kolderman wrote on 2020-05-07, 22:25:

I prepare and maintain most of my retro HDDs on my modern Win10 PC. They are all installed in hot-swap drive bays, so I just take them out, put them in a USB HDD dock on my modern PC, and I can format/backup/restore them, TRIM SSDs etc. Much easier than trying to make stuff like TRIM run under Win98/DOS.

So for Win98 the process is simple - just format an SSD as FAT32, copy on the WIN98 folder, then boot using a CD or floppy, and then run setup directly from the HDD.

Partitioning can be easily on a modern machine, but as far as I know Windows 7 and 10 do not support TRIM on FAT32 filesystems .
The selected filesystems are FAT32 and are on a Samsung 860EVO SSD connected directly to a SATA port . Optimization is not available for them .

See also https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-serv … fsutil-behavior which does not mention FAT32 anywhere .

1To query the system to see if TRIM is enabled or not, type:
2fsutil behavior query DisableDeleteNotify
3
4This yields an output similar to this:
5NTFS DisableDeleteNotify = 1
6ReFS DisableDeleteNotify is not currently set
7
8To override the default behavior for TRIM (disabledeletenotify) for ReFS v2, type:
9fsutil behavior set DisableDeleteNotify ReFS 0
10
11To override the default behavior for TRIM (disabledeletenotify) for NTFS and ReFS v1, type:
12fsutil behavior set DisableDeleteNotify 1

Sorry I only TRIM the ssd from a WinXP box with NFTS, but I am still able format and maintain Win98 SSDs this way.

kolderman wrote on 2020-05-07, 22:54:

Sorry I only TRIM the ssd from a WinXP box with NFTS, but I am still able format and maintain Win98 SSDs this way.

No need to be sorry. Even the Wikipedia article is ambiguous on the matter . It would be nice if Microsoft were more up front about this .

On a different note, most IDE controllers under Windows 98 SE either are DMA enabled automatically or let you enable the feature . Under DOS, integrated controllers like the ICH2 and PIIX run in PIO mode by default (at least on the baords I've used) and though there are utilities to enable DMA in DOS mode (XHDD .SYS ,UIDE.SYS , UDMA.SYS ), they are not compatible with Windows 98 SE . For maximum performance from any drive, especially an SSD, DMA has to be enabled . If having maximum performance under Windows 98SE's pure DOS mode is a concern, using a controller that is DMA enabled from boot (such as a Promise Utra133 TX2 ) is probably preferable in order to minimize the use of multiple config.sys and autoexec.bat profiles .

So, I decided to take this further. Startech IDE2SAT2 adapter and Samsung 860 EVO 250 Gb.

I try to get this done by the end of this week, I´ll let you guys know how it goes 😀

khyypio wrote on 2020-10-20, 16:14:

So, I decided to take this further. Startech IDE2SAT2 adapter and Samsung 860 EVO 250 Gb.
IMG_20201020_183349_01_01.JPG
I try to get this done by the end of this week, I´ll let you guys know how it goes 😀

I briefly tried such a combination (on an ICH2) with only one notable issue :

the Startech IDE2SAT2 uses a Sunplus SPIF223A chip that does not pass through TRIM .

The only IDE to SATA adapters the I know of with TRIM pass-through are the JMicron and Marvell based ones .

EDIT : What motherboard / IDE controller are you using ?

darry wrote on 2020-10-20, 17:00:

I briefly tried such a combination (on an ICH2) with only one notable issue : […]
Show full quote

khyypio wrote on 2020-10-20, 16:14:

So, I decided to take this further. Startech IDE2SAT2 adapter and Samsung 860 EVO 250 Gb.
IMG_20201020_183349_01_01.JPG
I try to get this done by the end of this week, I´ll let you guys know how it goes 😀

I briefly tried such a combination (on an ICH2) with only one notable issue :

the Startech IDE2SAT2 uses a Sunplus SPIF223A chip that does not pass through TRIM .

The only IDE to SATA adapters the I know of with TRIM pass-through are the JMicron and Marvell based ones .

