TiVo Community Forums Archives - 120 gig reported as 111 gig..HelP !

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

120 gig reported as 111 gig..HelP !
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: tacohell36

I have a sony SVR-2000 with original drive, 1.3 software version

After following the instructions, and the 2nd 120 gig drive was blessed, the blessing report it says that it is being "reported as 111 gigs", it is this correct?

How do I correct this?

***I forgot to issue the command mad/edit_bootparms hdb -i after the blessing, I put back the 2 drives back into the PC making sure they were jumpered as per the document, booted up and the # prompt, I have this question:

*** before issuing the command, "mad/edit_bootparms hdb -i" does the 2 drives have to be mounted?, if they do, what is the command line to mount them?

My remote does not work that well, I tried Sony site and shows out of stock, also no luck at Ebay, is there any other way to get it?

If I have to redo the upgrade process, can I start from the begining not caring much about what the 2 new 120 have installed in them after the original upgrade?

Here below are the steps I took to upgrade:
Upgrading my original tivo drive to new 120 gig + new B 120 gig, My tivo version is 1.3
Using another PC, removed all the drives, placed:

Connected my original TiVo A drive to the Secondary Master IDE connector on my PC Connected my new upgrade drive to be used as my new TiVo A drive to the Primary Slave
Powered up my PC with the Kazmyr Boot Cd, typed "noswap" I Made sure the 2 drives being recognized at their full size.
Initiaded the backup issuing the following command
dd if=/dev/hdc of=/dev/hdb bs=32k
took about 2-1/2 hours, after I powered down, I removed both hard drives from the PC

Jumpered my new upgraded 120 gig drive as a master drive.

I picked up from UPGRADE CONFIGURATION #2: New Single Larger A drive |or| New A drive with New B drive from the documentation.

This is what did to drive jumper after I removed of the PC

1. The new 120 gig "A" drive(with a copy on it of my original drive A) jumpered as a master and attached it to the Secondary Master IDE

2. The new larger 120 gig hard drive ("B" Drive) was jumpered to slave and connected to my Primary Slave IDE connector

3. The CDrom as the secondary Slave.

I booted with Khazmiry cdrom boot disk,
pressed enter, typed in "root"
issue the command: mad/setup.sh
then answered all the questions, I am still doubtful about, Question 7: Is your target TiVo > 140GB? I answered "YES", my drives add up to 240 gigs, not 140 gigs????

after following instruction, and the 2nd 120 gig was blessed, it says that it is being reported as 111 gig, it is this correct?

I did miss these step, "mad/edit_bootparms hdb -i"
which I am in the process of doing it, by replacing the drives into the pc and issuing the command line.

Thanks

Posted by: Andrew_S

111 gigs sounds about right.

Posted by: nellee

Depending on what brand you buy, the "120GB" can be anywhere within 10GB of the stated size.

I bought an "80GB" Seagate drive for my computer, but when I installed it, it only had 74GB.

Posted by: jroysdon

quote:
Originally posted by nellee
Depending on what brand you buy, the "120GB" can be anywhere within 10GB of the stated size.

I bought an "80GB" Seagate drive for my computer, but when I installed it, it only had 74GB.

The size difference is all marketing "GB" vs. real GB. Marketing defines a "Gigabyte" as 1 billion bytes (1,000,000,000), just look on the outside of your box and you'll find that text. A real computer GB is 2^30 bytes (1,073,741,824), or approx 73 million more bytes than the marketing GB.

So, your "120GB" drive is 120,000,000,000 bytes, but 120 billion bytes isn't 120 GB. To find the true amount of gigabytes, divide 120,000,000,000 / 1,073,741,824 = 111.75GB. Bingo.

Article detailing marketing "GB"

Posted by: HTH

quote:
Originally posted by jroysdon
The size difference is all marketing "GB" vs. real GB. Marketing defines a "Gigabyte" as 1 billion bytes (1,000,000,000), just look on the outside of your box and you'll find that text. A real computer GB is 2^30 bytes (1,073,741,824), or approx 73 million more bytes than the marketing GB.

So, your "120GB" drive is 120,000,000,000 bytes, but 120 billion bytes isn't 120 GB. To find the true amount of gigabytes, divide 120,000,000,000 / 1,073,741,824 = 111.75GB. Bingo.

Article detailing marketing "GB"

But then it was acknowledge that the computer industry was wrong in co-opting the metric prefixes for its 2^10n multipliers, so it was decided that the prefixes will retain their metric meaning and that, to avoid confusion, the computing industry can refer to things like "giga-binary-bytes" or "gibibytes" for short, abbreviated GiB.

So, retroactively, the drive manufacturers were made correct in their capacity reports.

Otto doesn't like this, but thems the facts. He disagrees with what he perceives as kowtowing to the drive manufacturers' long-deceptive marketing, but it wasn't done to validate them but rather eliminate the confusion that 2^10n multpliers induce.

Though there are still problems with 1.44 "MB" disks which are actually 1440 KiB in capacity. The "MB" there is a hybrid between metric and binary measure. One could almost call them 1.44 KKiB (or 1.44 KiKB) disks.

Posted by: jroysdon

quote:
Originally posted by HTH
[B]
But then it was acknowledge that the computer industry was wrong in co-opting the metric prefixes for its 2^10n multipliers, so it was decided that the prefixes will retain their metric meaning and that, to avoid confusion, the computing industry can refer to things like "giga-binary-bytes" or "gibibytes" for short, abbreviated GiB.

Wow, this is the first time I've heard that, but I do see references to this when doing a google search: example link

Do you know approx. when this change too place? My W2K system still uses "GB" in the "old 2^10" sense... I just checked on an XP system, uses "GB" not "GiB" to refer to 2^10.

However, looking at some GNU/*nix utilities, I see I have the option of displaying either in powers of 1000 or 1024 (df -H vs. df -h).

Posted by: HTH

The Mac OS has always used the binary measure for capacity, but still uses the metric notation, even under 10.1.5. It will take time for everyone to learn the new notation and adopt it.

And it's 2^10 (2 to the 10th power), not 10^2 (10 squared). 2^10 is kilo-binary-, 10^2 is hecto-.

To make it clear: the 120 GB drives are 120 GB, not 120 GiB. The largest formattable capacity for a drive in a TiVo is 128 GiB which is approximately 137 GB.

Some tools are reporting the highest addressable location on the drive as the drive's capacity. This is an obi-wan error as it ignores the space taken by block zero. This is why blessing a 160 GB Maxtor drive reports a 127 GiB capacity instead of 128 GiB.

Posted by: jroysdon

*sneaks in a post edit*

10^2, whatcha talkin' about? ;-p

Posted by: Worf

Heh. I can't remember how many times I've gotten binary GB's and decimal GB's mixed up all the time. (Especially in things like telecommunications, who tend to really use the decimal form when expressing rates (e.g., 64kbit/sec is really 64000 bits/sec, or 8kbytes/sec to annoy people :) )).

At least now I can have some sanity in expressing the size of items. BTW, there are at several different ways Windows calculates filesizes. In the explorer window, the filesize column really is in KiB/MiB, but the total sizes calculated in the status bar is KB...