cssjs2@ufhx1.ufh.ac.za (Mr JM Scheepers) (06/17/91)
The scenario is this: 486-25, 676MB Seagate/WREN ESDI 94196 disk, AMI bios. The problem: Unable to access more than 450 MB under DOS 5.0 (beta) The obvious problem (old DOSes) is the 1024-cylinder limit. However, the AMI BIOS, with its nifty Hard Disk Utility, DOES allow you to initialise the disk's full capacity of 1632 tracks x 15 hd x 54 sect. (1629, actually). Trying the DOS 5 Fdisk, it only sees 1024 tracks. (=450MB) Same with Seagate's Disk Manager (604 cyls) and Storage Dimensions' PartEd (1025 cyls). It's impossible to use the controller's BIOS (The debug g c800:5 trick). It simply says "-Program terminated normally". Why ? According to the disk controller info (DTC6280-15TX) I should be able to access a 60 sector/track translation mode (If I can get into the controller bios!) which will help me overcome the 1024 cyl limit and give me support up to 480 MB. Big deal! Why can't I get the FULL 676 MB that's been paid for? What a waste of 196 Meg! ANY help will be appreciated. As always, thanking you in anticipation... Inus Scheepers (cssjs2@ufhx1.ufh.ac.za)
woan@exeter.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S Woan) (06/18/91)
In article <CG108W3.91Jun17220036@icogsci1.icogsci1.ucsd.edu> cg108w3@icogsci1.ucsd.edu (Steve - Happy Hacker) writes: >If anyone is aware of a way to make DOS 5.0 use more than the first >1024 cyl's, the net eagerly awaits a solution.. :) SpeedStor works if you use SETVER to fool it into believing it's using an earlier version... Too bad Storage Dimensions quit selling it seperate from their own hardware systems. -- +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan woan@cactus.org or woan@austin.vnet.ibm.com + + other email addresses Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
cg108w3@icogsci1.ucsd.edu (Steve - Happy Hacker) (06/18/91)
--=}>> On 17 Jun 91 12:41:12 GMT, cssjs2@ufhx1.ufh.ac.za said: JMS> The scenario is this: 486-25, 676MB Seagate/WREN ESDI 94196 disk, JMS> AMI bios. The problem: Unable to access more than 450 MB under JMS> DOS 5.0 (beta) JMS> The obvious problem (old DOSes) is the 1024-cylinder limit. JMS> However, the AMI BIOS, with its nifty Hard Disk Utility, DOES JMS> allow you to initialise the disk's full capacity of 1632 tracks x JMS> 15 hd x 54 sect. (1629, actually). JMS> Trying the DOS 5 Fdisk, it only sees 1024 tracks. (=450MB) Same JMS> with Seagate's Disk Manager (604 cyls) and Storage Dimensions' JMS> PartEd (1025 cyls). I have two Microscience HH-1120 hard disks with a similar predicament. They have 1313 cylinders each. I got DOS 5.0 (non-beta) due to rumors that it could now handle large capacity disks. Well, to sum things up, I am again running PC-DOS 3.3. With PC-DOS 3.3, I am able to use Ontrak's Disk Manager to access all 1313 cylinders. I have a 32 Meg C: partition on the first drive that is DOS bootable, then the rest of that drive is D:, with all 1313 cylinders of the second drive as E:. This setup has worked fine in the past, although the large cluster size (8K) is a bit expensive for numerous files. I did not correctly install Disk Manager in DOS 5.0, but even if it did work, it would not be a big win for me, as I would have gained little improvement. All in all, DOS 5 offered high-mem loading (which I get from QEMM now) and large disks (which still are not large enough), so it was not worth anything to me. (I'm not a GUI-shell person, so that was no reason to keep it.) My AMI BIOS is fully aware that I have 1313 cylinders and never once complained. (I didn't need a utility to make it accept >1024, I just typed it into the config screen.) UHC Unix had no trouble with the >1024 cylinders. Why on earth is Microsoft so bent on the notion that DOS machines simply *must* have small drives?! If anyone is aware of a way to make DOS 5.0 use more than the first 1024 cyl's, the net eagerly awaits a solution.. :) Until then, 3.3 it is.. -Steve -- }>> Steve Haehnichen <<{ shaehnichen@ucsd.edu Disclaimer: UCSD and I do not share any opinions.
