Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Incorrect HD size reported

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    16

    Incorrect HD size reported

    Recently I added a new HD to my tivo via the mfsadd command, and the size reported after the new HD was added seems suspicious to me. Specifically, its reporting a 160GB (being recognized as a 137GB drive) + a 120GB drive as having about 300 hours available, which seems about 20 hours too many to me.

    Below is a description of what happened:

    I manually monte'd my tivo yesterday using the new monte method on a new 160 GB, and applied the usual hacks without incident and the tivo tested fine.

    I expanded the 80GB image that I monte'd after I got all my hacks installed, and it registered as having 147 hours available on the new 160 GB HD, which is what I would expect since it seems that you get a reported available size ~= 1.1x the size of the drive. [My 160GB drive is being recognized as a 137GB drive since I don't have a LBA48 kernel *yet* , and 137 * 1.1 = ~150]

    I tested at this point and there were no probs. Then I added my second HD (120GB) that used to be my primary HD when I was monte'ing using the Sleeper ISO *yuck* , and the mfs_add gave a strange output referring to the addition of 2 partitions, and said that the hours had been added by 147, which is larger than expected. I would have expected ~132 hours of additional space, not 147GB.

    Therefore, my tivo now thinks that I have ~300 hours available.

    Though my tivo is running happily and everything seems to be working, I'm concerned that my tivo is going to fill up and then crash in a manner similar to when you put a large HD reported > 137GB on a non lba48 kernel.

    Am I being parnoid or does it indeed look like something went amiss?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,402
    I think you're being paranoid. The second drive doesn't have anything on it except MFS space (not root, boot, kernel, or var) so it gets a little bit more than the expected 1.1x. Of course, this is only my opinion and it could be wrong (YMMV).

    ew

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Scot
    Am I being parnoid or does it indeed look like something went amiss?
    Search for lba48chk, and run it. It can tell you if you have partitions beyond the lba48 mark when running with a non lba48 kernel.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    16
    ran the lba48chk.mips, and it reported the last block partition as ending on 268433472, which is below the 2^28 mark, so I'm all set.

    Thanks for the verification.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •