Custom Search
Join the PC homebuilding revolution! Read the all-new, FREE 200-page online guide: How to Build Your Own PC!
NOTE: Using robot software to mass-download the site degrades the server and is prohibited. See here for more.
Find The PC Guide helpful? Please consider a donation to The PC Guide Tip Jar. Visa/MC/Paypal accepted.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Backup to FAT32 External USB Drive

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lost In Middle America
    Posts
    337

    Backup to FAT32 External USB Drive

    I just bought a 160GB USB drive for backups. It is formatted FAT32 which I would like to keep because I can image directly to it with Ghost. I've been using Microsoft Backup, then splitting the ".bkf" file into 700MB chunks for transfer to CD. With the USB drive I was hoping to reduce the frequency of using CD's. The problem is that FAT32 won't let a file grow larger than 4GB, so I still have to backup to an NTFS partition, and then split the backup file before I can transfer it to the USB drive.

    Can you recommend backup software that will let me do Full, Incremental and Differential backups (with compression), and that also gives the option of spanning the output across multiple files? Thanks.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    N of the S of Ireland
    Posts
    20,504
    My own favourite backup software is DataKeeper that bundles with PartitionMagic. It doesn't backup to a single compressed file but rather to multiple "compressed files"; one for each file chosen for the backup set. You can alter the settings as to how often and how many versions of a particular file to store - and in that way it gives you incremental backups of both individual files that change over time and new files added to the chosen folders. You can restore just the most recent versions or older versions kept in the indivdual compressed files. It also runs seamlessly in the background and, for me, this ensures that backing-up is continuous.

    Syncback comes in both free and paid for (with a trial period) versions and the latter can be configured to act as an incremental backup. You can backup as compressed or non-compressed but I don't know if you can span the resultant compressed files.

    SecondCopy has been recommended by peeps here but I am not familiar with it and don't know about compression, spanning or increments - but it could be worth investigating.

    For full backups I wouldnt go other than with BiNG particularly since in my experience it has no problems imaging to large external USB2 drives (FAT or NTFS partitions) or (I believe) to directly span to CDs/DVDs.
    Take nice care of yourselves - Paul - ♪ -
    Help to start using BiNG. Some stuff about Boot CDs & Data Recovery Basics & Back-up using Knoppix.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    N of the S of Ireland
    Posts
    20,504
    Could also be worth trying the software in Jiggys post at http://www.pcguide.com/vb/showthread...d=1#post310859 for full backups since this can create spanned compressed images of a partition directly and while still running Windows (must be WinXP or Win2k3).
    Take nice care of yourselves - Paul - ♪ -
    Help to start using BiNG. Some stuff about Boot CDs & Data Recovery Basics & Back-up using Knoppix.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lost In Middle America
    Posts
    337
    "one for each file . . . versions of a particular file to store . . . runs seamlessly in the background"
    Hmmm - with a little extra manual effort to get back the older version, it's almost like running VMS. Sounds pretty slick. If I ever get Partition Magic I will have to give it a try. I looked for a trial download of DataKeeper, but no such luck.

    Already looking into SecondCopy (found in another thread) and SyncBack (coincidentally cought my interest just before your recommendation) with trial downloads of each. These and DataKeeper (and many others) all look like a way to get your external drive to work like a mirrored volume, with a few extra perks. Some of these have the obvious advantage (over traditional backups) of being able to find a specific version of a file without pouring through a hundred backup sets. So do you just dump the whole backup set to optical media periodically?

    I had still been thinking of backup in the traditional sense of taking a snapshot of everything, then daily updates to the snapshot. In this method you can roll back the disk contents to an earlier date. Do these newer methods allow this? Do they keep track of when & what you have deleted?

    "For full backups I wouldnt go other than with BiNG"
    By "full backups" do you mean partition images? I have been using Ghost for that, and it has no problem sending to the USB FAT32 because I can use the switch "-split=700" or "-split=4000" to span the image across multiple files. However, I read something disturbing about Ghost yesterday at Review: Acronis True Image vs Symantec Ghost
    Not all images had the problem, only some. . . . Subsequently I started studying the image creation log files only to find that corrupt images were not uncommon. Worse still you get no warning or notification of the problem other than entries in the log files. . . . This problem may be unique to my PC but I suspect not.
    Should I be especially concerned about corrupt Ghost image files?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    N of the S of Ireland
    Posts
    20,504
    I have myself searched for and never found a standalone download of DataKeeper anywhere of any sort. It surprises me because it is a really good backup product. I hope it still bundles with PM - of which the last version I have is PM8.