EDIT : What motherboard / IDE controller are you using ?

My motherboard is Abit ST6

khyypio wrote on 2020-10-20, 17:58:

darry wrote on 2020-10-20, 17:00:

I briefly tried such a combination (on an ICH2) with only one notable issue : […]
Show full quote

khyypio wrote on 2020-10-20, 16:14:

So, I decided to take this further. Startech IDE2SAT2 adapter and Samsung 860 EVO 250 Gb.
IMG_20201020_183349_01_01.JPG
I try to get this done by the end of this week, I´ll let you guys know how it goes 😀

I briefly tried such a combination (on an ICH2) with only one notable issue :

the Startech IDE2SAT2 uses a Sunplus SPIF223A chip that does not pass through TRIM .

The only IDE to SATA adapters the I know of with TRIM pass-through are the JMicron and Marvell based ones .

EDIT : What motherboard / IDE controller are you using ?

My motherboard is Abit ST6

Thank you.
That board has an ICH2 southbridge, like mine. With a compatible IDE to SATA adapter, TRIM should work (not with the Startech one).

Additionally, make sure your running the most recent BIOS to ensure proper LBA48 support . Re: Socket 370 based systems!

darry wrote on 2020-10-20, 18:07:

Thank you. That board has an ICH2 southbridge, like mine. With a compatible IDE to SATA adapter, TRIM should work (not with the […]
Show full quote

khyypio wrote on 2020-10-20, 17:58:

darry wrote on 2020-10-20, 17:00:

I briefly tried such a combination (on an ICH2) with only one notable issue : […]
Show full quote

I briefly tried such a combination (on an ICH2) with only one notable issue :

the Startech IDE2SAT2 uses a Sunplus SPIF223A chip that does not pass through TRIM .

The only IDE to SATA adapters the I know of with TRIM pass-through are the JMicron and Marvell based ones .

EDIT : What motherboard / IDE controller are you using ?

My motherboard is Abit ST6

Thank you.
That board has an ICH2 southbridge, like mine. With a compatible IDE to SATA adapter, TRIM should work (not with the Startech one).

Additionally, make sure your running the most recent BIOS to ensure proper LBA48 support . Re: Socket 370 based systems!

Well, Startech is what I got now... I was planning to make a 32 Gb and 128 Gb (I know, way under its capacity) partitions and align them to 4k and CHS. I understood that this is what you have to do if TRIM isn´t a possibility. I already have updated my BIOS to 9P.

khyypio wrote on 2020-10-20, 19:19:

darry wrote on 2020-10-20, 18:07:

Thank you. That board has an ICH2 southbridge, like mine. With a compatible IDE to SATA adapter, TRIM should work (not with the […]
Show full quote

khyypio wrote on 2020-10-20, 17:58:

My motherboard is Abit ST6

Thank you.
That board has an ICH2 southbridge, like mine. With a compatible IDE to SATA adapter, TRIM should work (not with the Startech one).

Additionally, make sure your running the most recent BIOS to ensure proper LBA48 support . Re: Socket 370 based systems!

Well, Startech is what I got now... I was planning to make a 32 Gb and 128 Gb (I know, way under its capacity) partitions and align them to 4k and CHS. I understood that this is what you have to do if TRIM isn´t a possibility. I already have updated my BIOS to 9P.

I hope that works out for you . Also, be careful with the driver you end up using .

-If the plan is to use the Windows default driver or the one included with the Intel .inf update, they are based on EDI_506.PDR and will need to be patched if your hard disk/SSD is >127GB (even if you use partitions smaller than 127GB). The patched ESDI_506.PDR from BHDD31.ZIP worked fine with JMicron, Sunplus and Marvell converters on my ICH2 board, albeit at UDMA66 only (likely a BIOS default on my board)
-If you want to use the Intel application Accelerator (IAA) driver because it handles >127GB natively, please test carefully, as it was only stable for me on an ICH2 with a Marvell based converter. JMicron and Sunplus based converters had a tendency to crash and corrupt data when used with IAA . EDIT : Even when lowering UDMA speed to UDMA66. IAA defaults to UDMA100 on ICH2 . That said UDMA100 is not much faster than UDMA66 on my ICH2 . IAA also has weird read speed issues on my setup with all IDE/SATA converters that I have tried .
- I believe RLOEW also created a patched ESDI_506.PDR (for >127GB support), but I have not tested that .