bb16@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Bostater) (06/18/91)
In article <CG108W3.91Jun17220036@icogsci1.icogsci1.ucsd.edu> cg108w3@icogsci1.ucsd.edu (Steve - Happy Hacker) writes: >If anyone is aware of a way to make DOS 5.0 use more than the first >1024 cyl's, the net eagerly awaits a solution.. :) > >Until then, 3.3 it is.. Hmmm.... I just told my AMI BIOS that my IDE drive was 1072x7x29, did the normal fdisk and format and got 106 MB (what you would expect). This was originally done under DOS 4.01, but I now have DOS 5.00 on it and haven't noticed any files missing :-) Granted, 1072 isn't much bigger than 1024, but it still forces something somewhere to hold an extra bit position..... -- Scott Bostater Georgia Tech Research Institute - Radar Systems Analysis "My soul finds rest in God alone; my salvation comes from Him" -Ps 62.1 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!bb16 Internet: bb16@prism.gatech.edu
endter@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Bill Endter RCU/DEC) (06/19/91)
In article <31526@hydra.gatech.EDU>, bb16@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Bostater) writes: |> In article <CG108W3.91Jun17220036@icogsci1.icogsci1.ucsd.edu> cg108w3@icogsci1.ucsd.edu (Steve - Happy Hacker) writes: |> |> >If anyone is aware of a way to make DOS 5.0 use more than the first |> >1024 cyl's, the net eagerly awaits a solution.. :) |> > |> >Until then, 3.3 it is.. |> |> Hmmm.... I just told my AMI BIOS that my IDE drive was 1072x7x29, did the |> normal fdisk and format and got 106 MB (what you would expect). This was |> originally done under DOS 4.01, but I now have DOS 5.00 on it and haven't |> noticed any files missing :-) |> Are you saying that CHKDSK gives you 106,xxx,xxx bytes total disk space, or 111,xxx,xxx bytes. CHKDSK should give you 111,xxx,xxx bytes total disk space using the above parameters. (1072*7*29*512) If CHKDSK is giving you 106,xxx,xxx then I think DOS is only looking at 1024 cylinders. (1024*7*29*512) Bill
mosbrook@beach.csulb.edu (Brent Mosbrook) (06/19/91)
I personally would go with a card like the 1007-se2, whose bios can translate to 63 spt for you. I have heard good things about the ultrastor card, but haven't tested it yet with that drive. -- +--------------------------------------+ | Brent Mosbrook KC6MWK | | mosbrook@beach.csulb.edu | +--------------------------------------+
entally@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.224611.14197@beach.csulb.edu>, mosbrook@beach.csulb.edu (Brent Mosbrook) writes: > I personally would go with a card like the 1007-se2, whose bios can translate > to 63 spt for you. I have heard good things about the ultrastor card, but > haven't tested it yet with that drive. I agree. We have been using WD1007-SE2 and Ultrastor 12C / 12F conrollers for our large ESDI drives. However we did have some disk access failure problems with the WD1007 controller when the drives are larger than 380MB. With the Ultrastor 12C / 12F controllers, we have not encountered any problems yet. The Ultrastor controllers have special buildin features to handle drives that have more than 1024 cylinders when using DOS (for Novell NetWare 2.15 and above and UNIX Sys V, there is no 1024 limitation). > +--------------------------------------+ Leo> | Brent Mosbrook KC6MWK > | mosbrook@beach.csulb.edu | > +--------------------------------------+
bobf@world.std.com (Bob Frankston) (06/20/91)
I'm using a Lark controller that makes the system think that there are two diffrent drives, with <= 1024 cylinders. You can call them at 415-657-5275 for more information. It works under OS/2 as well as DOS.
cssjs2@ufhx1.ufh.ac.za (Mr JM Scheepers) (06/20/91)
My problem with debug was saying "G C800:5" instead of "G=C800:5". However, that did not solve my problem of the missing 200 MB! I've managed to scrounge a CDC-WREN version of the DiskManager software (V3.60). Unfortunately it doesn't have a menu entry for the 94196 model. No matter. It can take non-standard parameters. Included is SWBIOS.com, a bios extender which gives the DM the right disk info (i.e., 1630 cyl vs 1024 cyl). Partitioning options work reasonably, with a 33 MB PRI DOS partition (I'm settling for DOS 3.3 vs DOS 5 beta) and a 536 MB R/W second partition. It even inits and verifies a third R/W partition of 105MB for an apparent total of 694MB. I see drives C: and D:. I can change to default drive E:, but get a "General Failure" error when trying to do a "dir", or, when trying to store a file, "file creation error". OK, so drive E: can't and won't be used. (I wanted one HUGE C: drive!) The controller card's a DTC6280-15TX, and BIOS CMOS should be set to type 1. There are 2 options in the controllers disk config utility: Option A: NON-TRANSLATION has a problem: Applications using int 13 may "wrap" to cyl 0 and corrupt data. This option is not for me. Option B: TRANSLATION (63/60/51 sect/track) has these steps: (1) CMOS set to disk type 1 (10MB?) (2) run DEBUG to specify xlation mode. (3) Load SWBIOS.com (4) Run DM loaded with /7 /N switches (to ensure opportunity to correct the sector/track info (54? in my case) ) Well, it never bothered to ask for correct sect/track info. In any case, I now have 2 drives: a 33 MB dos 3.3 boot partition, and 467 533 824 Bytes. (It seems clusters are 32KB in size on the D: drive.) PS. Chkdsk on this drive simply says: Divide Overflow \ Exiting...
