(This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem.

"umop" <ThisEmailAddressDoesntWork_PleaseUseMyNameInstead.DeleteThis@ondea.com> wrote in message
news:1140824065.080576.15690@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
> I have two identical Western Digital 250GB hard disks which were
> previously in a RAID array in a Lacie D2 BigDisk enclosure.

So either 'RAID0' or 'Spanned'.

> When I place either inside any other controller I have, I end up with one
> showing up at it's accurate 250GB value, and the other at a truncated
> 128GB. I have gone into WinHex, a disk editor, and found the following
> information being reported:
>
> Disk 1 (Wrong):
>
> cyls 16709
> heads 255
> sectors per track 63
> bytes sect 512
> surplus sectors 3323
> reported size: 137437904896 bytes
>
> Disk 2 (Correct):
>
> cyls 30401
> heads 255
> sectors per track 63
> bytes sect 512
> surplus sectors 3711
> reported size: 250058637312 bytes
>

> It appears that the physical parameters on this disk are incorrect,

Not from that report above. Those are not the physical parameters.
Those are logical parameters, and as such they are even false as CHS
is not supported above 8GB. The surplus sectors may indicate that
they aren't even for the whole drive but for a partition instead.
They are LBA values converted to a CHS notation just for display
purposes though God knows what that purpose may be.
CHS was useful in determining whether partiton boundaries were
on full cylinders when harddrives were below 8GB capacity.
It's usefulness has long passed it's use by date since.

> and I need to find out where they are stored so I can change them and
> restore the data from my disk.

What 'disk'.

> I have tried swapping the driver cards from the good HD (disk 2)
> to the bad one (disk 1), and it still shows the same values.

Likely because that data is kept on the platters, whether it is MBR or
the physical disk's configuration sector that's causing your problems.

> I don't care about continuing to use the disk, I just need
> to be able to read everything so i can get my data back.

Maybe things get clearer once you state your problem.

>
> Any ideas what program I can use to change the disk parameters of the
> incorrect disk, or at least a method I can use to retrieve the (raw) data?
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem. 

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to RemoveThis @myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:44005a4c$0$49387$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> "umop" <ThisEmailAddressDoesntWork_PleaseUseMyNameInstead RemoveThis @ondea.com> wrote in message
> news:1140824065.080576.15690@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
> > I have two identical Western Digital 250GB hard disks which were
> > previously in a RAID array in a Lacie D2 BigDisk enclosure.
>
> So either 'RAID0' or 'Spanned'.
>
> > When I place either inside any other controller I have, I end up with one
> > showing up at it's accurate 250GB value, and the other at a truncated
> > 128GB. I have gone into WinHex, a disk editor, and found the following
> > information being reported:
> >
> > Disk 2 (Correct):
> >
> > cyls 30401
> > heads 255
> > sectors per track 63
> > bytes sect 512
> > surplus sectors 3711
> > reported size: 250058637312 bytes
>
> > It appears that the physical parameters on this disk are incorrect,
>
> Not from that report above. Those are not the physical parameters.
> Those are logical parameters, and as such they are even false as CHS
> is not supported above 8GB. The surplus sectors may indicate that
> they aren't even for the whole drive but for a partition instead.
> They are LBA values converted to a CHS notation just for display
> purposes though God knows what that purpose may be.
> CHS was useful in determining whether partiton boundaries were
> on full cylinders when harddrives were below 8GB capacity.
> It's usefulness has long passed it's use by date since.
>

Still confused by the CHS values Win NT reports, FolkNuts?
You get the same values from findpart, dskprobe, and winhex.
Yes, Win NT still aligns basic disk partitions on cylinder boundries.
Not surprising since it was documented by MS 10 years ago.
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem. 

