New HDD is ''RAW''

Windows 8.1
HDD = 3TB
USB 3 connection

When I plug this new disk in, the description in the Disk Management
gives ''2794GB healthy primary partition RAW''

What should I do now, because I want this HDD to be portable?
Peter

Needs formatted, go to Disk Management.
http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/...ge-hard-drives

Kenny

"Peter Jason" wrote in message
...

Windows 8.1
HDD = 3TB
USB 3 connection

When I plug this new disk in, the description in the Disk Management
gives ''2794GB healthy primary partition RAW''

What should I do now, because I want this HDD to be portable?
Peter

Peter Jason wrote:

Windows 8.1
HDD = 3TB
USB 3 connection

When I plug this new disk in, the description in the Disk Management
gives ''2794GB healthy primary partition RAW''

What should I do now, because I want this HDD to be portable?
Peter

Portable among Windows or any OS?

If the former, you need to partition and format the drive in NTFS.

If the latter, partition with partition size less than 32GB each,
the max support size in FAT32, format FAT32. Most all OSes
including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without issues.

Or mix-n-match, depending on your requirements.

Whichever you choose, be sure to research all the caveats. There are a
lot with FAT32. Less with NTFS.

Stef

Peter Jason writted thus:

Windows 8.1 HDD = 3TB USB 3 connection

When I plug this new disk in, the description in the Disk Management
gives ''2794GB healthy primary partition RAW''

What should I do now, because I want this HDD to be portable?
Peter

It needs a file-system, to get one you must format it to NTFS, Fat16,
Fat32, ext4 etc. Choose the file-system wisely if you are porting between
several devices with it. Not all file-systems can be read by all devices!

Windows can do this from the "Disk Management" snap-in, or use a program
like Gparted.



--
Free Dropbox: http://db.tt/aI6WBZ7w

Stef wrote:

Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without
issues.

My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues.

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

Peter Jason wrote:
Windows 8.1
HDD = 3TB
USB 3 connection

When I plug this new disk in, the description in the Disk Management
gives ''2794GB healthy primary partition RAW''

What should I do now, because I want this HDD to be portable?
Peter

Well one thing I discovered on my new USB3 enclosure,
is the Acronis Capacity Manager driver for WinXP doesn't
work with it.

Of you take a 3TB drive, with ACM installed on the OS, a
2.2TB lower partition, and a 0.8TB upper partition,
that works when the drive is connected to a SATA port.

Then, if you put the same drive into a USB3 enclosure,
the partitions are not visible.

I think the only thing that worked for me, was GPT.
I needed to prove the enclosure was not defective,
and, it was not. GPT worked fine. Just, GPT doesn't
work on WinXP, spoiling my portability requirements.

What it means here, us USB3 enclosures for 3TB support
of backups on both Windows 8 and WinXP, is a non-starter.
I will have to continue cabling up the SATA drive to an
internal computer connector and doing the backup.

MBR partitioning uses Sector 0, and holds four primary
partitions in table. The 2**32 sector limit for information
in there, means MBR supports up to 2.2TB drives.

In GPT partitioning, there is still an MBR. When you
prepare a disk "GPT", the MBR has a single partition
defined in it. The partition type field value is "magical"
and says the drive is GPT. If WinXP reads the MBR on a GPT
disk, the MBR still has an AA55 signature, so WinXP is fooled
into thinking the drive is "defined". It won't ask stupid
questions like "Basic or Dynamic" when the drive is plugged
in.

In GPT partitioning, there is a large area right after the
MBR, that contains all the partition definitions. You can have
a metric ton of partition definitions stored there. Probably more
than you have drive letters to support. And unallocated spaces
in GPT, seem to have as much of an "identity" as the
actual partitions do. So if you see some tool say "your
GPT disk has five partitions", it could be four real partitions
plus a gap between two of the partitions. This is just based on
input from posters, and I haven't done extensive experiments
to uncover all the details.

After the GPT section, the real partitions begin. And the partitions
would have a similar layout to their MBR disk equivalent. In
an NTFS partition, the very first sector has "NTFS" as a string
stored in it. So that part hasn't changed.

*******

In summary, a designation of "RAW" may not be correct. That
can also be caused when the USB subsystem doesn't treat the
disk the exact same way as a SATA connection would. In my
case, a storage driver that was not "port agnostic" caused
the problem. The drive did indeed have partitions, but they
remained invisible. And apparently, even the partition table
could not be "seen" by Windows. As a result of this, if you
have valuable data on a drive, and the drive reports RAW,
take your time, change how the drive is connected to the
computer, and try again. Perhaps a direct SATA connection
will be readable.

