200GB HD, but only 136GB visible?!?!

Hi guys,

I bought a second SATA HD for my computer, but the computer does not see its full capacity. Although it is 200GB, the BIOS reports it is only 136GB, and hence so does Windows?!?! It awfully sounds like the old big hard drive problem, whereby older hardware/OS could not see the full capacity of a HD. But my first HD is 160GB, and is working just fine! I am using XP with SP2, with a brand new GIGABYTE motherboard. I really cannot see where the problem could come from? Any ideas/suggestions/advices will be most appreciated.

Many thanks in advance

Alex
13 answers Last reply
More about 200gb 136gb visible
  1. I think I found the problem. I found on the giga-byte FAQ for my mobo (K8N SLI)
    "Why can't I enter WinXP after installing nvidia chipset driver when use with some Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 SATAII hard disk ?
    Please update Seagate harddisk firmware from 2AAA to 3AAE will fix this issue."
    While searching on the web, it seems to be a more or less common problem. Essentially, the firmware of the HD is very buggy, so it creates probllem like mine (not full capacity) or access time slowdown (reading slower than writing). One solution would be to update the firmware, but Seagate do not provide them. Or you can also limit the drive to SATA150, but it kind of defeats the purpose of having a fast HD.

    In other words, stay away from Seagate 7200.9 SATA drives!!!!!! Don't buy them. Mine is already on its way back to the retailer.

    I hope that will help other guys with the same problem.

    Thanks again,

    Alex
  2. Quote:
    I think I found the problem. I found on the giga-byte FAQ for my mobo (K8N SLI)
    "Why can't I enter WinXP after installing nvidia chipset driver when use with some Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 SATAII hard disk ?
    Please update Seagate harddisk firmware from 2AAA to 3AAE will fix this issue."
    While searching on the web, it seems to be a more or less common problem. Essentially, the firmware of the HD is very buggy, so it creates probllem like mine (not full capacity) or access time slowdown (reading slower than writing). One solution would be to update the firmware, but Seagate do not provide them. Or you can also limit the drive to SATA150, but it kind of defeats the purpose of having a fast HD.

    In other words, stay away from Seagate 7200.9 SATA drives!!!!!! Don't buy them. Mine is already on its way back to the retailer.

    I hope that will help other guys with the same problem.

    Thanks again,

    Alex


    Eh?? I have a Seagate 7200.9 SATA II drive... and its not at all faulty/crap. At least it works... unlike my original Western Digital HDD, which I had to replace due to it dying within three days of installing it into the system. The guy above could have just got a HDD from a faulty batch or something.
  3. That seems like a fairly common problem, frequently mentioned on the web. Gigabyte even warns against it on their website!
  4. Hmmm... strange then. Oh well, at least Seagate have 7200.10 HDDs now, so probably that problem should have been rectified in this new range of HDDs.
  5. ---
    CUT AND PASTED Binary vs Metric Prefix Rant
    ---

    300 billion bytes = 300 GB* = 279 GB** = 279 GiB.

    G sometimes means one billion(*) and sometime means 1024^3(**).

    The 2nd meaning of G is more correctly written as Gi, but few people bother.

    The standard scientific convention is to use the metric prefixes for measuring transfer rates and only use binary prefixes for storage capacity.

    That worked until Quatum decided to cheat and switch from binary to metric when measuring hard drives, all the other hard drive manufacturers quickly followed suit.

    The actual usage is as follows. (Bold indicate where common usage actually agrees which scientific convention)

    ISP reported bandwidth , HDs , DVDs, most benchmarks = metric prefixes
    Memory, CDs , browser reported bandwidth = binary prefixes
    ---
  6. Thanks for the more detailed explanation. :D *takes off hat*
  7. I'm glad you know the conversion between Gi and GB (did I get that right?)

    But there is still a discrepency in his capacity. Doing the math...

    200GB=186GiB

    This does not come close to his reported capacity of 136G(i)B from the bios. What units does the bios report?

    I am curious about the problems with the seagate 7200.x drives? I have a pair of 7200.8 drives in a raid array that I have never been happy with the transfer rates on...
  8. The reply was only to the picture posted by Chuckshissle.
  9. The problem corresponds to the well-known 137GB barrier.

    And the problem with the Seagate 7200.9 HD comes from their buggy firmware from what I understood. However, concerning your RAID array, there are so many other factors that might play a role. But true, the 7200.9 are also slow at reading, slower than for writing actually!
  10. Quote:
    I'm glad you know the conversion between Gi and GB (did I get that right?)

    But there is still a discrepency in his capacity. Doing the math...

    200GB=186GiB

    This does not come close to his reported capacity of 136G(i)B from the bios. What units does the bios report?

    I am curious about the problems with the seagate 7200.x drives? I have a pair of 7200.8 drives in a raid array that I have never been happy with the transfer rates on...


    I believe that at least most of that discrepancy will be from the formatting, but I could be mistaken.
  11. Quote:
    I'm glad you know the conversion between Gi and GB (did I get that right?)

    But there is still a discrepency in his capacity. Doing the math...

    200GB=186GiB

    This does not come close to his reported capacity of 136G(i)B from the bios. What units does the bios report?

    I am curious about the problems with the seagate 7200.x drives? I have a pair of 7200.8 drives in a raid array that I have never been happy with the transfer rates on...


    I believe that at least most of that discrepancy will be from the formatting, but I could be mistaken.


    Indeed but it couldn't account for 136GiB.

    186GiB or a bit less I could understand.

    It sounds like a possible system or HDD BIOS problem.
Ask a new question

Read More

Hard Drives Computer HD Storage