141 replies to this topic

[sambul61]

LeMOGO

Did you abandon your "The Boot Process" thread? I think it better fits the bill, looking at what is actually done here.

I've a feeling (was wrong before) that time for a topic "Boot from USB" is running out, as it's practically gone already for CD/DVD/Floppy, with Steve Jobs being an icon visionary in that regard since forever. With upcoming proliferation of SSDs, getting mainstream USB 3.0 devices use with Windows and adding boot from USB support to all modern BIOSes, booting from USB will not differ from any HD booting from a user prospective pretty soon. No special & nonstandard drive "preparation" by user will be needed either. It was said before by many experienced Windows tinkers (MS included), today's Flash Drives are not recommended as OS boot medium due to very slow write and being pron to wear.


Apple I (no floppy yet)

However, the Boot Process is a different creature altogether. While crying to be modernized and simplified gearing towards High Availability Systems, this historic relict will remain for quite some time in a gradually evolving form, so it makes sense IMHO to devote efforts trying to classify and organize facts, theories and tools surrounding it. Btw, Boot Enablers Section we discussed is still missing from your map.

[LeMOGO]

LeMOGO

Did you abandon your "The Boot Process" thread? I think it better fits the bill, looking at what is actually done here.

Not in a million years. I'm on it. I am just trying to complete this one.
It's pretty much done. I think we are almost complete on C.3.1-3, working on 3.4 now.

Even when new computers come with SSDs, they still start from BIOS, have CD/DVDs, AND USB ports. Sometimes, we even need floppies, so, we can say they are "inadequate " in some regards (because they try to ignore the past)!
As long as we have PCs that build on legacy, we'll need to understand the past just to survive in the present. The complexity of the subject at hand comes from the layering of many generations of different evolving technologies. As long as there is no replacement for the stack as a whole, and layers keep on being added and/or improved, this topic will remain relevant. It will remain relevant for years after the stack has been replaced (if it ever is), at least for as long as people own the equipment that have these technologies. Besides, I know some very critical places that still run their dhcp and some other servers on 486s, and, no one wants to touch these boxes as long as they run. People don't just get rid of their investments only because there is something new. Some "in place" improvement is sometimes the best compromise. Also, with the progress we are learning about here and on other forums, "old" equipment is turning out to be more valuable than we previously thought. I still have UFDs that I purchased when they first came out. With g4d and the possibility of loading floppy images, they are far from being "useless" in my toolbox. They can be used for troubleshooting, and are more "bootable" than the newer ones. With the PE generation, we can turn "old" computers into valuable surfing stations (which is all that most guest need to "check their emails" when visiting), which helps keep people off your personal workstation and avoids the risk of infections.

Be assured that the companion thread The boot process: a step by step approach to booting is not dead nor forgotten. We will probably get to it sometimes before the end of this week.
Just so you know, the fact that noting is posted on the thread does not mean that nothing has been added to the mindmap. Have you looked at B.2.x.x on the mindmap lately?

[Wonko the Sane]

About the posted "text image".
There is NO limit for FAT32 at 137 Gb.
That is the LBA addressing limit of 28 bit vs. 48 bit.

FAT32 tops at around 8 Tb:
http://en.kioskea.ne...epar/fat32.php3
but it's "dumbed down", due to max cluster number and sector sizes, to around 2 Tb on common 512 bytes/sector devices.
http://en.wikipedia....ion_Table#FAT32

There is an "artificial" limit imposed by MS at 32 Gb for newish Operating Systems.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140365

Maybe you saw this:
http://technet.micro...y/cc938432.aspx
and attributed the 128 Gb to the filesystem.

More generally in an attempt to "push" NTFS, the good MS guys have dumbed down FAT32, I dare to say intentionally , JFYI:
http://www.msfn.org/...d-on-usb-stick/
but besides the above, a number of OS and utilities shipped with them MS OS (please read as FDISK, CHKDSK, FORMAT, etc. and the filesystem driver itself) may have problems with largish FAT32 volumes.
Quite obviously the only peeps looking for having largish FAT32 volumes are the 9x fans:
http://www.msfn.org/...ows-959898seme/

This may come handy:
http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

More generally the right side of the posted thingy is not of easy understanding (at least to me).