    I ran the full SyncBack Trial for its full month and it did its thing perfectly. I used no file compression so my "backup set" was just copies of all files in the chosen folders created since the set was begun. It was possible to create a type of incremental backup by using the variables to create, say "day of the week" folders, but it was then hard to find specific files because you would have to search through all the individually created folders and the very earliest versions of files would be overwritten by later versions of the same file.

    For me myself (everyone's needs are different) I use RAID-1 to prevent downtime when a drive fails; I create full system partition images at intervals using BiNG or IforD (but never IforW of which more later) because they run outside of windows and will verify the image when it is created; I create backups of my important data (My Documents, Desktop, Application Data and my main Databases kept on their own partition) using DataKeeper onto a primary location (external drive) and have a secondary location on an internal drive, (if the external is detached then the files are stored temporarily in the 2'y position and copied to 1'y position when the external is reattached) and finally for the most important data (mainly things like accounts and programming files) I backup onto DVDs every now. When imaging partitions the image files are stored on a second large RAID-1.

    I realise that what I do may seem overkill by some but much of what goes on is automated and therefore actually gets done all the time.

    Incremental backups seems to mean different things to different people but the most difficult things to incrementally backup are files that change over time yet retain the same name and location. Typically these would be document or spreadsheet or (most notably) database files on which there is any ongoing "work in progress". For me personally another large group of "work in progress" files are programming files since one regularly wants to go back in time to a point before various compiles took place if everything goes astray.

    I realise that modern Imaging Programs that run from Windows can shadow the files on the system partition and allow one to make hot images from within Windows. This is grand from a user-friendly aspect but I refuse to do it for the system partition whether using Ghost, Acronis or ImageForWindows. I only would ever run Ghost/DriveImage or the terabyteunlimited Image Program from boot floppies/CDs or installed onto the MBR/EMBR. I always verify the files and the secondary reason for creating images from outside of windows is that one is then equally familiar with restoring the images from ouside of windows - and that can be a major problem for windows based programs when there is total HDD failure.

    Yes - I would be concerned with any corrupt files unless you have a secondary method of verifying the image files. As said earlier, what suits me wont suit others but I hope there are a few ideas that may at least give others some food for thought. Data loss can be devastating and spending even a couple of hunded Euros to have a good backup system is worth it ten times over if your system goes down and/or one loses data.
    Take nice care of yourselves - Paul - ♪ -
    Help to start using BiNG. Some stuff about Boot CDs & Data Recovery Basics & Back-up using Knoppix.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lost In Middle America
    Posts
    337
    Thanks for all the great advice! Now I need to spend some time testing out various softwares to see what works best for me. The FAT32 file size limit and splitting the image for later transfer to CD does'nt seem to be a concern on any of the product pages I've read so far. So I think I just need to find this out through testing.

    I won't have the need to detach my external drive in the near term, but out of curiousity, is the alternate use of the 2'y location a feature of DataKeeper?

    I always image with the Ghost boot floppy for the good reasons you gave and many others. I have only played with hot images a couple of times, and surprisingly they seem to work, but . . . . . . if you did capture some strange transient state, it could be months before the problem surfaced. What then? Yea, its well worth the extra effort (in DOS) to make sure your imaging or restoring to the right partition.

    The quoted review of Ghost took me by surprise because I had always assumed that it was a good product. This guy obviously does not care much for Symantec, so I was just wondering if you had heard of any bugs in Ghost?

