VOGONS

Common searches


First post, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Re: GPT disks on windows XP SP3
solution^

I have no need to have it be a boot drive but would like to be able to read the drive and share it on the network.

I’m wanting to make my windows xp sp3 computer into a file server. It’s a neat dual pentium 1 mmx. But problem is I can’t seem to get the 12TB drive to show up, I’ve found that this is because of GPT not being supported on windows XP SP3.

So I was going to try server 2003 r2 which did work in blue and white part of setup, it showed the drive and correct size but blue screens after text part of setup. (Again, I wasn’t installing on it) but rather a seperate 1TB drive which shouldn’t be an issue right?

Is there a way to update windows xp pro with files from server 2003 and make gpt work?

These drives are on a promise sata II tx4 300 which appears to like the drive fine and detect it properly in bios.

I see gigabyte made a utility which lets you make 2 tb partitions. Which would be super annoying so not an option.

I see also that paragon made a utility which I would try but I can’t find the download anywhere? If any of you know where to download it drop the link and I’ll try it.

Anyway, any ideas?

Last edited by Sphere478 on 2021-02-26, 13:39. Edited 2 times in total.

🖥Craziest socket 7 build on a 430tx chipset
🖥Dual socket 7 build

Reply 1 of 25, by DosFreak

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Supposedly copying disk.sys and partmgr.sys from 2003 will work. Remember to disable sfp. Personally I'd be worried about 2003 BSOD and using a p1 as a file server hopefully it's not for anything important.

The paragon program is buggy, just try the 2003 files or better yet 2003 or even better linux.

DOSBox Compilation Guides
DosBox Feature Request Thread
PC Game Compatibility List
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Running DRM games offline

Reply 2 of 25, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
DosFreak wrote on 2021-02-25, 02:34:

Supposedly copying disk.sys and partmgr.sys from 2003 will work. Remember to disable sfp. Personally I'd be worried about 2003 BSOD and using a p1 as a file server hopefully it's not for anything important.

The paragon program is buggy, just try the 2003 files or better yet 2003 or even better linux.

I learned there is a hitachi and a seagate program for this
I found the download for the seagate one but it seems to be ignoring my western digital 12 tb drive it just says that my drive is fine and can be seen I assume it's talking about my 1tb seagate

okay. I will try the files and see what I get 😀 thanks!

btw, I still can't find a download link that works for hitachi or paragon but apparently people say they are buggy

🖥Craziest socket 7 build on a 430tx chipset
🖥Dual socket 7 build

Reply 3 of 25, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Other than the potential stability concerns brought up by DosFreak, I would be worried about potential file corruption on a hacked up setup like that .

Then there is the issue of speed . A Pentium 1 166MHz server does not seem fast enough to even fully saturate 100Mbps Ethernet with Iperf when used as a server in TCP usage scenarios under Linux . See http://www.sfu.ca/~siegert/nic-test.html When you factor in Windows SMB overhead, or even FTP, things are likely not going to be very fast . The fact that you have a dual setup will definitely not hurt, but I would still temper performance expectations .

Reply 4 of 25, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
darry wrote on 2021-02-25, 03:56:

Other than the potential stability concerns brought up by DosFreak, I would be worried about potential file corruption on a hacked up setup like that .

Then there is the issue of speed . A Pentium 1 166MHz server does not seem fast enough to even fully saturate 100Mbps Ethernet with Iperf when used as a server in TCP usage scenarios under Linux . See http://www.sfu.ca/~siegert/nic-test.html When you factor in Windows SMB overhead, or even FTP, things are likely not going to be very fast . The fact that you have a dual setup will definitely not hurt, but I would still temper performance expectations .

It’s a dual pentium 233 mmx

I’ll do some benchmarks later. I’m moving away from the samba server on my router because of constant glitches. Probably time for a different router. Whatever. This project will solve that. If it’s faster than 15mb/sec it will be faster than my router Based NAS and I’ll be happy. I have a gigabit usb3 NIC on this build which I’ve benchmarked as capable of 40/mb/sec (you would expect more though but no) anyway I’ve done no benchmarks on this yet but am expecting about 95mb/sec out of the hard drive. No idea about network throughput though.

I reinstalled server 2003 again it boots to bluescreen after txt part again.

Gonna plug in the xp drive and copy the files over see how it does

🖥Craziest socket 7 build on a 430tx chipset
🖥Dual socket 7 build

Reply 5 of 25, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-25, 04:04:
It’s a dual pentium 233 mmx […]
Show full quote
darry wrote on 2021-02-25, 03:56:

Other than the potential stability concerns brought up by DosFreak, I would be worried about potential file corruption on a hacked up setup like that .

