# The "2.19TB" hard drive limit



## qubit (Dec 2, 2010)

I thought this article from ExtremeTech quite interesting, even though I take issue with the author's "2.19TB" limit. It sounds like he's being naughty and using decimal to measure capacity, just like the HD makers.

He states that 512 bytes x 2^32 = 2,199,023,255,552 or 2.19TB. Actually, this is _exactly_ 2TB.

Finally, did you know that the 4KB block addressing that completely solves this problem has been around since way back in the 90s? Me neither. Apparently, Windows XP and the manufacturers have held this improvement back for more than a decade.



> Ever since hard drives went mainstream in the late 1980s, computer owners have been able to count on one thing: their increasing capacity. As a result, what once used to be little more than a convenient method for reducing disk swapping has now become an integral part of daily life, with hard drives today storing not just our programs and our documents, but our very memories in the form of the photos and videos. The ever-increasing numbers of those have forced storage capacity to skyrocket to still more dizzying levels, to the point where most ordinary people now only really think of it when they're in danger of filling it up. But there's a reason that really large hard drives should be at the forefront of every computer owner's mind: they're about to become unusable.
> 
> Okay, perhaps that's a bit hyperbolic—but only a bit. The fact is, we're not just approaching the threshold at which hard drives can't get bigger: We're already there. The advent of very large hard drives, we're talking over 2.19 terabytes (TB) in capacity, in 2010 has highlighted a problem that's been growing for well over a decade, and whose seeds were planted when the very first hard drives hit the market some 25 or 30 years ago. The good news is that there are some solutions to it; the bad news is, they're little more than workarounds for an issue that needs more than makeshift bandages.



ExtremelyTech


----------



## Mussels (Dec 2, 2010)

the 2TB limit (or 2.19TB in HDD manufacturer terms) is well known.

windows 7 can use 2TB+ drives, but they arent bootable. To make them bootable we need to get off BIOS and onto EFI - and that aint happening very fast.


----------



## qubit (Dec 2, 2010)

+1 Mussels

Everything you've said and more is in the article, which is why I thought it interesting.


----------



## Red_Machine (Dec 2, 2010)

They're just scaremongering for the most part.  Especially with the comment:

"And what happens when a huge HD crashes?

It will, you know."

Bullshit.  Not if you look after it like you're supposed to.


----------



## qubit (Dec 2, 2010)

Red_Machine said:


> They're just scaremongering for the most part.  Especially with the comment:
> 
> "And what happens when a huge HD crashes?
> 
> ...



Well, you _will_ lose the data on a hard disc eventually, when it dies. That is a fact. Because of this and many other sources of data loss, one should always have at least two copies of their data.

Computer illiterate users have a habit of storing their life's work on just the one HD, with the inevitable consequence. So, to drum it into their heads, I always tell them that one copy is data that they haven't lost yet. This statement is absolutely true and it usually scares them enough to listen to what I have to say about backups.

I myself keep three copies of my data. I have one main drive and back it up to two others every night. The drives are in different computers too, for good measure.


----------



## freaksavior (Dec 2, 2010)

qubit said:


> Well, you _will_ lose the data on a hard disc eventually, when it dies. That is a fact. Because of this and many other sources of data loss, one should always have at least two copies of their data.
> 
> Computer illiterate users have a habit of storing their life's work on just the one HD, with the inevitable consequence. So, to drum it into their heads, I always tell them that one copy is data that they haven't lost yet. This statement is absolutely true and it usually scares them enough to listen to what I have to say about backups.
> 
> I myself keep three copies of my data. I have one main drive and back it up to two others every night. The drives are in different computers too, for good measure.



Happened to my girlfriend. She had malware which totally prevented windows from even booting. 

I laughed at her, I know it was mean but she deserved it after I told her countless times.


----------



## Thrackan (Dec 2, 2010)

freaksavior said:


> Happened to my girlfriend. She had malware which totally prevented windows from even booting.
> 
> I laughed at her, I know it was mean but she deserved it after I told her countless times.



She is now your ex?


----------



## Nailezs (Dec 2, 2010)

freaksavior said:


> Happened to my girlfriend. She had malware which totally prevented windows from even booting.
> 
> I laughed at her, I know it was mean but she deserved it after I told her countless times.





Thrackan said:


> She is now your ex?





seriously though, i am eager for motherboard manufactorers and chip makers to mmake the move to EFI. we embrace most other kind sof new tech, why is this tech taking so long?


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2010)

freaksavior said:


> Happened to my girlfriend. She had malware which totally prevented windows from even booting.
> 
> I laughed at her, I know it was mean but she deserved it after I told her countless times.



Yeah, I'd be feeling smug too and have a chuckle, but would likely keep that bit to myself if I wanted to get laid that night. 