Wonko

[sambul61]

Quite obviously the only peeps looking for having largish FAT32 volumes are the 9x fans

Not exactly. Quite a few (if not all) USB Media Players hooked to & integrated in an enclosure with hard drives are able to work only with FAT32 formatted drives (to avoid hefty NTFS licensing fees to MS).

[Wonko the Sane]

Not exactly.

Exactly enough, as I see it.
Please provide a link to a source connected to "USB Media Players fan" that - like the one I cited - provides loads of useful information, patched filesystem drivers, etc.
Usually "USB Media Players" are managed by "USB Media Players" manufacturers, that are unlikely to give away specifications, tools, and the like.
Example:
http://reboot.pro/8528/
the described device self-checks it's formatting status and if it is not of it's liking re-formats itself from firmware.


Wonko

[LeMOGO]

O.K., I will read and make the corrections. I must have been misinformed (koz I definitely did not make it up).

More generally the right side of the posted thingy is not of easy understanding (at least to me).

The right side is exactly the left side. They are kept separate for readability.
The right side contains the limits of the items on of the left side that are in the same positions. Adding them to the left side clutters the table. We may want to just look at the table to think, without concern for the numbers, and vice versa.
The main problem with this table is that it was made from a plain text editor because I was trying to paste the text here, but it the formatting did not hold.
I have it in excel also, that should satisfy wonko

direct link to the above image

direct link to the above image

Since no comments have been made about the stack itself, I will consider it complete for now.
I'm looking into the FAT32 limits.

[sambul61]

Wonko

I didn't attempt to valuate the links you posted (as The Finder - oops, where is that distinction?), hence there is no need to bullet proof them, and generally show signs of aggression.

And thanks for the suggestion. HD Media Players Wiki might be a good starting point. In my experience, one can format a HD by usual means outside and without help of the player, copy or download media files to it, and then simply hook that HD to the player via USB 2.0 internal or external port to watch the recorded content on an HDTV via HDMI connection. Did you try one of those as of yet?

[Wonko the Sane]

Did you try one of those as of yet?

No, not yet , expecially the ones greater than 32 Gb's and 137 Gb's, the only ones that would have had some relevance on the post contents, and that, as you might know, are very common devices.


Wonko

[LeMOGO]

While I'm reading the links, I thought I'd post the numbers.

C.3.3.4.2 "FAT file system size constraints and limitations" lays out the reasons behind the numbers for the FAT32 file system.

137 GB / 128GiB 28bit sector addressing:
268,435,456 = (2^28)
268,435,456 entries x 512bytes = 137,438,953,472 bytes
137,438,953,472 /1024 = 134,217,728 kiB
134,217,728 / 1024 = 131,072 MiB
131,072 / 1024 = 128 GiB
32k clusters limit (128GiB x 32k) = 8TB
if clustered, there are constraints:
min of 65,527 clusters needed to be able to create clusters
clusters must be < 64KB
268,435,445 clusters maximum @ 32 KB/cluster = 8TB
same as FAT32 137GB limit, but sectors are clustered by 32

I haven't read anything that contradicts that so far. The maximum theoretical maximum @ 512bytes is as stated (in keeping with the other file systems).

There is NO limit for FAT32 at 137 Gb.
That is the LBA addressing limit of 28 bit vs. 48 bit.

They LBA"28" & FAT32 both use 28 bit addressing, they are different limits though.
Is there a rule that says that "all FAT32 partitions MUST be clustered"?

[LeMOGO]

I just realized you had not seen the xl version of the table.
It includes the different limits. I had to pick only one on the text version, but again, that was about the stack .
They are all on the xl version.

Hope that clears things up.