Then there is the issue of speed . A Pentium 1 166MHz server does not seem fast enough to even fully saturate 100Mbps Ethernet with Iperf when used as a server in TCP usage scenarios under Linux . See http://www.sfu.ca/~siegert/nic-test.html When you factor in Windows SMB overhead, or even FTP, things are likely not going to be very fast . The fact that you have a dual setup will definitely not hurt, but I would still temper performance expectations .

It’s a dual pentium 233 mmx

I’ll do some benchmarks later. I’m moving away from the samba server on my router because of constant glitches. Probably time for a different router. Whatever. This project will solve that. If it’s faster than 15mb/sec it will be faster than my router Based NAS and I’ll be happy. I have a gigabit usb3 NIC on this build which I’ve benchmarked as capable of 40/mb/sec (you would expect more though but no) anyway I’ve done no benchmarks on this yet but am expecting about 95mb/sec out of the hard drive. No idea about network throughput though.

I reinstalled server 2003 again it boots to bluescreen after txt part again.

Gonna plug in the xp drive and copy the files over see how it does

I assume the speeds that you have mentioned are in Megabytes per second (not Megabits). A cheap Realtek base USB 3.0 Gigabit has no trouble getting actual Gigabit throughput on one of my modern systems . I am actually surprised that you can actually get as much as 40MB/sec out of a USB 3.0 NIC running on a USB 3.0 controller connected through a PCI Express to legacy PCI bridge .
Additionally, if you are getting 95MB/second out of the hard drive on a dual Pentium 1, then you are using a PCI controller, which also uses PCI bandwidth . Legacy 32-bit 33MHz PCI bandwidth is 133MB/second maximum theoretically speaking, so you are facing a potential bottleneck there too .

That all being said, I hope it works out well for you .

Reply 6 of 25, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
darry wrote on 2021-02-25, 04:21:
I assume the speeds that you have mentioned are in Megabytes per second (not Megabits). A cheap Realtek base USB 3.0 Gigabit has […]
Show full quote
Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-25, 04:04:
It’s a dual pentium 233 mmx […]
Show full quote
darry wrote on 2021-02-25, 03:56:

Other than the potential stability concerns brought up by DosFreak, I would be worried about potential file corruption on a hacked up setup like that .

Then there is the issue of speed . A Pentium 1 166MHz server does not seem fast enough to even fully saturate 100Mbps Ethernet with Iperf when used as a server in TCP usage scenarios under Linux . See http://www.sfu.ca/~siegert/nic-test.html When you factor in Windows SMB overhead, or even FTP, things are likely not going to be very fast . The fact that you have a dual setup will definitely not hurt, but I would still temper performance expectations .

It’s a dual pentium 233 mmx

I’ll do some benchmarks later. I’m moving away from the samba server on my router because of constant glitches. Probably time for a different router. Whatever. This project will solve that. If it’s faster than 15mb/sec it will be faster than my router Based NAS and I’ll be happy. I have a gigabit usb3 NIC on this build which I’ve benchmarked as capable of 40/mb/sec (you would expect more though but no) anyway I’ve done no benchmarks on this yet but am expecting about 95mb/sec out of the hard drive. No idea about network throughput though.

I reinstalled server 2003 again it boots to bluescreen after txt part again.

Gonna plug in the xp drive and copy the files over see how it does

I assume the speeds that you have mentioned are in Megabytes per second (not Megabits). A cheap Realtek base USB 3.0 Gigabit has no trouble getting actual Gigabit throughput on one of my modern systems . I am actually surprised that you can actually get as much as 40MB/sec out of a USB 3.0 NIC running on a USB 3.0 controller connected through a PCI Express to legacy PCI bridge .
Additionally, if you are getting 95MB/second out of the hard drive on a dual Pentium 1, then you are using a PCI controller, which also uses PCI bandwidth . Legacy 32-bit 33MHz PCI bandwidth is 133MB/second maximum theoretically speaking, so you are facing a potential bottleneck there too .

That all being said, I hope it works out well for you .

as I said I have yet to benchmark anything on this so the usb 3 nic numbers are from my other computers when I get the nas up and running I'll let ya know how fast it manages.

I have the files mentioned but can't figure out windows file protection and it seems to have broken windows I had to boot in safe mode..

what guide do you guys use for this procedure?

edit: looks like it's back up and booting again I booted to safe mode with comand prompt closed the prompt and ctrl alt del launched explorer and regedit the reg key was set to 1 still. i replaced the files and set it back to zero and rebooted.

edit: it is booted and the new files appear to be still there and not reverted to originals but there is no trace of the wd 12 tb drive in windows nothing in disk management, my computer or device manager

🖥Craziest socket 7 build on a 430tx chipset
🖥Dual socket 7 build

Reply 7 of 25, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Edit: it worked! False negative. Looks like loose connection on drive power cable during test.