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dtputh050v@enews3.newsguy.com
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to DeleteThis @myweb.nl> wrote in message news:44005a4c$0$49387$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> > "umop" ThisEmailAddressDoesntWork_PleaseUseMyNameInstead DeleteThis @ondea.com> wrote in message
news:1140824065.080576.15690@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
> > > I have two identical Western Digital 250GB hard disks which were
> > > previously in a RAID array in a Lacie D2 BigDisk enclosure.
> >
> > So either 'RAID0' or 'Spanned'.
> >
> > > When I place either inside any other controller I have, I end up with one
> > > showing up at it's accurate 250GB value, and the other at a truncated
> > > 128GB. I have gone into WinHex, a disk editor, and found the following
> > > information being reported:
> > >
> > > Disk 2 (Correct):
> > >
> > > cyls 30401
> > > heads 255
> > > sectors per track 63
> > > bytes sect 512
> > > surplus sectors 3711
> > > reported size: 250058637312 bytes
> >
> > > It appears that the physical parameters on this disk are incorrect,
> >
> > Not from that report above. Those are not the physical parameters.
> > Those are logical parameters, and as such they are even false as CHS
> > is not supported above 8GB. The surplus sectors may indicate that
> > they aren't even for the whole drive but for a partition instead.
> > They are LBA values converted to a CHS notation just for display
> > purposes though God knows what that purpose may be.
> > CHS was useful in determining whether partiton boundaries were
> > on full cylinders when harddrives were below 8GB capacity.
> > It's usefulness has long passed it's use by date since.
> >
>
> Still confused by the CHS values Win NT reports, FolkNuts?

Nope, but it's obvious that you are.
Now we know why you are known as "the Gisin newby".
The only one confused is you, Gisin.

Go read the ATA spec and the EDD BIOS spec, newby.
Or the Enhanced Bios Services For Disk Drives spec.
Or the MBR partition table spec.
They all say that CHS is restricted to 8GB in one way or another.

You know full well that I am correct.
And if not then you are indeed a truly pathetic newby.

Where were you when Antoine Leca confirmed what I said then
and what I say now. You know you wouldn't have stood a chance
then, don't you, Gisin. Which makes you kind of a RAT.

> You get the same values from findpart, dskprobe, and winhex.

Ah, and that makes it right. It also does that for SCSI drives
and every one and his dog knows that SCSI doesn't use CHS at all.
But then a newby like yourself may not know that, don't you, newby.
What a bullshit artist you are, Gisin.

And it is that terminal stupid mentality of insisting of using bogus CHS
internally that makes some windowses based on NT not recognize the full
capacity of some harddrives but limit them to 8GB or 32 GB instead if the
bios parameters are not to their liking or the stars are in the wrong place.

> Yes, Win NT still aligns basic disk partitions on cylinder boundries.

That's silly, especially for those partition types that don't use CHS
at all, the LBA-only partition types.

> Not surprising since it was documented by MS 10 years ago.

But isn't used for partitions currently and partitions aren't exactly
a MS invention. The only requirement for CHS currently is in booting
a harddrive with an ancient bootstrap loader using legacy Int13.
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem. 

> Those are not the physical parameters

In WinHex, you are given the option to open "Logical Drives", or
"Physical Media." I am accessing the physical disk under the "Physical
Media" section, not a partition or logical disk, so I don't believe
that to be true. Additionally, from this view, I can see several
partitions, one being the NTFS partition that I'm interested in.

Whether the CHS values are extrapolated from the LBA values or not, the
size is still being misreported either way, and I cannot access about
half of my data from this 250GB drive. I agree, since the swapping of
driver cards yielded the same result, that it appears that the
incorrect information must somehow be stored on the platters, but I'm
unclear as to how get any deeper than I already am (the physical disk)
to alter those parameters and dump an image of this drive. The
previous poster suggested to use Western Digital's Lifeguard tools to
set the size of the disk, but I want to exhaust all other possibilities
before I trust my data to that tool.

You mentioned the physical disk's configuration sector. Is there a way
to access and modify that? I have looked up information on the MBR
before, and it appeared to only contain info on partitions. Not the
actual physical disk.