Threads/links of interest :
- Starting at this post : Re: Small capacity SSD PATA/SATA benchmarks
- BHDD31.ZIP http://www.mdgx.com/files/BHDD31.ZIP from http://www.mdgx.com/upd98me.php

Best of luck and let us know how things work out .

darry wrote on 2020-10-20, 21:09:

I hope that works out for you . Also, be careful with the driver you end up using . […]
Show full quote

khyypio wrote on 2020-10-20, 19:19:

darry wrote on 2020-10-20, 18:07:

Thank you.
That board has an ICH2 southbridge, like mine. With a compatible IDE to SATA adapter, TRIM should work (not with the Startech one).

Additionally, make sure your running the most recent BIOS to ensure proper LBA48 support . Re: Socket 370 based systems!

Well, Startech is what I got now... I was planning to make a 32 Gb and 128 Gb (I know, way under its capacity) partitions and align them to 4k and CHS. I understood that this is what you have to do if TRIM isn´t a possibility. I already have updated my BIOS to 9P.

I hope that works out for you . Also, be careful with the driver you end up using .

-If the plan is to use the Windows default driver or the one included with the Intel .inf update, they are based on EDI_506.PDR and will need to be patched if your hard disk/SSD is >127GB (even if you use partitions smaller than 127GB). The patched ESDI_506.PDR from BHDD31.ZIP worked fine with JMicron, Sunplus and Marvell converters on my ICH2 board, albeit at UDMA66 only (likely a BIOS default on my board)
-If you want to use the Intel application Accelerator (IAA) driver because it handles >127GB natively, please test carefully, as it was only stable for me on an ICH2 with a Marvell based converter. JMicron and Sunplus based converters had a tendency to crash and corrupt data when used with IAA . EDIT : Even when lowering UDMA speed to UDMA66. IAA defaults to UDMA100 on ICH2 . That said UDMA100 is not much faster than UDMA66 on my ICH2 . IAA also has weird read speed issues on my setup with all IDE/SATA converters that I have tried .
- I believe RLOEW also created a patched ESDI_506.PDR (for >127GB support), but I have not tested that .

Threads/links of interest :
- Starting at this post : Re: Small capacity SSD PATA/SATA benchmarks
- BHDD31.ZIP http://www.mdgx.com/files/BHDD31.ZIP from http://www.mdgx.com/upd98me.php

Best of luck and let us know how things work out .

Thank you! I´ll check the driver you mentioned. BTW, here´s a guide (a Word file) that someone made, I came across it by chance:

What do you think, is it legit?

khyypio wrote on 2020-10-20, 21:41:

Thank you! I´ll check the driver you mentioned. BTW, here´s a guide (a Word file) that someone made, I came across it by chance: […]
Show full quote

darry wrote on 2020-10-20, 21:09:

I hope that works out for you . Also, be careful with the driver you end up using . […]
Show full quote

khyypio wrote on 2020-10-20, 19:19:

Well, Startech is what I got now... I was planning to make a 32 Gb and 128 Gb (I know, way under its capacity) partitions and align them to 4k and CHS. I understood that this is what you have to do if TRIM isn´t a possibility. I already have updated my BIOS to 9P.

I hope that works out for you . Also, be careful with the driver you end up using .