So the above mentioned files and procedure for disabling then reenabling file protection seems to be the trick

The files can be found by installing windows server standard 2003 from the microsoft iso it is only needed to complete text part of setup not gui part to get the file.

System is booting slow for some reason though, not sure why.

Try another reboot and see how it goes

edit still booting very slowly

Edit update: disk.sys is present on cd by searching no need to copy from a working install.

Windows always seems to be slower to start after doing the mod but after a few restarts seems to get faster

Also it seems to get the disk to show up disk.sys is the only file you need to copy🤷‍♂️ Partition manager also seems to see the disk but I haven’t tried partitioning it.

uploaded a kit here it is:

Attachments

Last edited by Sphere478 on 2021-02-26, 06:52. Edited 4 times in total.

🖥Craziest socket 7 build on a 430tx chipset
🖥Dual socket 7 build

Reply 8 of 25, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Darry I have some initial results for ya.

3megs/sec at 80% cpus usage with usb 3.0 gigabit nic

4.5 megs a second 70% cpus usage with 10/100 pci nic

These results are kinda weird. Obviously neither neither the network, the cpus or the pci/usb are saturated. I wonder what is slowing it down...

This is fast enough for my uses over the network though but is going to be quite the pain transferring files.

Thoughts on speeding it up?

🖥Craziest socket 7 build on a 430tx chipset
🖥Dual socket 7 build

Reply 9 of 25, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-25, 07:49:
Darry I have some initial results for ya. […]
Show full quote

Darry I have some initial results for ya.

3megs/sec at 80% cpus usage with usb 3.0 gigabit nic

4.5 megs a second 70% cpus usage with 10/100 pci nic

These results are kinda weird. Obviously neither neither the network, the cpus or the pci/usb are saturated. I wonder what is slowing it down...

This is fast enough for my uses over the network though but is going to be quite the pain transferring files.

Thoughts on speeding it up?

I am not surprised that that the USB NIC has bigger CPU usage . USB has some overhead that would be considered practically negligible on newer systems, but is quite perceptible/measurable on 24-year old hardware .

As for the CPU usage itself, I believe that you likely are hitting a bottleneck there . That 70% or 80% usage figure is the cumulative of both of the CPUs in your system . If, for example, one of your CPUs is at 100% and the other CPU is at 50%, you will get a total load at 75% . What that means is that whatever is running on the CPU at 100% is likely being squeezed . Windows schedules processes as effectively as possible to give each of them as much CPU resources as possible, but a given process thread can only run on one CPU at once .

Here is an example . I am running a single Prime95 thread on one CPU core on a dual core machine. Prime95 will use as much of that CPU core as it can and will, in effect, be limited by it, but total CPU usage will still show as 50% . In your specific situation, one of the CPUs is likely at 100% and the other is at or near 50%, so the total comes out to 70 or 80% .

CPU.PNG
Filename
CPU.PNG
File size
11.46 KiB
Views
452 views
File license
Public domain

Reply 10 of 25, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
darry wrote on 2021-02-25, 20:37:
I am not surprised that that the USB NIC has bigger CPU usage . USB has some overhead that would be considered practically negli […]
Show full quote
Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-25, 07:49:
Darry I have some initial results for ya. […]
Show full quote

Darry I have some initial results for ya.

3megs/sec at 80% cpus usage with usb 3.0 gigabit nic

4.5 megs a second 70% cpus usage with 10/100 pci nic

These results are kinda weird. Obviously neither neither the network, the cpus or the pci/usb are saturated. I wonder what is slowing it down...

This is fast enough for my uses over the network though but is going to be quite the pain transferring files.

Thoughts on speeding it up?

I am not surprised that that the USB NIC has bigger CPU usage . USB has some overhead that would be considered practically negligible on newer systems, but is quite perceptible/measurable on 24-year old hardware .

As for the CPU usage itself, I believe that you likely are hitting a bottleneck there . That 70% or 80% usage figure is the cumulative of both of the CPUs in your system . If, for example, one of your CPUs is at 100% and the other CPU is at 50%, you will get a total load at 75% . What that means is that whatever is running on the CPU at 100% is likely being squeezed . Windows schedules processes as effectively as possible to give each of them as much CPU resources as possible, but a given process thread can only run on one CPU at once .