[LeMOGO]

FYI, I had made all the computations myself with a calculator to make sure they were accurate, but there may be errors. If you find one, please point it out.

[sambul61]

No, not yet , expecially the ones greater than 32 Gb's and 137 Gb's, the only ones that would have had some relevance on the post contents, and that, as you might know, are very common devices.


Wonko

Yes, I know - using a 32Gb FAT32 formatted 2.5" drive with my DVD Player that also has USB 2.0 playback capabilities. Now say something like "Thank you for pointing to this. I missed that" - simply to show you're intelligent person capable of recognizing contribution of others, and well familiar with good forum manners. That would encourage others (me including) to be more polite and friendly with you on a steady basis, so that you don't have to put such Sigs around you. Will you? The roles ppl play are not frozen in time, they might be frozen only in your mind, which is a good indicator of need to heat it up a bit (for you or others). Read this too.

[Wonko the Sane]

Is there a rule that says that "all FAT32 partitions MUST be clustered"?

No, but most sizes of them are.
Let's say that the "minimum unit" addressed by the filesystem is called "cluster" (meaning a "group of sectors").

If you check thoroughfully the already given KB article:
http://support.micro...kb/140365/en-us
you will see how default cluster size for FAT32 is (exception made for smaller than 64 Mb partition) multi-sector.

But this applies to all other filesystems with different "levels" of the "switch" between single sector and multi-sector cluster.

FAT 12 is actually limited to 16 Mbyte (in the sense that if you cross that border you get automatically FAT16 under MOST Operating systems - but see below the note about NT 4.0)
FAT 16 is NOT actually limited to 2.15 Gb, that is the common limit of FAT 16 with 32 Kb clusters, but FAT 16 with 64 Kb clusters is possible.
FAT 32 is NOT actually limited to 137.4 Gb, a FAT32 with 32 Kb clusters (thus comparable with FAT16 above) has a size limit of around 2 Tb.

If you are finding out the limits with a single sector cluster, they are (following the defaults):
FAT12 : 2 Mb
FAT 16 : 32 Mb
FAT 32 : 64 Mb
NTFS : 512 Mb

Then there are theoretical+practical limits.
FAT 12 is theoretically up to 2^12= 4096 clusters but in practice limited to either 4084 or 4078 clusters
FAT 16 is theoretically up to 2^16= 65536 clusters ... etc.
And also note how "default" of "common use" does change when it comes to different media and OS, here is some better detail for FAT12/16:
http://www.win.tue.n.../fat/fat-1.html
(check the available sizes of FAT12 under NT 4.0 )

In other words I had the impression you were mixing different limits on the same line (or there is a hidden to me link between the three limits on the same line for FAT12/16/32 stated as 16Mb/2.15Gb/137Gb? )


Wonko

[Wonko the Sane]

Will you?

Surely not, I see NO reasons why I should feel obliged to do so, that's the whole point of the new signature.

Contents of ANY and ALL my posts is pre-declared by myself as being completely void of any relevance, validity and pertinence, exactly to avoid needing you to point that out, consequently I see no need to thank you for a completely unneeded clarification pointing out that they actually are completely void of any relevance, validity and pertinence.

Additionally, I highlighted my present condition of being BOTH old and stubborn (besides grumpy and cheap, but that is not relevant) to lessen the great efforts you take to change my way of being.


Wonko

[sambul61]

I don't have a purpose to make your posts void (it's kind of stupid to suggest, is it? ), but merely to amend at times with some info a reader may find useful. But how to do it in a way least traumatic to your sensitive being - possible?

Sorry LeMOGO for this exchange.

[LeMOGO]

In other words I had the impression you were mixing different limits on the same line (or there is a hidden to me link between the three limits on the same line for FAT12/16/32 stated as 16Mb/2.15Gb/137Gb? )

These are theoretical limits of 512bytes.
Since I do not know the capabilities of all the formatting applications out there, I had to base the "possible values" on pure numbers. Whether applications are using the full capabilities or not, that's a different matter, not a matter of possibility.
However, your point is well taken. We need to differentiate between possible and practical limits based on what the applications offer. I'm aware of M$ method of clustering in "steps", and we are looking at the practical limits we encounter in the various circumstances. The cluster sizes and other reasons for existing limitations are including in the table:


I will remove the 512bytes limit (as it is not a practical limit) and review all the suggested documents to see if any other changes need to be made. I'll post the results later today.

[Wonko the Sane]

I don't have a purpose to make your posts void (it's kind of stupid to suggest, is it? ), but merely to amend at times with some info a reader may find useful. But how to do it in a way least traumatic to your sensitive being - possible?

Sure , when you find missing info, post the missing info and not a generic link to a pointless wiki.

For the record, the wiki contains these missing pieces of info (red and bolded italic in the following quote):

File formats, resolutions and file systems

HDMPs can usually play H.264 (SD and HD), MPEG-4 Part 2 (SD and HD), MPEG-2 .mpg, MPEG-2 .TS, VOB and ISO images video, with MP3 and AC3 audio tracks. They can also display (JPEG, PNG) images and play music (MP3, Ogg) files.

Some devices can be updated to play in new formats.

Recordings from standard resolution TV usually have 720p.
[edit]
File systems

DVR usually can play FAT32 filesystems, although some others can read NTFS.

The FAT32 and the NTFS hyperlink to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS

WOW!

What would you like me to say , something like:
Nice find , your reference opened to us a whole new scenario , only that is seemingly completely unrelated to booting matters and provides not any new details .


Wonko

[sambul61]

I simply pointed that your statement is incorrect and misleading. Unfortunately, I'll have to do it each time when find your post incorrect, incomplete or misleading. And will try to always do it in very friendly manner, expecting the same from you. That's what forum is for - to exchange ideas and info. There is no hierarchy here, where you self appointed to a role of "know everything" guy, while in fact you know next to nothing compare to "wisdom". Look at my posts - do any of them missed "Thanking" you for whatever you suggested? Even when I see no rational (only arrogance), I still say "Thanks". And lets go back to the subject of this thread - do not disrupt it in your usual manner.

[Wonko the Sane]

Unfortunately, I'll have to do it each time when find your post incorrect, incomplete or misleading.

You are very welcome to , expecially if you will provide some actual proof of the "incorrect" and expecially of the "misleading" parts.

But don't expect to be thanked for it.

I am - as summed up in your nice words, an ungrateful bastard, I see no reason to change this nature of mine.

And will try to always do it in very friendly manner, expecting the same from you.

You have queer ways of using "friendly" referred to your "attitude", but I am happy that this is what you think you are doing.
On this side, I perfectly know that I am unfriendly towards you, but this is "by design", so do not expect a change to this, or, even better do not expect anything from me.

That's what forum is for - to exchange ideas and info.

Sure, that was the idea, when people actually posted related info and not semi-random ideas or pointless links unrelated to the topic at hand, but this was the past, we now have the new communication approach.

There is no hierarchy here, where you self appointed to a role of "know everything" guy, while in fact you know next to nothing compare to "wisdom".

I will take this as a compliment, I know of not knowing, I have the new signature exactly to convey this message openly and publicly.

Look at my posts - do any of them missed "Thanking" you for whatever you suggested?

Yes, several ones, but that is not a problem, I do not expect that you thank me, actually I do expect NOTHING from you.

And lets go back to the subject of this thread - do not disrupt it in your usual manner.

Sure , why - just for a change - you don't share something else actually useful to the topic at hand besides your nice pieces of wisdom and feelings?


Wonko

[sambul61]

I perfectly know that I am unfriendly towards you, but this is "by design", so do not expect a change to this.

Surprised and disappointed, you obviously don't share the idea of people freely communicating on such forums in a friendly manner by design. Since you claim to be old, I'd really wish you to enjoy spending time on various forums socializing with others without looking around. But you'll make it a lot less pleasant for yourself being "unfriendly by design". May be you need to take a break to cool down for a couple of months?

[Wonko the Sane]

Surprised and disappointed, you obviously don't share the idea of people freely communicating on such forums in a friendly manner by design. Since you claim to be old, I'd really want to give you a chance to enjoy spending time on various forums socializing with others without looking around. But you'll make it a lot less pleasant for yourself being "unfriendly by design". May be you need to take a break to cool down for a couple of months?

That is a good idea.
But what are you gonna do in the next two months?




Wonko

[LeMOGO]

Question

Does int13h extensions work with any other protocol than LBA?

[LeMOGO]

Added Partitioning / MBR / PBR related branches and details.

[Wonko the Sane]

Question

Does int13h extensions work with any other protocol than LBA?

LBA is not AFAIK a protocol , it is an "addressing method".

The details are explained rather clearly here:
http://home.teleport.../diskaccess.htm

If read together with the Int 13h Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INT_13H

The "key" part is this:

Reading and Writing to the Drive

Reading Routines

Extensions Method : Use Int13h, section AH=42h
Non-Extensions Method : Use Int13h, section AH=02h

Writing Routines

Extensions Method : Use Int13h, section AH=43h
Non-Extensions Method : Use Int13h, section AH=03h

And the corresponding one for writing.

AH=02h and AH=03h (NO extensions) "think" in CHS notation
AH=42h and AH=43h (Extensions) "think" in LBA notation

CHS notation "ends" at 1024*255*63=16,450,560 Sectors * 512=8,422,686,720 bytes, meaning that there is simply no space to address anything beyound sector 16,450,560.
Just think of a 9 digit display, you simply CANNOT have the number 1,000,000,000 in it.

But what was the actual question (i.e. which was the reason/context for it)?


BTW:

You try different USB devices and different settings on them until you can "map" your particular BIOS into a given "category" listing what it can do and what it cannot.

If I may, these are not "my" suggestions as answer to the question "How do I find out how my BIOS sees my device?", they are my suggestions as answer to the question "How do I find out WHICH devices my BIOS recognizes correctly?".
The suggestion for "How do I find out how my BIOS sees my device?" is "A suffusion of yellow", different devices have different suggested procedures, in the case of a UFD it is simply:
(please note how 99.99% of USB sticks come NOT partitioned from factory and formatted as "superfloppy" and with the "Removable" bit set)
Pointless test:
Install a DOS to it.
Try booting.
If it boots and gets letter A:, your device is a FD-like one and works on that BIOS, but you cannot do much with it.

Better test:
Partition it (if you can)
Install a DOS to it.
Try booting.
If it boots and gets letter C:, your device is a HD-like one and works on that BIOS and you can do MANY things with it.

Since the "Pointless test" is pointless , as you have much less possibilities with a superfloppy, recommended is the "Better test", if it fails, in 99% of the cases it is NOT a problem with the stick, but a problem with the BIOS.
The 1st recommended solution is to flip the "Removable" bit and have a "Fixed" device.
The 2nd recommended solution is to use RMPREPUSB to partition/format it.
The 3rd recommended solution is to use FBINST to partition/format it.



Wonko

[LeMOGO]

LBA is not AFAIK a protocol , it is an "addressing method".

I mean protocol as in "set of rules", not as in "computer communications". I was looking at it as an agreement, something to abide by, a way to do things (specify sectors). I was using the word in that sense, but that's because I speak other languages and sometimes the line blurs between words, especially when they are the same.
In order to avoid confusion, I will use "addressing method" in this document (as that is what it actually is). Now we're on the same page.

But what was the actual question (i.e. which was the reason/context for it)?

Just wondering *if* there is any other "addressing method" than int13/ext (just in case there is a method I am not aware of - even though I doubt it, I left a space for it).
I want to remove the question mark (under int13h extensions) if there is no reason to keep it.


About "How do I find out how my BIOS "sees" my device?"
I made the edits to C.3.4.3.1

Please post links for bit flipping instructions + utilities (not drivers)