-If the plan is to use the Windows default driver or the one included with the Intel .inf update, they are based on EDI_506.PDR and will need to be patched if your hard disk/SSD is >127GB (even if you use partitions smaller than 127GB). The patched ESDI_506.PDR from BHDD31.ZIP worked fine with JMicron, Sunplus and Marvell converters on my ICH2 board, albeit at UDMA66 only (likely a BIOS default on my board)
-If you want to use the Intel application Accelerator (IAA) driver because it handles >127GB natively, please test carefully, as it was only stable for me on an ICH2 with a Marvell based converter. JMicron and Sunplus based converters had a tendency to crash and corrupt data when used with IAA . EDIT : Even when lowering UDMA speed to UDMA66. IAA defaults to UDMA100 on ICH2 . That said UDMA100 is not much faster than UDMA66 on my ICH2 . IAA also has weird read speed issues on my setup with all IDE/SATA converters that I have tried .
- I believe RLOEW also created a patched ESDI_506.PDR (for >127GB support), but I have not tested that .

Threads/links of interest :
- Starting at this post : Re: Small capacity SSD PATA/SATA benchmarks
- BHDD31.ZIP http://www.mdgx.com/files/BHDD31.ZIP from http://www.mdgx.com/upd98me.php

Best of luck and let us know how things work out .

Thank you! I´ll check the driver you mentioned. BTW, here´s a guide (a Word file) that someone made, I came across it by chance:
How to 4K align a SSD for 98SE.rar

What do you think, is it legit?

I have never played to much with low level disk geometry, but the process described seems a bit convoluted . My approach was much simpler .

I had some issues with partition creation initially. I used FreeDOS FDISK initially, NOT recommended .
See Re: Possible bug/limitation in rloew's TRIM.EXE (TRIM utility for DOS) or issue related to IDE to SATA adapter (JMD330)

I ended up using Linux fdisk to create partitions and tested alignment successfully with diskat-gui.exe from http://diskat.net/ and Easus Partition Master Professional from https://www.easeus.com/ (with the drive connected to a modern PC) . I imagine that creating the partitions in Easus Partition Master Professional while connected to a modern PC would have worked as well (I don't know if the trial version allows that, though. I purchased a license for this program. )

Buy a brand new 120GB SSD for less than 20$,£ or whatever.

Use "Super FDisk" to partition and format it to a few GB less than full.

Use and enjoy and if it craps out after a few years, who cares? It cost less than a take away meal.

texterted wrote on 2020-10-20, 23:27:

Buy a brand new 120GB SSD for less than 20$,£ or whatever.

Use "Super FDisk" to partition and format it to a few GB less than full.

Use and enjoy and if it craps out after a few years, who cares? It cost less than a take away meal.

That's definitely an option, but not one that I would personally choose .

When I choose a modern solution to retrofit a retro rig, I consider the following :

a) Compatibility (i.e. will it work well and be stable)
b) How long will it last ? In other words, is it a long-term solution, or a stop-gap based on consumable components ?
c) How likely is it that replacement parts will be available in the long term (5-10 years+) if it does fail (no, I am not an oracle, but some things are obvious, like CF cards becoming even more niche over time and small capacity SSDs eventually becoming niche or disappearing as demand for then fades) ?
d) Is it worth stocking up on a few spares in order to face the future with confidence ?

I usually choose long-term solutions using parts that will last (durable and reliable) and where parts availability will not be constrained by special needs (i.e. requiring a low capacity drive) , but that's just my preference. Using the cheapest available option and potentially stocking up on spares for the same (or lower) price is a perfectly valid approach as well .

In my case, choosing to address Windows 98's disk size limit issues now rather than latter, allows me to be confident that I could just substitute another SATA SSD of any size if I ever need to . Choosing to use a Samsung SSD, with its high write endurance, maximizes the chances that my setup will likely last a long time without issues anyway . And, finally, planning for a way to easily TRIM regularly allows me to minimize performance issues .

Whatever path you choose, it is worth putting some forethought into it, IMHO .

Cheers!

TRIM is not really required on new SSD drives, you simply can't reduce their performance below capabilities of ATA100/133 interface and they can't be "killed" unintentionally, especially not in DOS/Win9x environment.
But alternatively you still can stock up on Intel X25-E drives which are quite literally unkillable for gaming retrorig workload. They are workstation/server grade and use very robust SLC NAND.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-10-21, 04:37:

TRIM is not really required on new SSD drives, you simply can't reduce their performance below capabilities of ATA100/133 interface and they can't be "killed" unintentionally, especially not in DOS/Win9x environment.
But alternatively you still can stock up on Intel X25-E drives which are quite literally unkillable for gaming retrorig workload. They are workstation/server grade and use very robust SLC NAND.