Here is an example . I am running a single Prime95 thread on one CPU core on a dual core machine. Prime95 will use as much of that CPU core as it can and will, in effect, be limited by it, but total CPU usage will still show as 50% . In your specific situation, one of the CPUs is likely at 100% and the other is at or near 50%, so the total comes out to 70 or 80% .

CPU.PNG

I understand what you mean. What’s odd though is my two graphs were kinda equal. Where as you can see yours are lopsided.

I deleted xp and am reinstalling, tried some other OS in meantime. Or I would show ya.

🖥Craziest socket 7 build on a 430tx chipset
🖥Dual socket 7 build

Reply 11 of 25, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-26, 04:21:
darry wrote on 2021-02-25, 20:37:
I am not surprised that that the USB NIC has bigger CPU usage . USB has some overhead that would be considered practically negli […]
Show full quote
Sphere478 wrote on 2021-02-25, 07:49:
Darry I have some initial results for ya. […]
Show full quote

Darry I have some initial results for ya.

3megs/sec at 80% cpus usage with usb 3.0 gigabit nic

4.5 megs a second 70% cpus usage with 10/100 pci nic

These results are kinda weird. Obviously neither neither the network, the cpus or the pci/usb are saturated. I wonder what is slowing it down...

This is fast enough for my uses over the network though but is going to be quite the pain transferring files.

Thoughts on speeding it up?

I am not surprised that that the USB NIC has bigger CPU usage . USB has some overhead that would be considered practically negligible on newer systems, but is quite perceptible/measurable on 24-year old hardware .

As for the CPU usage itself, I believe that you likely are hitting a bottleneck there . That 70% or 80% usage figure is the cumulative of both of the CPUs in your system . If, for example, one of your CPUs is at 100% and the other CPU is at 50%, you will get a total load at 75% . What that means is that whatever is running on the CPU at 100% is likely being squeezed . Windows schedules processes as effectively as possible to give each of them as much CPU resources as possible, but a given process thread can only run on one CPU at once .

Here is an example . I am running a single Prime95 thread on one CPU core on a dual core machine. Prime95 will use as much of that CPU core as it can and will, in effect, be limited by it, but total CPU usage will still show as 50% . In your specific situation, one of the CPUs is likely at 100% and the other is at or near 50%, so the total comes out to 70 or 80% .

CPU.PNG

I understand what you mean. What’s odd though is my two graphs were kinda equal. Where as you can see yours are lopsided.

I deleted xp and am reinstalling, tried some other OS in meantime. Or I would show ya.

My preferred NAS solution is OMV (OpenMediaVault) . It runs under Debian Linux and is very easy to install. IMHO, minimal Linux is required for initial setup and basic use, but you can tweak under the hood as much as you want if you have the skills and the need/desire . Windows file sharing (SMB) is supported and easy to setup through a GUI interface . I used to run it on an Acer H340 Atom-based NAS (originally shipped with Windows Home Server) and throughput was decent, IMHO (50 Megabytes or more per second or so, AFAICR) . I am currently running it on the cheapest CPU I could buy last year, which is an AMD Athlon 200GE (70 CAN$) and I have no trouble consistently saturating a 1Gb Ethernet link .

1gb.png
Filename
1gb.png
File size
7.62 KiB
Views
391 views
File license
Public domain

Throughput-wise, in my experience, using a high end Pentium 3 can give you about 40-50 Megabytes per second under Linux using a PCI Gigabit NIC using FTP, probably a bit less with SMB (Windows files shares).

Reply 12 of 25, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

new problem

it works with sata disks only

is there another file I need to copy to make gpt usb disks work?
it shows up as drives in device manager but nothing in my computer or disk manager

🖥Craziest socket 7 build on a 430tx chipset
🖥Dual socket 7 build

Reply 14 of 25, by DosFreak

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

If using USB then verify that the drive works in the enclosure on a modern os. The hardware in those enclosures have limitations as well. If it works there with gpt and all the space then make it an mbr with a 2tb partition and try it on the xp machine and troubleshoot from there. I faintly remember something about 4k vs 512 sector drives and/or enclosures and USB with xp.

With that old of a machine you are better off with esata or a removable drive tray or running things off of a Nas via smb or iscsi assuming the nic is fast enough and doesn't eat up cpu

DOSBox Compilation Guides
DosBox Feature Request Thread
PC Game Compatibility List
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Running DRM games offline

Reply 15 of 25, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
DosFreak wrote on 2021-02-26, 19:53:

If using USB then verify that the drive works in the enclosure on a modern os. The hardware in those enclosures have limitations as well. If it works there with gpt and all the space then make it an mbr with a 2tb partition and try it on the xp machine and troubleshoot from there. I faintly remember something about 4k vs 512 sector drives and/or enclosures and USB with xp.