    With Ghost I like that it will let you restore to any partition big enough to hold the data. Are True Image, BiNG and IforD also smart about restoring to a smaller partition? I tried PartitionSaving, and it fails miserably at this.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    N of the S of Ireland
    Posts
    20,504
    The FAT32 file size limit
    BiNG's images are split into 2gig segments by default. With DataKeeper it is unlikely to matter unless the original file was bigger than 2gig since unless using compression the resultant backup files are the same size as the originals but with a suffix file extension denoting the version of the file backed-up. DK isn't designed as a total file backup solution bur rather a method of backing up your data. It wont be able, for example, to copy the registry files in use at the time such as the ntuser.dat files.

    is the alternate use of the 2'y location a feature of DataKeeper?
    Yes. If the primary location is absent files will be backed up to the secondary and then later added back to the primary location when it becomes available again; don't know if the primary needs to be there at boot time or not for this to succeed.

    if you had heard of any bugs in Ghost?
    No but it is not a product I use other than that the latest Ghost is the successor to DriveImage. I too am not a Norton/Symantec fan. There was one bug in DI that has been a great annoyance and that is when saving to NTFS partitions that the resultant pqi files cannot be accessed by new installations of WinXP unless ownership of the files is changed to the current installation. I thus always save pqi files only to FAT32 partitions. There is only one bug in DK that I have found when running on some WinXP installations and that is that it promtps at boot time that file monitoring wouldn't start automatically; it then starts monitoring OK with a manual mouse click; it is an annoyance that I have yet to get to the bottom of.

    Are True Image, BiNG and IforD also smart about restoring to a smaller partition?
    No they wont automatically resize downwards even if there is only a small amount of data on the imaged partition. Nor are they smart about restoring to the original locations or of which partition is set as active after restoration. You must be prepared to reset the active partition after the restore has taken place.
    Take nice care of yourselves - Paul - ♪ -
    Help to start using BiNG. Some stuff about Boot CDs & Data Recovery Basics & Back-up using Knoppix.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    10,474
    Are True Image, BiNG and IforD also smart about restoring to a smaller partition?
    I use BiNG and had to deal with this problem recently when replacing a failed hard drive with a smaller one in a laptop. My solution was to restore the larger image to a hard drive with enough free space to accommodate the image (don't try to boot from it), then resize the partition small enough to fit the new smaller drive, image the now smaller partition, and restore that to the new hard drive.

    It was some extra work, but in the case of a failed drive it was necessary. I was also lucky that I happen to have a hard drive with an unpartitioned space on it big enough the accommodate the original 60GB image. One more reason to keep the OS partition small. Personally I prefer no bigger than 20GB for the OS partition.
    8.1 Pro 64bit
    AMD FX 8350
    Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0
    24GB GSkill/Corsair 1866MHz
    2x XFX 6870 1GB
    SSD - OCZ V4 128GB/Kingston 120GB
    HDD - 3TB/2x 750GB/500GB/250GB
    Corsair TX850M
    Cooler Master HAF 932 Red
    CM Hyper 212 EVO w/2x SickleFlow 120mm Red
    12x BD-ROM
    Logitech X540 5.1 Surround
    2X Acer 23" LED - Eyefinity: 3840x1080
    Microsoft Sidewinder x4 KB

    "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
    - Albert Einstein

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lost In Middle America
    Posts
    337
    As I'm learning more about Ghost I see now that v9 (given the negative review) is based on Drive Image and is a completely different product than the Ghost I am using (which runs only from DOS and is very sofisticated).

    My solution was to restore the larger image to a hard drive with enough free space to accommodate the image (don't try to boot from it), then resize the partition small enough to fit the new smaller drive, image the now smaller partition, and restore that to the new hard drive.
    I was probably too harsh in my opinion of Partition Saving. It claims to be able to restore to a smaller partition if you defrag before creating the image (and it will tell you just how small it can be). An irritating extra step, but much simpler. P/S also takes more than twice as long as my version of Ghost for image/restore, so I'll stick with Ghost (which by default creates the image defragged) for the short list of filesystems it supports. P/S does have a neat feature for moving installations of WinNT/2K/XP - it lets you edit the drive mappings outside windows so you can always boot from C: (or whatever). For that it's worth keeping.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    west Lothian, Scotland.
    Posts
    13,280
    I normally use "Image for DOS" [IforD] to make [and restore] image backups to mainly my 80 GB external USB connected IDE HDD, but also to an internal [G:] partition on my internal HDD [just in case the USB connection fails].
    I find working outside of Windows and saving to, & restoring from, a USB HDD to be GREAT!

    Have BiNG, and should be finding out more about what it can do and how it does it, but find IforD so convenient and effective I'm inclined to keep doing what I know and trust [if it ain't broke don't fix it].

    Have "HP Simple Backup", but never use it now because it only makes backups to CD [normally RW], which are much too small, and not reliable enough [a restore will sometimes fail, but Ifor D never has].

    "Computer Active" have offered their readers [includes me] a free download of "Acronis True Image 7", so I tried to find out HERE what it could do, but they aren't telling what I want to know.
    e.g. Does it work outside of Windows, and backup to and restore from a USB HDD?
    I see it makes "incremental images (changes since last backup), and differential images (changes since last full backup)", but is that worth bothering with?
    How easy/difficult would it be to restore the software state on a chosen date by using the various backup portions.
    Do the quicker backups justify the added complication?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    west Lothian, Scotland.
    Posts
    13,280
    Downloaded "Acronis True Image version 7.0", installed it and used it to make a bootable CD-RW disk.

    Read the pdf files, which is exellent; really detailed, or is it too detailed?

    Booted from the Acronis CD-RW, ran the program, made an image backup of C: to the 1st partition on my external USB HDD.

    POINTS
    1. Good GUI; explains itself really well. Though more complex than ImageforDOS [IforD], the workings are less obscure, more explicit.

    2. Much SLOWER than IforD. Took 50 min to image 3.8 GB to a 1.2 GB image file, where IforD would take half that time or less on my old, slow PC.

    3. A sophisticated program with a fancy GUI that does all kinds of things I'm still to discover. It may turn out to be too fancy and do lots of things I don't really want to do. Time will tell.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    west Lothian, Scotland.
    Posts
    13,280
    Notes from pdf file;

    1. Stores to IDE, SCSI, Firewire, USB, PC card, CD-R/RW, DVD recordable, Zip, Jaz.
    2. Image can be viewed as virtual drive.
    3. Image and restore running prog within windows, or after booting prog from bootable disk [floppy or CD].
    4. Transfer software system from old to new HDD.
    5. Disk cloning, fitting new HDD, Secure Zone, Startup Recovery, Integrity Check, Scheduler, Incremental Images, Backup Logs, Bootable Disks [floppy & CD], good GUI.
    6. Image only the data content of a HDD.
    7. Image all files, Boot Record, FAT & root, zero track with MBR.
    8. Use "Startup and Recovery Manager" on HDD, or use bootable disk to restore boot software.
    9. Image: create, restore, explore, unplug.
    10. HDD: clone, or add new.
    11. Schedule tasks [backup etc].
    12. Incremental images.
    13. 4 GB max file size.
    14. Image can be restored to partition other than the original.
    15. Partition type, and size & location can be changed when restoring [Active, Primary, Logical].
    16. Restore several partitions during a single session.
    17. Restore chosen drives/folders/files from image viewed as "Virtual Drive".
    18. Complex transfer of software from old HDD to new HDD. Auto & manual transfer of partitions, folders, files, including bootable system.
    Only delete the old if the new works well.
    19. Old Disk: Create new partitions, or keep old data, or destroy data.
    20. Destruction of old HDD data: Single-pass; Multi-pass.
    21. Transfer of partition/software System: As-is; proportional; Manual.
    22. Cloning old to new: Manual & Resize Partitions.
    23. Schedule Tasks: Select partitions; Select Periodicity; Setup Execution.
    24. Check Image Integrity.
    25. Create logs and view logs.
    26. Clone HDD for use in a different PC hardware set.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lost In Middle America
    Posts
    337
    (Acronis) "2. Much SLOWER than IforD. Took 50 min to image 3.8 GB to a 1.2 GB image file, where IforD would take half that time or less on my old, slow PC."
    Speed is important. Impressive that IforD (shareware) is much faster than the top-name commercial product. IforD images are 100% compatible with BiNG images, so I will assume they use the same engine, and therefore IforD should also not be smart about restoring to a smaller partition. I can use my Ghost 2001 which is fast and smart for FAT/FAT32/NTFS/ext2, and IforD for other filesystems. Initial defrag lets Partition Saving restore to smaller. This may also work for BiNG/IforD, but I have'nt tested yet. Too bad Symantec killed the old Ghost in 2003 and replaced it with the (incompatible) hot imaging GUI product.