With endurance in the PB range (2.0PB for the 64GB version), I do not object to calling them practically unkillable (unless they have had an EXTREMELY hard life in the datacenter). That said 150 TBW on the cheapest Samsung 860 EVO (250GB) is probably "unkillable" too in a retro usage scenario, even if it has approx. 13 times less nominal endurance than a 64GB X25-E (2PB).

A new 250GB Samsung 860 EVO is about 70 CAN$ . A used 64GB Intel X25-E is about the same price with unknown wear levels. To be worse than the Samsung, in terms of remaining endurance, the Intel would need to have burned through more than 92% of its rated endurance which is probably unlikely .

It is nice to have choices and the X25-E is a good one (which I had not considered up to this point).

Good luck with Win98SE on an SSD, I'm curious how things will turn out.
I had Windows XP (NTFS) on an early 64GB SSD and performance was horribly.

Until I upgraded to Windows 7 for testing purposes; I didn't changed anything else, though.
Same partition (made with Win7 DVD previously before installing XP) and no TRIM/AHCI drivers.
Just that native SATA driver that came with Win7 (nforce mainboard, had SATA mode but was predating AHCI).

From what I read, FAT32 is not good for SSDs, because it is so hard to align to 4K sectors.
Well, not the partition itself -that's easy-, but the directory trees/FAT itself etc. etc.

Here, NTFS really shines. It uses 4K chunks by default (64K max), which match perfectly with 4K AF and the Windows memory managment (4K chunks).
- On the other hand, NTFS is not ideal for CF/SD cards, because it stores too much information, requires too much updates etc.

Perfect combination would be Windows 9x & ExFAT, maybe.
Or alternatively, Windows 9x and NTFS (aligned). If memory serves, there used to be a third-party driver (by Paragon ?)

Jo22 wrote on 2020-10-21, 05:38:

From what I read, FAT32 is not good for SSDs, because it is so hard to align to 4K sectors.
Well, not the partition itself -that's easy-, but the directory trees/FAT itself etc. etc.

That makes no sense; the smallest supported cluster size (which is the FAT "minimum allocation unit") is 4KB, every other possible cluster size is an exact multiple.

I've been using a 60GB Intel SSD 330 on my WIndows 98SE box with an IDE adaptor for a few weeks now and haven't noticed any performance issues. It is vastly faster than any mechanical hard drive of that era, especially in real world performance with lots of random reads. I don't think the lack of TRIM support is going to be any significant performance concern.

I'm not too worried about the write endurance either. Back when SSDs were just introduced to the market, people were actually FAT32 formatting them to reduce the number of writes to the drive because FAT32 is not a journalling filesystem. Even so, SSDs have gotten a lot more reliable since then. Modern SSDs from any reputable manufacturer employ some form of wear levelling and have some level of over provisioning to account for memory cell wear that is done in firmware. The same cannot be said for all SD and CF cards and even so, many of those cards last a reasonably long time in retro systems.

texterted wrote on 2020-10-20, 23:27:

Buy a brand new 120GB SSD for less than 20$,£ or whatever.

Use "Super FDisk" to partition and format it to a few GB less than full.

Use and enjoy and if it craps out after a few years, who cares? It cost less than a take away meal.

I already have a 250 Gb Samsung 860 EVO. You´re about the SSDs being cheap but my goal here is to maximize the compatibility and lifespan of the SSD. Can I align it to 4K with Super FDisk?

darry wrote on 2020-10-21, 05:07:

With endurance in the PB range (2.0PB for the 64GB version), I do not object to calling them practically unkillable (unless they […]
Show full quote

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2020-10-21, 04:37:

TRIM is not really required on new SSD drives, you simply can't reduce their performance below capabilities of ATA100/133 interface and they can't be "killed" unintentionally, especially not in DOS/Win9x environment.
But alternatively you still can stock up on Intel X25-E drives which are quite literally unkillable for gaming retrorig workload. They are workstation/server grade and use very robust SLC NAND.

