP has 48 bit support and is ENABLED by default.

Think again. I'm running W2K SP3 and I'm able to use my 200GB HD. In fact if you read the documentation that comes with your hard drive, W2K SP3 and greater will allow you access to hard drive storage greater than 137GB. I know I checked when I first bought my 200GB HD.

[SLK001]

Win2k SP3 and above have the 48 bit support, but by default, it is DISABLED.
WinXP has 48 bit support and is ENABLED by default.

Think again. I'm running W2K SP3 and I'm able to use my 200GB HD. In fact if you read the documentation that comes with your hard drive, W2K SP3 and greater will allow you access to hard drive storage greater than 137GB. I know I checked when I first bought my 200GB HD.

Okay, I've done the thinking... guess what... I'm still right. Here's the money quote from MS (also above):

The following conditions are necessary for the correct functioning of 48-bit LBA ATAPI support:
• A computer with a 48-bit LBA-compatible Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) installed.
• A computer with a hard disk that has a capacity of greater than 137 gigabytes (GB).
• You must enable the support in the Windows registry by adding or changing the EnableBigLba registry value to 1 in the following registry subkey: ...

Been there, done that... believe me, it's true.

If you are able to use your 200GB HD, it means that either you, or someone else, enabled the required support in the registry. If you don't believe me, then reinstall your OS, then try to "see" any HD above 137GB - you won't be able to.

'Nough said... moving on.

[bevills1]

Well, then MS is wrong which doesn't surprise me since their support has been of little use in the past with me eventually resolving issues on my own. How else can mine and RLT69 results be explained? BTW native Win is only disk software running on my 2 systems.

[gadgetguy]

...
If you are able to use your 200GB HD, it means that either you, or someone else, enabled the required support in the registry...

Not necessarily true. This depends on the drivers installed for the IDE Channels. I am currently using drivers identified as oem7.inf and it recognizes large drives without a registry hack, but it does not provide an "advanced" tab to control PIO/DMA. oem39.inf provides the "advanced" tab but has trouble with large drives and presumably would require the registry hack.

[SLK001]

All that I can say is that MS says that you must input the BIGLBA settings in the registry to enable Windows 2000 to see the large disks. Now I don't know if speciallized IDE drivers are doing the address translating or not, but my experience is that I have always had to set the registry key everytime I "refreshed" my system with a new install of windows. But then, I am using a motherboard that is 4+ years old and has the standard IDE channels.

[gadgetguy]

Yeah, M$ says a lot of things.
As far as I know both of the IDE Channel drivers I sited are standard as I did not specifically install either of them. I discovered this when I was experiencing a problem and wanted to check if the drive had reverted to PIO mode. W2K selects oem7.inf by default when I delete the channels and reboot. I manually selected oem39.inf and got the "advanced" tab, but then had trouble with my 250gig drive so I put it back.
But my point was that regardless of what M$ says and what your experience has been, it is very possible and likely that others are having different experiences and there is a logical reason for it.

[bevills1]

Going all the way back to a P2 450MHZ through several upgrades to current AMD 64 3400MHZ I've installed Windows 2000 SP4 and never had to do registry edit to see over 137GB drives and have never had advanced tab absent to control PIO/DMA settings. Also I'm the only one who installs OS or changes settings on my systems, and thus I know nobody else has done any registry edits to enable LBA. Perhaps it may simply depend on mobo chipset and/or BIOS version.

[SLK001]

Don't know what to tell you. Did you check to see if the registry key was there and set properly? Supposedly, the registry setting is to tell Windows to switch from 37 bit addressing to 48 bit addressing on the hard drives. As far as I know, this has to be set properly to get Windows to see above the 137GB limit of 37bit addressing.

[gadgetguy]

That setting does not exist in my registry.
I'm guessing the M$ quote comes from the Knowledge Base which is designed to offer solutions to people experiencing a problem. The statement in that context is accurate, but it doesn't mean it applies to people that aren't experiencing the problem.

[dcsos]

Those registry setting are only for internal ATAPI interfaces..Drives in EXTERNAL CASES over 137 can be seen by default with SP3 installed here by default

TRY THE FOLLOWING..
1. When you can see the drive, re-assign the DRIVE LETTER in the DISK MANAGER
if this don't work:

2. Take all the data off, re-partition, re format, put it back. Windows obviously should be ok with the drive now

[bevills1]

Just checked, and that key doesn't exist in my registry either which may mean gadgetguy may be correct about its use for trouble shooting problems.

[SLK001]

Just checked, and that key doesn't exist in my registry either which may mean gadgetguy may be correct about its use for trouble shooting problems.

According to your COMPUTER DETAILS, you only have a 40GB hard drive. So you don't need the key (and thus have no reason for the key to be there).

[gadgetguy]

Just checked, and that key doesn't exist in my registry either which may mean gadgetguy may be correct about its use for trouble shooting problems.

I meant that the knowledge base was meant for troubleshooting/solving problems. The registry entry is a cure IF the problem exists, but if it isn't a problem it's not necessary. My system has a 160GB and a 250GB drive and operates fine without that registry entry.

[bevills1]

As stated in my 11/30 post my system has one 200GB and one 160GB drive. Don't know where SLK001 mistakenly conlcuded I only have a 40GB drive. I've not had a 40GB drive for at least 2 years.

[SLK001]

As stated in my 11/30 post my system has one 200GB and one 160GB drive. Don't know where SLK001 mistakenly conlcuded I only have a 40GB drive. I've not had a 40GB drive for at least 2 years.

Update your COMPUTER DETAILS section of your profile. (Clicking on yours shows a 40GB HD.)

[bevills1]

Computer details were updated. However, the disappearing NTFS drive problem recurred and becomes even more perplexing. First I recreated and formatted the drive after which no System Volume Information folder was created. Then I decided to do a fresh Windows install on that drive after which when booted to the main OS drive a System Volume Information folder is seen as well as some video files I created there, but none of the fresh install Windows files are seen on the drive when booted to main OS drive. All fresh install Windows files are seen when booted to the fresh Windows install drive, but no System Volume Information folder nor video files created by main OS on that same drive are seen. Does anybody have an explanation or fix for this curious behavior?

[bevills1]

In my last post I meant to include for this System Volume Information folder properties show 0 bytes which I think is incorrect because it had some files in it before problems began, and my slave drive has a _restore{6998FACF-DB29-45E8-99F9-14BEB245B57F} folder plus a tracking file and a MountPointManagerRemoteDatabase file within its Volume Information folder. These files and folders within the System Volume Information folder probably need to be recreated, but I've no idea how to do that. I'd have thought the complete repartition and reformat of all partitions on this drive would have created all necessary files and folders in the System Volume Information folder, but apparently it did not. Has anyone else experienced this problem or know how to fix it?

[painkiller]

Have you doublechecked that your jumper settings on the hard drives are correct?

I have experienced drives go missing in the past and found this to be the core of the problem for me when that happened.