In a perfect world, a 3TB drive would always be GUID Partition
Table (GPT) prepared. If it were not for the need to be
compatible with Win2K/WinXP, say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table

Paul

Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:

Stef wrote:

Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without
issues.

My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues.

Clarify: My Linuxes can also read *and write* NTFS, without any issues.

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

On 2015-05-29 1:33 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Stef wrote:

Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without
issues.

My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues.

Lies. Linux doesn't support NTFS properly. Even though it reads and
writes to it, it permits filenames with illegal characters into the
filesystem as well. You can essentially lose access to a file if you
wrote to an NTFS filesystem from within Linux because it will simply be
unreadable within Windows.


--
Slimer
Encrypt.

- "NTFS is just slightly faster than apples HFS. And that is the slowest
FS of all. EXT 4 is several times faster than NTFS, and *that* is the
reason you dimbulbs now troll against EXT4."
- "Like NTFS, which is at best at beta stage right now?"

(Peter "the Klöwn" Köhlmann lying shamelessly about NTFS to desperately
defend the fact that ext4 has been shown to corrupt data in Linux kernel
4.0.x)

On 2015-05-29 4:46 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:

Stef wrote:

Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without
issues.

My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues.

Clarify: My Linuxes can also read *and write* NTFS, without any issues.

This can give you an idea of what Linux does wrong. Linux developers
need to learn how to comply to NTFS' rules which they don't at the moment.


--
Slimer
Encrypt.

- "NTFS is just slightly faster than apples HFS. And that is the slowest
FS of all. EXT 4 is several times faster than NTFS, and *that* is the
reason you dimbulbs now troll against EXT4."
- "Like NTFS, which is at best at beta stage right now?"

(Peter "the Klöwn" Köhlmann lying shamelessly about NTFS to desperately
defend the fact that ext4 has been shown to corrupt data in Linux kernel
4.0.x)

Slimer wrote:
On 2015-05-29 4:46 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty replied to hisself:

Stef wrote:

Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without
issues.

My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues.

Clarify: My Linuxes can also read *and write* NTFS, without any issues.

This can give you an idea of what Linux does wrong. Linux developers
need to learn how to comply to NTFS' rules which they don't at the moment.

As it should be. Linux would have zero value
it if did otherwise.

Linux is not another copy of Windows.

Linux was successfully writing to NTFS file systems
around Knoppix 5.3.1 or so. And makes an excellent
maintenance OS, when Windows attempts to slow you down.

If we didn't have Linux, we'd end up doing "takeown C:"
and nobody wants to see that. That's the Windows 98
conversion recipe (flatten the mother). And that's a security
issue. Tempered usage of Linux, is fine. If you need
removal of a system folder DLL, whoyagonnacall. GhostBusters.

Paul

Slimer wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Stef wrote:
Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without
issues.

My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues.

Lies. Linux doesn't support NTFS properly. Even though it reads and
writes to it, it permits filenames with illegal characters into the
filesystem as well. You can essentially lose access to a file if you
wrote to an NTFS filesystem from within Linux because it will simply be
unreadable within Windows.

Here's 25¢ - call someone who gives a ****.

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

*******

In summary, a designation of "RAW" may not be correct. That
can also be caused when the USB subsystem doesn't treat the
disk the exact same way as a SATA connection would. In my
case, a storage driver that was not "port agnostic" caused
the problem. The drive did indeed have partitions, but they
remained invisible. And apparently, even the partition table
could not be "seen" by Windows. As a result of this, if you
have valuable data on a drive, and the drive reports RAW,
take your time, change how the drive is connected to the
computer, and try again. Perhaps a direct SATA connection
will be readable.

In a perfect world, a 3TB drive would always be GUID Partition
Table (GPT) prepared. If it were not for the need to be
compatible with Win2K/WinXP, say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table

Paul


Thanks. To detail further, I bought this 3TB disk back last October
(2014) and I can't remember if I TrueCrypted it. All the usual
passwords don't work. I don't want to reformat it because I'll lose
data.
Is there any way to determine what encryption software has been used
on a HDD. It's not BitLocker because this would be indicated in
explorer.

I may have stopped installation before the formatting stage because
this takes time for 3TB.