    "3. A sophisticated program with a fancy GUI that does all kinds of things I'm still to discover. It may turn out to be too fancy and do lots of things I don't really want to do. Time will tell."
    Downloaded Acronis True Image v9.0 15 day trial version. Could'nt find a trial download for the new GUI Ghost. Looking over the product pages at their websites IMO looks like they are trying to market these as "Imaging for Dummies" type products. Lots of fancy eye-catching features that probably don't add a lot of value. Some you might not want to use. Not seriously considering these two since IforD should be able to do everything I can't do with Ghost 2001.

    Downloaded BiNG and IforD. Two great shareware products. BiNG has some very useful features and some fancy features I would'nt want to use. Have'nt tested yet, but these two are keepers for sure.

    Also downloaded various backup software trials to evaluate. Thanks for all the help and advice.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    west Lothian, Scotland.
    Posts
    13,280
    "ComputerActive" magazine are offering a link HERE to a FREE COPY of "Acronis True Image 7".

    Roughly timed my next image backup of C: using IforD and found it took about 36 minutes [versus 50 min with Acronis], so the difference was not so great as I originally thought.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lost In Middle America
    Posts
    337
    Thanks for the link! Already registered and downloaded Acronis True Image 7. Great to have a copy that won't time out in 15 days. Given your updated performance test results, and that www.techsupportalert.com gave it high marks as the best commercial imaging product, it probably is a pretty good product.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lost In Middle America
    Posts
    337
    Do I need to be concerned about the 137GB barrier with my external USB drive? It is a Western Digital MyBook Essential Edition 160GB formatted as one large FAT32 partition. I'm using DOS (Norton Ghost 2001 mostly), Win98 and Win2000 to write to it presently, but read/write access with other os's will likely be needed in the future.

    The reason for my concern: There is nothing in the WD literature about using this drive with other than Win2k or WinXP. Also, in the literature with my (Maxtor) internal ATA drive it says that with Windows 2000 I need SP3 AND I also have to install the "EnableBigLBA" patch into the registry to safely access drives larger than 137GB. I don't know if I have either. For Windows 98 (& DOS v7.10 too?) the (Maxtor) literature says I would need the "Intel Application Accellerator" driver assuming I have a compatible chipset.

    If there is a problem, can this be solved by repartitioning as Primary1: 100GB FAT32, and Primary2: 60GB NTFS?

    Your help is appreciated. Thanks.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    N of the S of Ireland
    Posts
    20,504
    Accessing drives that are large enough to cross the 48bit LBA barrier is different when they are connected to the motherboard and when they are attached to a USB enclosure/adapter since the two situations use different BIOS/Firmware to report any attached drives' geometry. Most modern mobos and USB-firmware are 48bit LBA accessible; older firmware of either sort may well not be.

    There is another fundamental difference in the way that the NT and DOS based OSes interact with the hardware. The DOS based ones tend to believe what the firmware tells them but the NT based ones tend to want to work things out for themselves, which is why you need the relevant SPs and to have the registry entries for bigLBA enabled with the NT-based OSes for when they talk to the mobo BIOS. Even Win98/ME (using IDE drives on a 48bit LBA compatible mobo) can be tweaked to see all of the geometry without any intel application accellerator driver - (I should add that I have read the material but never actually done this). With large drives in modern USB enclosures these access problems should go away for all/most versions of Windows.

    Just what the various versions and makes of DOS can see will be dependent on many factors - and notably whether any USB support can be properly enabled by installing/configuring the relevant drivers and memory management.