In fact, such events are a perfect time to offer professional-grade sympathy and explain the most suitable backup strategies available to them from now on. I'd try to recover the data too, if possible.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Dec 3, 2010)

best thing is if you don't want data loss is to avoid pata harddrive caddies, as the pins get dirty and then you get errors and data corruption

how do i know ?

well i have 4 of the damned things and yes i have lost a whole drives worth of data 
so it's something to think about


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2010)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> best thing is if you don't want data loss is to avoid pata harddrive caddies, as the pins get dirty and then you get errors and data corruption
> 
> how do i know ?
> 
> ...



Oh god yes.  Years ago, I had Syquest SparQ 1GB internal and external hard drives with removable discs and the reliability was absolute crap, the internal version especially. :shadedshu

I actually have to confess that I still have the damn things, but don't use them, of course. The internal drive completely gave up the ghost and won't even be recognized by the BIOS any more.

And finally, I've got one of the removable media, unused and still in its plastic sealed wrapper.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Dec 3, 2010)

No digital data is truly safe, doesn't matter where you store it. Saying that, I'm running out of HDD space and need another HDD. I hate being poor.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Dec 3, 2010)

back on topic , 

i remember trying to use a 500gb then a 640gb harddrive in my old pc, only to realise that they weren't been seen by the bios, iirc it was something to do with the sata 1 chipset (a via 8237)

weird thing was the pc would act like it saw the drives (windows bar would stop for a second then continue at boot), but just couldn't see them


----------



## Marineborn (Dec 3, 2010)

what happens when my harddrives crashes, i grab one of my other 19 harddrives put the bad one as a slave and boot and collect my data...whooo thats hard, lol, thats some stupid scaretactic crap


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2010)

Marineborn said:


> what happens when my harddrives crashes, i grab one of my other 19 harddrives put the bad one as a slave and boot and collect my data...whooo thats hard, lol, thats some stupid scaretactic crap



If your hard drive crashes then it can't read any data, because it's f*cked. How will connecting it as a slave help you?

The best way to avoid this remains to have a minimum of two copies of your data, or your _will_ lose it.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 3, 2010)

qubit said:


> If your hard drive crashes then it can't read any data, because it's f*cked. How will connecting it as a slave help you?
> 
> The best way to avoid this remains to have a minimum of two copies of your data, or your _will_ lose it.



i believe he thinks a corrupted OS is the same as a hard drive crash. its clearly not.


----------



## Marineborn (Dec 3, 2010)

qubit said:


> If your hard drive crashes then it can't read any data, because it's f*cked. How will connecting it as a slave help you?
> 
> The best way to avoid this remains to have a minimum of two copies of your data, or your _will_ lose it.



im talking about crashing like, blue screen, os corruptions, not a pickaxe threw the hardrive, lol


----------



## Mussels (Dec 3, 2010)

Marineborn said:


> im talking about crashing like, blue screen, os corruptions, not a pickaxe threw the hardrive, lol



that is not a hard drive crash. thats just data corruption (from a virus, bad OC, whatever) - nothing do with the drive failing itself.


when a drive fails you know it - all your datas fucked.


----------



## Marineborn (Dec 3, 2010)

Mussels said:


> that is not a hard drive crash. thats just data corruption (from a virus, bad OC, whatever) - nothing do with the drive failing itself.
> 
> 
> when a drive fails you know it - all your datas fucked.



ive had it happen, but the way they talk about it is like it happens all the time, i have harddrifves from 10 yrs ago that are still functioning. thats complete crap, as long as your not playing hackey sack with them and not letting them overheat for the most part thell last a long time, unless they were factory built with a default


----------



## WhiteLotus (Dec 3, 2010)

InnocentCriminal said:


> No digital data is truly safe, doesn't matter where you store it. Saying that, I'm running out of HDD space and need another HDD. I hate being poor.



eBuyer constantly do deals on harddrives. Today the 2TB western digital is just over £70


----------



## Mussels (Dec 3, 2010)

Marineborn said:


> ive had it happen, but the way they talk about it is like it happens all the time, i have harddrifves from 10 yrs ago that are still functioning. thats complete crap, as long as your not playing hackey sack with them and not letting them overheat for the most part thell last a long time, unless they were factory built with a default



it doesnt happen often at all. the problem is that when it does, it hurts. i've had no drive failures in years, except for three WD 640GBs that all died within 48 hours of owning them (bad batch?). that sucked, since the first two had over 700GB of my data on them - no backups, made the stupid mistake of selling the old drives immediately.