That is a very good point . Some older USB drive enclosures had limits even lower than 2TB, AFAICR . I had some old USB 2.0 ones that would not handle anything above 1TB (they shipped with 500GB drives). Newer USB 3.0 enclosures will normally handle much larger drives, but they may have their limits or not be able to handle native 4k sector drives (without 512 byte sector emulation support) at all . That said, if the enclosure came bundled with the drive from the drive manufacturer, there should be no compatibility issues between the drove and the enclosure .

DosFreak wrote on 2021-02-26, 19:53:

With that old of a machine you are better off with esata or a removable drive tray or running things off of a Nas via smb or iscsi assuming the nic is fast enough and doesn't eat up cpu

I assume that by "running things off a NAS" you meant to run a NAS on a different and faster machine . If that is the case, I agree .

I can understand the desire or even thrill of interfacing old hardware (and software) with newer components for the novelty/fun factor . Sometimes, this can actually lead to something that can actually serve a practical purpose but some other times, it really comes up short on performance, reliability and practicality . I believe this endeavor likely falls under second category . I also believe that DATA storage on a NAS should be uncompromisingly reliable and as fast as possible . Using hardware/software that old is not conducive to either of those goals, IMHO .

At the end of the day, it's OPS's DATA and his time, so he can do what he wants, but I feel that even if this projects ends up coming to fruition to the OP's satisfaction (within the constraints of what is physically possible), there will likely be issues later on .

As a final note in this post, I will add that I sincerely hope that the OP has a backup plan or redundant storage plan for that 12TB drive . 12TB is a lot of DATA to lose if the drive dies or gets corrupted .

Reply 16 of 25, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
xingjz wrote on 2021-02-26, 13:56:

Don't use the disk.sys of 2003,it'll damage your files.

Can you elaborate?

The drives work on a different computer

I can’t format them as I don’t have anywhere large enough to move the data to. Or rather I can but don’t want to for redundancy reasons They are holding identical copies of the same data while I can format one and play with it I am hesitant to do so incase the other fails

So this 4k vs 512b cluster thing? I could reformat the drives to the favorable one? 512b? and have full capacity? Am I understanding this?

🖥Craziest socket 7 build on a 430tx chipset
🖥Dual socket 7 build

Reply 17 of 25, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I actually only *NEED* about 1MB/sec out of this so anything higher is a bonus. I would obviously like to have more for instance 100MB/sec would be what I *WANT* but not as much as I want to use a dual pentium 1 as my NAS 🤣. It’s just a fun project to learn and kill time on. 😀 now, something that can do at least

10-40mb/sec would be my goal for this though it would help me file manage easier.

I have a 1tb hard drive I can play with on the enclosure (it’s actually a dual usb3 dock). If I can get it to show up maybe we can try some stuff on it to see what is going on?

Okay, I tried a different usb adapter. Same thing on the 12 tb drive

The 1tb drive shows up on the other adapter and seems to work alright it’s not formatted but everything pops up

It allows me to format it 512-4096 and formatted fine I can’t tell if it is a gpt disk but I believe it is mbr from when I cleaned the disk

Trying that same disk on the usb3 adapter also works

It seems something about the larger drives doesn’t work on usb

Yeah, 1tb drive works on both adapters but same test on the 12 tb fails. Something about the 1tb it doesn’t like. If it’s a cluster size thing how come it doesn’t show up in disk manager?

🖥Craziest socket 7 build on a 430tx chipset
🖥Dual socket 7 build

Reply 18 of 25, by DosFreak

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

It's 512 byte vs 4k sectors not clusters. Check to see if your 1tb is 512 and if your 12tb is 4k. If do then likely your USB enclosure isn't playing well with xp and that drive.
Thinking you should just load netbsd on there and call it done. Heh

DOSBox Compilation Guides
DosBox Feature Request Thread
PC Game Compatibility List
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Running DRM games offline

Reply 19 of 25, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
DosFreak wrote on 2021-02-27, 03:14:

It's 512 byte vs 4k sectors not clusters. Check to see if your 1tb is 512 and if your 12tb is 4k. If do then likely your USB enclosure isn't playing well with xp and that drive.
Thinking you should just load netbsd on there and call it done. Heh

I tried to load three different bsds and they wouldn’t go I need to figure out at wchch version they stopped supporting 586

Windows xp is more desireable for me anyway though

🖥Craziest socket 7 build on a 430tx chipset
🖥Dual socket 7 build