Can Windows 2000 server handle a 3.2TB partition?

Double checked and confirmed.

Cheers

http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/library/8cc5891d-bf8e-4164-862d-dac5418c59481033.mspx?mfr=true

If you change the cluster size you can go higher it seems.

based on the above link,

256 terabytes minus 64 KB ( 232 clusters minus 1 cluster)

Remember that you need to change the cluster size to achieve this, and that means you can not use compression.

I hope this helps !

--------------------------------

NTFS Size Limits
Description      Limit

Maximum file size
      

Architecturally: 16 exabytes minus 1 KB (264 bytes minus 1 KB)

Implementation: 16 terabytes minus 64 KB (244 bytes minus 64 KB)

Maximum volume size
      

Architecturally: 264 clusters minus 1 cluster

Implementation: 256 terabytes minus 64 KB ( 232 clusters minus 1 cluster)

Files per volume
      

4,294,967,295 (232 minus 1 file)

I think you ought to ask them what this storcase box is rather than just smamming them with links, a brief Google for it and it looks like it may just be a simple JBOD using software RAID in which case they don't have a problem until someone makes a 2TB hard disk.

We're not "spamming", we are, just like you, trying to help. But if you have more knowledge on these matters, be my guest, I'll be glad to learn... and we'll have a happy asker, which is the ultimate goal.

Cheers

If the motherboard is 48 bits or 64 bits, that should not problem.

My understanding is that Windows 2000 does not support any lun over 2TB, especially if it is boot volume. Check out Microsoft's knowledgebase article Q329707. You may want to upgrade to W2K3 SP1 first because it does support a lun larger than 2TB. Then upgrade the hardware.

vsg375, I am sorry, I wasn't thinking of you when I posted that.

The limit is easily got around by creating a stripe set or spanning partitions through software if there is a hardware RAID controller but it's probably software in which case there isn't a problem since it has to be a stripe set anyway with software RAID.

Not much more we can do to help jeffreyzerx until we find out more about this "Storcase array case" which is probably a generic box. Need screenshots of disk manager to see if it is hardware or software RAID that's in use.

The Storcase has the raid controller built into it.  Windows 2000 Server currently just see's it as a 1.6tb drive.

In that case you'll have to look in the manual to see if you can partition the 3.2TB array into two sub-2TB slices and present them to Windows 2000 and then make two simple dynamic disks and span them in disk manger if you want a volume bigger than 2TB.

The RAID hardware may handle this transparently to Windows.
You may have no choice but to actually test if you can ot get an answer from the Vendor.

I would try to find out what RAID card is being used.

I hope this helps !

I guess bigger is not always better...

Short answer for my situation: NO.
The Storcase (12 hard drives with its own built in raid controller) needed to have support for disks greater than 2tb enabled.  Doing this would have wiped out all of the arrays configured on the device.  Something we were not quite prepared to do.   The result is we now have 8 x 500gb hard drives setup in a raid 5 array, that are sliced into two drives.  One with 2tb and the other 1.2tb capacitiy.  The two slices are then combined in Windows 2000 as a single spanned drive with a capacity of 3.2tb.
One day when time permits, we will backup and wipe out the Storcase arrays and configure one partition, and upgrade the server to Windows 2003.  One new question that was raised by all of this is if we lose the server, can we recover the spanned drive?   Thanks for all of your help.

Do you gain any advantage through spanning them to start with? It might be better to split them 1.8TB and 1.6TB instead of trying to go beyond 2TB. Even though the software now allows such large volumes you have to ask is it useful? You could just as easily split the users with A-J using the first disk and K-Z on the second.