With endurance in the PB range (2.0PB for the 64GB version), I do not object to calling them practically unkillable (unless they have had an EXTREMELY hard life in the datacenter). That said 150 TBW on the cheapest Samsung 860 EVO (250GB) is probably "unkillable" too in a retro usage scenario, even if it has approx. 13 times less nominal endurance than a 64GB X25-E (2PB).

A new 250GB Samsung 860 EVO is about 70 CAN$ . A used 64GB Intel X25-E is about the same price with unknown wear levels. To be worse than the Samsung, in terms of remaining endurance, the Intel would need to have burned through more than 92% of its rated endurance which is probably unlikely .

It is nice to have choices and the X25-E is a good one (which I had not considered up to this point).

Indeed, prices of used SLCs made me lose interest and I havent found even a single X25-E from Finland! 😁 I´ve been testing the MiniXP and EaseUS method, turns out it´s not that complicated to use. So, in MiniXP I created the primary partition (32 Gb C-drive for OS) and set it up as instructed in the guide I showed. Then I created extended partition (128 Gb D-drive for games) but I can´t change it to FAT32 and it doesn´t show up in EaseUS so I can´t format it.

cudatox wrote on 2020-10-21, 06:39:

I've been using a 60GB Intel SSD 330 on my WIndows 98SE box with an IDE adaptor for a few weeks now and haven't noticed any performance issues. It is vastly faster than any mechanical hard drive of that era, especially in real world performance with lots of random reads. I don't think the lack of TRIM support is going to be any significant performance concern.

I'm not too worried about the write endurance either. Back when SSDs were just introduced to the market, people were actually FAT32 formatting them to reduce the number of writes to the drive because FAT32 is not a journalling filesystem. Even so, SSDs have gotten a lot more reliable since then. Modern SSDs from any reputable manufacturer employ some form of wear levelling and have some level of over provisioning to account for memory cell wear that is done in firmware. The same cannot be said for all SD and CF cards and even so, many of those cards last a reasonably long time in retro systems.

I´m glad it´s working well! Which adapter are using? Did you do any prep work, aligning, etc?

jmarsh wrote on 2020-10-21, 05:48:

Jo22 wrote on 2020-10-21, 05:38:

From what I read, FAT32 is not good for SSDs, because it is so hard to align to 4K sectors.
Well, not the partition itself -that's easy-, but the directory trees/FAT itself etc. etc.

That makes no sense; the smallest supported cluster size (which is the FAT "minimum allocation unit") is 4KB, every other possible cluster size is an exact multiple.

Hi there! It's not about the cluster size, but the (physical) sector size. Traditional hard disks since the 1980s (or earlier) do transfer 512 Bytes per sector.
That's a dimension what IDE, BIOS, DOS etc. usually worked with - except for non-standard DOSes that ran on non-IBM machines (MS-DOS compatibles).
Hence you had to calculate fixed disk capacity for CHS with a multiplication of 512 each time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_sector

It wasn't until Windows Vista/7 that mainstream Windows became aware of 4K sectors (or AF; Advanced Format).
They didn't support 4K sectors, but were aware of it. That started with Windows 8.x.
SSDs/HDDs that work with 4K sectors, but use the old 512byte sector block size for communication, do use 512e (emulation).
https://www.reneelab.com/what-is-4kn-disk.html

Anyway, that's not the problem. Aligning FAT32 is -> fitting logical 512byte sectors seamlessly into 4096 Byte sectors which an SSD uses internally.
Otherwise, the SSD has extra work to do (read-modify-write). It's not enough to let a FAT32 partition start at a sector that's 4096 or a multiple of it.
FAT32 itself has a varying length, if memory serves. The thread linked here gives a better overview:
https://msfn.org/board/topic/151798-does-fat3 … clusters/page/1

Some tools are mentioned here:
Re: SSD in a Vintage Computer

Edit: First link fixed. Main issue seems to be shifting cluster on FAT32..
Edit: Text and typos fixed.