View Full Version : Requirements for breaking 4 GB HD limit?
01-05-2003, 12:44 PM
I know I could search around for this answer, but since I am here... I have the chance to use a 9 GB SCSI hard drive but wanted to know what the requirements were in order to easily break the 4 GB limit. I currently have OS3.5 with 3.1 ROMs on 3 harddrives (2 GB, 1 GB and 0.5 GB) and no other file system. A long time ago I looked at some of the other filesystems on Aminet and elsewhere but was not willing shell out for something that I really didn't need at the time. That situation hasn't changed because this 9 GB drive is just a bonus - I don't NEED to use it but just thought if it was easily done I would.
Thanks for help,
01-05-2003, 12:50 PM
Um, I think you can still use the drive, but you have to partition it up into partitions less than 4gb. I'm using a Powerflyer here, and PFS3, lets me have over 4gb partitions.
01-05-2003, 12:58 PM
Yeah that's what I meant. I would prefer to NOT partition the drive up into three partitions. Maybe two at the most - 2 and 7 GB.
I came to the conclusion that PFS was the best financially negative solution, but, like I said, I wasn't prepared to pay for something that I really didn't (and still don't) need.
You should get SFS, its on aminet, its like PFS3 only Free and works a charm :-)
01-05-2003, 01:38 PM
It's not terribly difficult if you've already got 3.5+ installed.
Partition it, etc w/ HDToolBox making any partitions that end beyond the media's first 4 GB's non-auto mounting (ie if you are going to make the drive one large partition make sure the partition is set to not automount). While in HDToolBox add the new version of FFS that was included w/ 3.5 to the drive (it should be in your L directory) as it contains the Trackdisk 64 code required to overcome the 4 GB limit.
In Devs should be a file named NSDPatch.cfg edit it w/ a text editor so that the entry for you SCSI controller is uncommented. Also depending on your controller you may need multiple entries for each drive greater than 4 GB's and to use the RDBUnit number command. My entires for my 9 GB (unit 5) and 4.5 GB (unit 6) on my CS/PPC's SCSI controller look like this:
DEVICE cybppc.device DEVICETYPE NSDEVTYPE_TRACKDISK COMMANDS 2-7,9-15,20-28,33-39,41-44,46-49,51-72 TD64 RDBUNIT 5 ACTIVATE #?
DEVICE cybppc.device DEVICETYPE NSDEVTYPE_TRACKDISK COMMANDS 2-7,9-15,20-28,33-39,41-44,46-49,51-72 TD64 RDBUNIT 6 ACTIVATE #?
Now whenever setpatch is run it should automatically mount those partitions outside of the 4 GB's for you.
01-05-2003, 02:51 PM
I think that using multiple partitions ( and HDs) are a positive benefit.
you could have multiple booting partitions (good for those rare occasions when something goes horribly wrong), Backups (a lot quicker than zips etc.), and the organisation of files.
There is the latest version (v44.x) of fastfilesystem on the boing bag releases...
01-05-2003, 03:16 PM
I had problems with the fastfilesystem delivered with OS3.5 and OS3.9
I too have a SCSI 9 GB harddrive, but at first I couldn't get it to
work with the fastfilesystem. I ended up getting a
fastfilesystem-patch from Aminet: http://www.aminet.net/disk/misc/ffstd64.lha
Patched my old 3.1 filesystem and now I have a working harddrive of 9
I guess the FFS of 3.5+ doesn't work for SCSI harddrives, only IDE
01-05-2003, 04:14 PM
a great article on this topic can be seen at Young Monkey's site:
01-05-2003, 05:15 PM
Ahhh...now, you see? This is a thread worth sinking my teeth into. I too have been considering the 4G+ upgrade on my OS3.1 A3K, but wanted to avoid all that PFS bloat (besides my System partition is filled to the max-all 38 Megs of it!!).
The newer OS's seemed not to get it all together, passing off boing bags to fix bugs and incompatabilities, so I never upgraded my 3.1 'officially'. I'm glad to learn of the "ffstd64.lha" file on Aminet, and I'm going to at least download the archive for the future.
This whole thread has been very informative to me,guys. Thanks to all of you!! BTW-Happy New Year (yeah, it's been a while since my last visit here).
01-05-2003, 06:53 PM
>avoid all that PFS bloat
I'm not sure what you mean here; PFS definately isn't bloat,
and it's superior to FFS in every respect. PFS is WAY faster
and uses much less disk space than FFS, and since it's
essentially just a file system dropped in L and a format
command, your only reaplacing what's alreay there, so
it's not bloat. FFS 'bloats' your hard disk way more than
PFS. Aside from that, you can shut off your miggy
in the midst of file transfers all day and not worry about it,
try that with FFS.
SFS is great, too. I reccomend wiping that outdated FFS
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.