    Two words of warning with regard to mobo-connected drives when using Win9X/ME. Firstly, they may (when non-48bitLBA-enabled) appear to work on drives larger than 128/137 "gig" but in fact once the file system needs to access the drive beyond the barrier data corruption/loss may ensue. So dont make FAT partitions that cross this barrier on such IDE drives though USB drives should be just fine. Early on after such installs there is usually no problem since files tend to be created in the first part of the drive. Secondly there is a bug (nothing to do with 48bitLBA) if using logical partitions containing non-FAT partitions whereby if the last partition in the logical drive is non-FAT then data corruption/loss can ensue.
    Take nice care of yourselves - Paul - ♪ -
    Help to start using BiNG. Some stuff about Boot CDs & Data Recovery Basics & Back-up using Knoppix.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    The Mountain State
    Posts
    23,389
    Also do not forget that FAT32 has a FILE size limitation, too. It is around 4 GB...just under the size of a DVD, so you may want to set a limit and split your files at just under 4GB.
    AV, Anti-Trojan List;Browser and Email client List;Popup Killer List;Portable Apps
    “When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.” - Thomas Paine
    Remember: Amateurs built the ark; professionals built the Titantic."

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lost In Middle America
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Komski View Post
    With large drives in modern USB enclosures these access problems should go away for all/most versions of Windows.
    My mobo BIOS is dated April 1998 (Compaq Deskpro EN). It supports LBA and the int13h extensions. There are no internal drives that cross the 137GB boundary, just the external USB one. In the Maxtor literature (for 100GB internal) it states: "Using a Drive Larger than 137 GB . . . . If . . . you have an installed Ultra ATA/133 PCI card (I don't), you can safely use your drive with the card on Windows 98SE, Me, 2000, and XP." According to Maxtor, with this hardware solution the service packs and registry patches are not needed. I have'nt taken the USB drive apart, but I'm guessing that there is an IDE drive inside connected to an ATA controller. Can I assume that there is a hardware/firmware solution built into this drive that does'nt require tweaking (for Windows 98SE, Me, 2000, XP)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Komski View Post
    Just what the various versions and makes of DOS can see will be dependent on many factors - and notably whether any USB support can be properly enabled by installing/configuring the relevant drivers and memory management.
    I will want to access it with DOS version 7.10 using the Panasonic USB driver v2.06 (Usbaspi.sys) with the Moto Haru binder (DI1000DD.SYS). I won't attempt access with any older DOS version. My questions has mostly to do with how similar Windows 98 is to DOS v7.10 in terms of how they access drives. Is all the disk access technology built into the DOS part of Windows? Do I also need to configure a special memory management with DOS?

    I can repartition as 100GB FAT32 and 60GB NTFS if I have to, but would prefer to keep it all FAT32 since it's only purpose is for backup.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    N of the S of Ireland
    Posts
    20,504
    but I'm guessing that there is an IDE drive inside connected to an ATA controller.
    Exactly - and a controller with its own 48bit capable firmware. Take it out of the enclosure and add it to the mobo directly and the limit will be that of the mobo's BIOS.

    MS-DOS 7.1x shipped with Windows 95B/OSR2, 95C/OSR2.5, 98, and 98SE. There are theoretical reasons for it to be capable of accessing FAT32 volumes right up to the maximum of 2TB but there is an intrinsic limitation due to the version of scandisk that is involved. The recommendation is thus to not use FAT32 partitions (as opposed to drives) greater than the 128/137 gig limit on USB enclosures.

    A major problem with DOS-7.1x and Win-98 is that they were released just as USB was becoming standard and so support for USB is somewhat sketchy and requires non-native driver support of one sort or another. Such driver support for USB enclosures should overcome both the 128/137 gig barrier from Win98 and allow proper access to the drives for both Win98 and DOS 7.10.

    The two major limitations of using large FAT32 partitions on USB enclosed HDDs are bootability and access from DOS based utiltities.

    In short you should be fine to format the drive into two FAT32 partitions with neither one exceeding 127gig and then be capable of accessing the drive normally with DOS 7.10 or Win98se; assuming the correct drivers have been installed. Or ... one large FAT partition if not bothered about accessing from DOS.
    Last edited by Paul Komski; 10-27-2006 at 07:15 PM.
    Take nice care of yourselves - Paul - ♪ -
    Help to start using BiNG. Some stuff about Boot CDs & Data Recovery Basics & Back-up using Knoppix.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lost In Middle America
    Posts
    337
    OK! I will repartition as 100GB FAT32 (primary) followed by 60GB NTFS (primary), or maybe 120/40. I will repartition with Disk Management. I think I can format the FAT32 with Win 98, if not I remember seeing a FAT32 partitioning utility at the WD website. OR, maybe I can resize it with BiNG. I did'nt really need all to be FAT32, just would have been more convenient to have only one big partition. On the plus side this arrangement gives me a way around the 4Gig file size limit. Good links!