----------



## Marineborn (Dec 3, 2010)

Mussels said:


> it doesnt happen often at all. the problem is that when it does, it hurts. i've had no drive failures in years, except for three WD 640GBs that all died within 48 hours of owning them (bad batch?). that sucked, since the first two had over 700GB of my data on them - no backups, made the stupid mistake of selling the old drives immediately.



yeah that does suck, too be honest, i usually let a 1 week test for most my harddrives before i start pumping them full of data i learned from a bad exsperience in the past, was shitty


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2010)

@Marineborn: ok, I accept you meant a borked OS.  It's still naughty to call it a "hard drive crash" though, because it isn't and is misleading. And yes, you can often recover files off it... but then again, an OS should always be in its own partition and all data in one or more others (and preferably on a separate HD) not in your profile buried in the OS. Then, if the OS goes south (north for Australians, of course) you're not sitting there sweating and stressed out trying to retrieve your data.

Data loss can occur in lots of ways other than a hard disc dying, so the possibilities should be covered.

There's this example of simple human error, if someone's not alert: our sleepy user deletes a folder chock full of data - many gigs of it. They then empty the Recycle Bin to recover the space and immediately realize they meant to delete the folder next to it instead.

Oops. 

This happens quite often and I've fallen for it myself. You are now left with the option of attempting to use disc recovery tools or effortlessly restoring your data from your up to date backup. I know which option I'd prefer.


----------



## xbonez (Dec 3, 2010)

For the price that HDDs sell at, it shouldn't be expensive for anyone who would realky be hurt by data loss to set up a RAID 1 array.
Personally, all my documents, pics etc are in my dropbox (so i have a constant back up online, and on my laptop where I have my dropbox attached). My HDD contains movies, games etc. which I don't really care if I lose. Hence, I use a RAID 0 array.


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2010)

That sounds like a decent strategy xbonez.


----------



## Necrofire (Dec 3, 2010)

What demonry is going on that allows current linux distros to boot from gpt on bios?


----------



## freaksavior (Dec 3, 2010)

Thrackan said:


> She is now your ex?



Naw, been with her 4 years, not the fist time she has done it.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Dec 3, 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong but some vendors have produced EFI capable mobos (which still support BIOS) like the MSI P45D3. (source)

Additionally Windows 2008, Vista and 7 (64-bit flavors) provide support for EFI. (source)

The only thing stopping the big changeover is consumer demand (and Apple being really pissed that the only difference between a Mac and PC is brushed aluminum )?


----------



## Flak (Dec 14, 2010)

I read the article, not sure what I took away from it other then feeling like it was full of fear mongering.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2010)

So 512x2^32 is for a 32 bit os does this mean a 64 bit os won't have the 2tb limit?


----------



## Nailezs (Dec 14, 2010)

well, you kind of misunderstood i think. its not a matter of a 32bit or 64bit os, but which os you are running. also, the main problem is that bios' do not support hdds greater than the limit, and thats the main hurdle we have to get over.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 14, 2010)

Nailezs said:


> well, you kind of misunderstood i think. its not a matter of a 32bit or 64bit os, but which os you are running. also, the main problem is that bios' do not support hdds greater than the limit, and thats the main hurdle we have to get over.



Well the math listed shows 32 bit if the bios is only recognizing at a 32 bit rate than that's an issue however windows in itself with a 64 bit os should recognize 512x2^64 just like the way 64 bit recognizes more ram than 32 bit


----------



## Nailezs (Dec 14, 2010)

quoted form the article:

Because Windows XP has no support whatsoever for GPT and UEFI, no system running it can natively use any drive with a capacity over 2.19TB. Even if you have a supported OS (Windows Vista, Windows 7, and most flavors of Linux) that recognizes GPT, you won't be able to boot to a drive of that size unless you also have a motherboard running UEFI—something that, as of this writing in late 2010, very few do. All current Intel boards support UEFI, but almost no other major manufacturer has yet followed suit. So, under most circumstances, if you don't have a UEFI motherboard (and you probably don't), you'll have to use your extra-large hard drive for storage only. (There are worse things.)

Finally, your system's SATA controller must also be designed to recognize 4KB blocks. This isn't necessarily a big deal: As we discovered when we reviewed Western Digital's new 3TB Caviar Green hard drive, the company is including with all its above-2.19TB drives a PCI Express x1 Host Bus Adapter that lets Windows use a known driver to communicate with the drive.


and


It also shows how far we still have to go. In many cases, the software irritations have already been soothed: 64-bit operating systems now make up a vast percentage of the market; and Windows XP is slowly fading away, and with it MBR. That leaves the current bottleneck as hardware: The only surefire way to deal with these problems once and for all is for motherboard manufacturers to universally implement UEFI and use SATA controllers that recognize 4KB blocks, two things that haven't happened yet.



its no longer an os issue, but it still is a bios(hardware really, because we need to move away from bios') issue.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 14, 2010)

Now with the 2TB limit if I am thinking right , would this effect current RAID configurations. Let's say, 2x2TB striped in RAID 0? Would it effect that? Guess what I am asking is the limit VOLUME size or Logcal disk size?


----------



## Nailezs (Dec 14, 2010)

now thats something i have been wondering myself


----------