Thanks much for the help!
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem. 

"umop" <ThisEmailAddressDoesntWork_PleaseUseMyNameInstead.TakeThisOut@ondea.com> wrote in message
news:1141258587.082438.5640@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Read my lips:

> > Those are not the physical parameters
>
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem. 

Okay. If that's true, how should I access the physical disk instead of
a logical one, if indeed the result of opening the "Physical Media" in
my disk editor yields a logical disk? I'm not clear why this would be
the case, but I'm open to suggestions. Which disk editor would be best
for this? Is there a particular controller I should try (I'm on a
notebook, unfortunately, so I can't plug into a hardware EIDE cable).

Thanks,
Eric
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem. 

So, as you can see, that other thread wasn't very helpful for me. Can
you offer any suggestions for me, Eric?

Thanks
Eric
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem. 

"umop" <ThisEmailAddressDoesntWork_PleaseUseMyNameInstead DeleteThis @ondea.com> wrote in message
news:1141774825.618842.68830@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com

> So, as you can see, that other thread wasn't very helpful for me.

It wasn't helpful because you weren't very helpful yourself.
That's what you get for snipping, ignoring requests for info
and being selfcentered, calling Western Digital's Lifeguard
tools untrustworthy. You got treated the same way back.

My post is still there, so why don't you try again.

> Can you offer any suggestions for me, Eric?

You must be quite desperate to ask the Gisin Newbie,
(but not desperate enough to use WD's tools?).

>
> Thanks
> Eric
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem. 

Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>
> "umop" <ThisEmailAddressDoesntWork_PleaseUseMyNameInstead.TakeThisOut@ondea.com> wrote in message
> news:1141774825.618842.68830@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
>
> > So, as you can see, that other thread wasn't very helpful for me.
>
> It wasn't helpful because you weren't very helpful yourself.
> That's what you get for snipping, ignoring requests for info
> and being selfcentered,

Selfcentred.

Folkert, you epitomise the art of being "selfcentred" [sic].

Let's hope the rest of the week improves for you!


Odie
--
Retrodata
www.retrodata.co.uk
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem. 

On 24 Feb 2006 22:23:23 -0800, okcmike.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:

>Use WD's Data Lifeguard Tool's 'Set Hard Drive Size' utility to correct
>the hard drives capacity.

If the disk is not set to 128 GB using jumpers. In that case, correct
the jumper setting.
--
Svend Olaf
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem. 

Hi Svend, had a long good sabbatical?

"Svend Olaf Mikkelsen" <svolaf DeleteThis @partitionsupport.com> wrote in message news:4410ee1f.27272204@news.inet.tele.dk
> On 24 Feb 2006 22:23:23 -0800, okcmike DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Use WD's Data Lifeguard Tool's 'Set Hard Drive Size' utility to correct
>> the hard drives capacity.
>

> If the disk is not set to 128 GB using jumpers.
> In that case, correct the jumper setting.

Well, that should be an accidental jumper setting then since you don't
just forget that you set it, not with that kind of problem description.
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem. 

> If the disk is not set to 128 GB using jumpers. In that case, correct
> the jumper setting.

I saw the size limiting jumper option in the documentation, but it is
not set to limit. Also, I have actually swapped the driver card
containing the jumpers between the two drives and still had the same
result. Good thought though.
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem. 

"umop" <ThisEmailAddressDoesntWork_PleaseUseMyNameInstead.TakeThisOut@ondea.com> wrote in message
news:1141969741.400812.198800@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
>> If the disk is not set to 128 GB using jumpers. In that case, correct
>> the jumper setting.
>
> I saw the size limiting jumper option in the documentation, but it is
> not set to limit. Also, I have actually swapped the driver card
> containing the jumpers between the two drives and still had the same
> result. Good thought though.

Still stubbornly refusing to provide more info.
 >> Stay informed about: (This is not a BIOS or Windows issue) Drive size problem.