bb16@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Bostater) (06/22/91)
In article <1991Jun18.173113.16027@riacs.edu> endter@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Bill Endter RCU/DEC) writes: [My erroneous statements deleted ] > Are you saying that CHKDSK gives you 106,xxx,xxx bytes total disk space, >or 111,xxx,xxx bytes. CHKDSK should give you 111,xxx,xxx bytes total disk space using the above parameters. (1072*7*29*512) If CHKDSK is giving you >106,xxx,xxx then I think DOS is only looking at 1024 cylinders. (1024*7*29*512) Oops! Looks like I started talking before I got my facts straight. The software I used to check the free space right after the format responded with 106 MB. I took it to mean 106 * 1024 * 1024 bytes. They meant 106 * 10^6 bytes. Sorry about wasting the net bandwidth.... -- Scott Bostater Georgia Tech Research Institute - Radar Systems Analysis "My soul finds rest in God alone; my salvation comes from Him" -Ps 62.1 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!bb16 Internet: bb16@prism.gatech.edu
scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) (06/25/91)
In article <CG108W3.91Jun17220036@icogsci1.icogsci1.ucsd.edu>, cg108w3@icogsci1.ucsd.edu (Steve - Happy Hacker) writes (and others have written similarly in other articles): > My AMI BIOS is fully aware that I have 1313 cylinders and never once > complained. (I didn't need a utility to make it accept >1024, I just > typed it into the config screen.) UHC Unix had no trouble with the > >1024 cylinders. Why on earth is Microsoft so bent on the notion > that DOS machines simply *must* have small drives?! The problem with more than 1024 cylinders is that DOS uses the BIOS to access the disk and the BIOS interface only allows 10 bits for a cylinder number. This is an unfortunate fact of life. Since this is an interface problem, there is nothing that either DOS or the BIOS can do to avoid it -- both must agree on any change. Since most BIOSes are in ROM, this is a nasty problem. The only reasonable way to fix this is for DOS to completely avoid the BIOS and access the disk hardware directly, but that means that DOS must now become much more complex since it will have to be intimately familiar with every existing disk controller, as well as future controllers. Most BIOSes are not very useful for multitasking or protected mode operation, so the Unix vendors have been forced to adopt this route and that's why there's no similar problem for Unix. Of course, they have the other problem that you can't just go buy the neatest new whiz-bang disk controller and use it, you have to wait for them to write a driver for it and then you have to configure it into your system and then live with various problems for three or four releases until they get all the bugs out. Then you get a new whiz-bang motherboard and discover that there's some subtle interactions and you need to go through another three or four releases until it all works again. Microsoft really doesn't want to get themselves in that position, and I think that's understandable. Most disk controllers these days have enough intelligence that sector translation is a viable alternative, although that screws up software that does real low level access like non-destructive low-level formatters. I don't know of any really good way to solve the problem -- if you do, share it with us! I'm sure Microsoft would jump at the chance to support large disks as long as they don't have to paint themselves into a corner to do it. ---- Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH 45150-2789 513-576-2070 Domain: scjones@sdrc.com Path: uunet!sdrc!scjones Any game without push-ups, hits, burns or noogies is a sissy game. -- Calvin
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (06/26/91)
scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) writes: >The problem with more than 1024 cylinders is that DOS uses the >BIOS to access the disk and the BIOS interface only allows 10 >bits for a cylinder number. This is an unfortunate fact of life. >Since this is an interface problem, there is nothing that either >DOS or the BIOS can do to avoid it -- both must agree on any >change. Since most BIOSes are in ROM, this is a nasty problem. >The only reasonable way to fix this is for DOS to completely >avoid the BIOS and access the disk hardware directly, but that >means that DOS must now become much more complex since it will >have to be intimately familiar with every existing disk >controller, as well as future controllers. This is mostly true, but why couldn't the disk controller vendors supply a DOS device driver which implements a standard interface for accessing 11-bit cylinder numbers? This would get loaded in config.sys, Microsoft could have a stable interface to write DOS to, and the disk controller vendors would have an important selling point. -- If your son's dentist had AIDS, would you want to know?