I have put another TrueCrypted into the other USB3 socket and I get
two descriptions in Disk Management:

(1) 3TB HDD: "2794GB RAW, Healthy Primary partition.

(2) TrueCrypted unmounted 30GB Flash drive: "30GB RAW, Healthy
active primary partition.

The only difference is the "active". Is this significant?

Peter Jason wrote:
*******

In summary, a designation of "RAW" may not be correct. That
can also be caused when the USB subsystem doesn't treat the
disk the exact same way as a SATA connection would. In my
case, a storage driver that was not "port agnostic" caused
the problem. The drive did indeed have partitions, but they
remained invisible. And apparently, even the partition table
could not be "seen" by Windows. As a result of this, if you
have valuable data on a drive, and the drive reports RAW,
take your time, change how the drive is connected to the
computer, and try again. Perhaps a direct SATA connection
will be readable.

In a perfect world, a 3TB drive would always be GUID Partition
Table (GPT) prepared. If it were not for the need to be
compatible with Win2K/WinXP, say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table

Paul


Thanks. To detail further, I bought this 3TB disk back last October
(2014) and I can't remember if I TrueCrypted it. All the usual
passwords don't work. I don't want to reformat it because I'll lose
data.
Is there any way to determine what encryption software has been used
on a HDD. It's not BitLocker because this would be indicated in
explorer.

I may have stopped installation before the formatting stage because
this takes time for 3TB.

I have put another TrueCrypted into the other USB3 socket and I get
two descriptions in Disk Management:

(1) 3TB HDD: "2794GB RAW, Healthy Primary partition.

(2) TrueCrypted unmounted 30GB Flash drive: "30GB RAW, Healthy
active primary partition.

The only difference is the "active". Is this significant?

Maybe someone else knows the answer to that, as I've never
used TrueCrypt (or Bitlocker).

Obviously, for full disk encryption type products, there
has to be a mechanism to start things up. A small partition
with the boot flag set, sounds like an excellent place for
TrueCrypt to have a decryptor loaded. I don't know if it's
possible to get plaintext from something like that, unless at
least the boot loader is in a plaintext area.

Now, could you have the decryption thing, in a small
partition on one of the other drives ? Maybe that's how
it got broken in the first place. Unplugging the thing
that helps the RAW disk become visible. I don't know
if TrueCrypt works that way or not (can be spread over
multiple disks and still work).

Paul

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Stef wrote:

Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without
issues.

My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues.

It depends on the distro. Some are set up with the kernel module and
configs to work out of the box;, others are not -- you have to do it
youself. But there is a BIG caveat:

Linux NTFS is NOT Windows NTFS. Microsoft owns NTFS, and Linux's
version is reverse engineered without using any of MS' code, so it can
be Open Source, and no license fee need be paid. But reverse
engineering, no matter how good, can (and does) lead to problems,
particularly when writing. Reading been excellent for years now.

Also Microsoft makes "improvements" to NTFS periodically, usually
without announcing it, which can "break" Linux NTFS until the
maintainers can reverse engineer the improvement and provide an update.

Me, for interOS file interoperability, I'll stick with FAT32 partitions
or network the machines using SAMBA. Mostly, I just try to avoid file
sharing between filesystems..

Stef

On 2015-05-29 7:12 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Slimer wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Stef wrote:
Most all OSes including OSX and Linux can read and write FAT32 without
issues.

My Linuxes can also read NTFS, without any issues.

Lies. Linux doesn't support NTFS properly. Even though it reads and
writes to it, it permits filenames with illegal characters into the
filesystem as well. You can essentially lose access to a file if you
wrote to an NTFS filesystem from within Linux because it will simply be
unreadable within Windows.

Here's 25¢ - call someone who gives a ****.

Exactly the kind of response I would expect from a Linux loser. With you
guys, the solution is to either ignore the problem or to insult anyone
who brings it up.

Later, you unwashed, bearded, obese "men" wonder why your toiletware
only appeals to about 1% of the world's population.

--
Slimer
Encrypt.

- "NTFS is just slightly faster than apples HFS. And that is the slowest
FS of all. EXT 4 is several times faster than NTFS, and *that* is the
reason you dimbulbs now troll against EXT4."
- "Like NTFS, which is at best at beta stage right now?"

(Peter "the Klöwn" Köhlmann lying shamelessly about NTFS to desperately
defend the fact that ext4 has been shown to corrupt data in Linux kernel
4.0.x)