    One final question: In the 48bitLBA.com link you gave it states: "Some older motherboards only supported USB 1.1 and your USB hard drive may require USB 2.0." I thought that USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 were supposed to be forward and backward compatible, with the only limitation being that the speed of the controller and periferal would be that of the slower device. My drive is for USB 2.0 and my mobo supports only USB 1.1. There is nothing in the drive literature or at the WD website to indicate that it can be used with a USB 1.1 controller, yet it seems to be working fine under DOS7 & Win2k with the exception that DOS FDISK can't see it. Should I have any cause for concern?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    west Lothian, Scotland.
    Posts
    13,280
    "Some older motherboards only supported USB 1.1 and your USB hard drive may require USB 2.0"
    That was my situation.
    The USB 2.0 driver for Win98SE that was supplied with my USB 2.0 "Smart Cable" [the USB2 circuitry is fitted inside the cable's plug] was able to work on my USB 1.1 connection, but I bought and fitted a PCI to USB 2.0 card and that is giving me some increase in transfer rate [except as limited by the PC spec].

    "it seems to be working fine under DOS7 & Win2k with the exception that DOS FDISK can't see it"
    I have an MS DOS 7.10s boot floppy that includes a Panasonic DOS driver for USB 1.1 and 2.0.
    It can see and display the contents of the partitions on my external USB HDD [using DOS commands].
    I tried adding fdisk to the floppy and running it, but it will only see the internal HDD.
    I deduce that to be a feature of the way the fdisk program works.
    I've been trying without success to make a DOS boot disk that includes a USB driver for DOS and can run various utilities [e.g. Microsoft Scandisk] that can manipulate an external USB drive.
    I'd like to be able to make the EBCD programs operate on a USB HDD.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    N of the S of Ireland
    Posts
    20,504
    I thought that USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 were supposed to be forward and backward compatible
    Nothing can, realistically, be intended to always be "forward compatible" which, for example, is one of the reasons for the appearance of partition size barriers as time went by. Most software developments are made backward compatible whenever possible but mistakes and omissions can happen and it may not be "worth the effort" to continue to support all previous versions. USB DOS drivers are not native to the OS and so there was never any onus on the makers of them to create universal USB2 drivers that would support USB 1.1 hardware. USB driver support for storage devices under DOS is additionally complicated by the actual chipsets on any system and which just adds another layer of complexity to this specific area. The end result is that one may have to do a lot of experimenting with any particular set of hardware to get USB drives to be properly accessible from DOS.

    What fdisk and other utils running under DOS have also to rely on is what the mobo's BIOS report to it with int13h calls, so fdisk is likely to only work on relevant USB enclosed partitions when these are enumerated by the system BIOS in addition to what their own USB's firmware reports. This usually means that fdisk should work on systems that purport to support booting from USB hard drives (even though this is rarely achievable in its own right). Put it this way, the makers of the USB DOS drivers didn't write and supply another version of fdisk, which continues to operate in the same manner that it always did.
    Last edited by Paul Komski; 10-28-2006 at 10:48 AM.
    Take nice care of yourselves - Paul - ♪ -
    Help to start using BiNG. Some stuff about Boot CDs & Data Recovery Basics & Back-up using Knoppix.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lost In Middle America
    Posts
    337
    So far my USB 2.0 drive has been working perfectly on my 1.1 controller, but a USB 2.0 PCI card is definitely on my list of things to get, if for no other reason than to get a boost in speed. I timed a 700 MB transfer and found it to be almost exactly the 1.1 speed limit.

    Thanks to everyone who added information to this thread.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    N of the S of Ireland
    Posts
    20,504
    but a USB 2.0 PCI card is definitely on my list of things to get
    Can be very useful and time saving. I carry one (and another PCMCIA card) along with a USB2 Hard Drive and USB2 DVD burner in "my kit" for grabbing data off old systems, etc.
    Take nice care of yourselves - Paul - ♪ -
    Help to start using BiNG. Some stuff about Boot CDs & Data Recovery Basics & Back-up using Knoppix.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •