Xbpartitioner 1.1 *does Not* Format With 128k Clusters With Drives >, We need a new release with correct code Options

[emailchaos]

It confuses me too, but if XBP says it's gonna use 128kb clusters and then proceeds throughout the formatting process, then the size detection code has done it's job correctly - nothing more to mess with there.

I agree, unless LBASize is used elsewhere in the formatting process. Is it only used for the cluster size detection?

[Bomb Bloke]

Dunno, don't care. Take another look at that formatting line I quoted. As it isn't mentioned there (and nor is it's parent object(s)) it simply isn't relevant.

Edit:

Actually looking in a bit further detail I see that anything's possible. It could well even be the problem (though I'm still somewhat doubting it). In fact changing that to a ULONGLONG could well break the program, but...

... Well, one way to find out for sure. I'll compile a new build tomorrow later in the day and send it to wildonrio for the test. Too early in the morning for me to do it now.

This post has been edited by Bomb Bloke: Oct 17 2008, 04:17 PM

[wildonrio]

Thanks for all your hard work

[run088]

I can confirm that the xbox crashes when it sees the 128k partition.I went ahead and split mine again with f of 504gigs at 32k and g at 900gigs with 64k.It shows as more in xbmc and that worries me a little.xbmc f=516gig g=906gig The only way to find out is to fill it completely or leave 4gigs worth or slack in the partition and forget about it.

I did think however this setup would be the best way to save space making 1 partition to the 512g 32k limit.It will most likely be some time before the 2tb hdds hit the market and alot longer than that before anything bigger hits the market so we really got some time before the 128k will ever be needed.128k will be what is needed for drives from 2tb to 4tb.

[Bomb Bloke]

Ok, I changed a heck of a lot of values to ULONGLONGs. We'll see what that does.

I can confirm that the xbox crashes when it sees the 128k partition.I went ahead and split mine again with f of 504gigs at 32k and g at 900gigs with 64k.It shows as more in xbmc and that worries me a little.xbmc f=516gig g=906gig The only way to find out is to fill it completely or leave 4gigs worth or slack in the partition and forget about it.

Hmm, that ain't so good. If I were you I'd format once more making F a little lower - You really want it to display at less then 512gb to be on the safe side.

Scratching my head as to why it'd do that. Actually, might be well worth checking what a few other dashboards report before formatting again.

I did think however this setup would be the best way to save space making 1 partition to the 512g 32k limit.It will most likely be some time before the 2tb hdds hit the market and alot longer than that before anything bigger hits the market so we really got some time before the 128k will ever be needed.128k will be what is needed for drives from 2tb to 4tb.

Quite correct.

[wildonrio]

Ok, I changed a heck of a lot of values to ULONGLONGs. We'll see what that does.

It will be a couple weeks before I will be able to test this. I'll keep everyone posted.

[Milleman]

Hi guys,

Just bought a 1.5 TB drive and the XBP 1.1 insists on formatting the the large partition with only 32kb clusters. anyone that got a patched XBpartitioner that will format using 128 kb clusters?

/Mill

This post has been edited by Milleman: Nov 25 2008, 11:39 AM

[Milleman]

I wonder if the FATX structured in the same way as the FAT32...

Reading the information at the following link:

Windows XP Professional File Systems Overview

...gives me the information that the FAT32 (FATX?) uses the following cluster size convention:


FAT32 file system cluster sizes
===============================
Partition Size ----------------- Cluster Size

0M to less than 260MB ----- 0.5k (512 bytes)
260MB through 8GB -------- 4k (4,096 bytes
8GB through 16GB ---------- 8k (8,192 bytes)
16GB through 32GB -------- 16k (16,384 bytes)
32GB through 2TB ---------- 32k (32,768 bytes)
===============================

If there isn't a cluster redesign in the FATX, a 32k cluster size would therefore be able to handle upp to 2 TB disks. But why are partitions over 512 GB, using 32k cluster size, getting corrupted then?

This post has been edited by Milleman: Nov 26 2008, 05:46 AM

[Bomb Bloke]

FATX uses three bytes to address each cluster. Three bytes can store two to power of twenty four (2^24) different values, so that's 16,777,215 clusters tops.

Hence the maximum partition size is tied to your cluster size. The default of 16kb (2^14 bytes) multiplies out to 274,877,906,944 bytes (2^38).

Divide that by a gigabyte (2^30) and the final figure is 256 (2^8) gb.

Now, there's nothing stopping you from attempting to create a partition larger then 256gb using 16kb clusters. Catch is, as soon as you actually attempt to put more then that amount of data on there, you run out of addressing space, the file system overflows, and whoops! The file index table just got overwritten...

I dunno if this bug also exists in FAT32, but I've never heard it mentioned. So why do they bother to change the cluster size for larger drives in that case?

Well, the file index table keeps track of clusters, but the smaller your clusters are, the more of the things you have - and hence the bigger your index has to be. Attempting to index 2tb worth of data using half kilobyte sized clusters would require 4gb, while a 32kb cluster size reduces that figure to just 64mb.

I think NTFS likes to use 4kb clusters regardless, which is fair enough. There comes a point where drive efficiency will be taking a bigger hit due to huge clusters then it'll be gaining from having a small index.

[xboxjason]

While I hate resurrecting old threads, I haven't seen any further progress. Have you finished discussing this issue elsewhere? Did wildonrio ever test the new build?

I just threw in a 2TB drive in my V1.0. I would really like to assist if this was never completed.


Jason

[Bomb Bloke]

I'm afraid not much has changed.

We'll probably never know whether wildonrio did that last test.

Any attempts to do a format with 128kb clusters result in a corrupt partition.

128kb clusters are still wasteful unless you want to install a drive larger then 2tb.

[xboxjason]

Alright. Thanks for the reply. I guess I'll just divide my extra space evenly between my F and G partitions.

[Clockface]

What is the largest HD capacity the XBox can use, and I take it it's still IDE, and not SATA? And if I get a large HD (mine is currently 300GB or so), can I just use Slayers boot disc to format the drive OK?

Thanks for any answers.