• Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.

What's big and too big, hard drives that is

Interceptor2

Active member
Just a quickie: I want an external scsi HD running OS 6.0.8 - I have under my desk a 10GB scsi drive, I believe it is possible to use SeaTools and make the drive look smaller, I have two needs:-

1. is to connect it to various Macs (Plus, Classic) - so what would be the maximum? 40MB??

2. Also in time (next week) I want to fire up a IIfx and like to use this same drive, I believe that can use 160MB - once the IIfx has proved it works (bag of bits at the mo) - I'll get a more suitable 160MB HD.

 

phreakout

Well-known member
Okay, here is the break down of what hard drive capacities SCSI-based Macs can handle:

HFS (aka Mac OS Standard) can accept up to 2GB partitions per volume. This means that for a 10GB hard drive, it would need to be divided into 2GB chunks or 5 partitions of 2 gigabytes size. HFS was introduced with System Software version 2.1 and is supported all the way through to OSX Leopard (10.5.x).

HFS+ (aka Mac OS Extended) can accept up to 8 Exabytes (EB), but early model Macs limit the first partition to 8GB. After that, you can set the second or more partitions to as large as you want. HFS+ was introduced in Mac OS version 8.1 and is supported through OSX Leopard (10.5.x). Snow Leopard (10.6) supports HFS+ in read only mode but no writing to HFS+ partitions.

73s de Phreakout. :rambo:

 

Anonymous Freak

Well-known member
A couple bits:

While Mac OS 8.1 introduced HFS+, only Power Macs can boot to an HFS+ 8.1 drive. 680x0 machines cannot boot to an HFS+ drive.

And Snow Leopard's preferred FS is HFS+! I don't know what you're talking about it being read only... It's HFS (Mac OS Standard) that Snow Leopard is read-only on.

 

phreakout

Well-known member
Okay, I guess someone on Wikipedia had placed incorrect facts, since that's where I double-checked the origins. Go check it out for HFS+.

73s de Phreakout. :rambo:

 

Interceptor2

Active member
hmm.. I'm having a bit of trouble with this. It is a Seagate ST39216N 14384 cyl, 3 heads and I've tried a number of formatters which all crash out after about 20 mins, the HD access LED flashes merrily away and eventually the little Mac comes up with "address error" and freezes.

I've tried the Apple HD SC formatter(7.3.5) with that patch (to ignore Apple HD only), Lido 7.56 which doesn't run properly (sees the drive but won't go any further) but maybe I don't have the INIT thing set up right (I moved it into the Extentions folder but that caused other probs), and a "Blue Disk Manager" formatter program, all do the same. I did use interleave of 3 then 1 but all do the same.

I have set the drive to scsi addy 2, no termy for which I have an external termy attached, the scsi cable is about 30" (800mm) but of unknown quality, maybe I need to check termy power I did check and the Classic does supply 5V, and set the HD to "TP from buss"

Gee

 

techknight

Well-known member
dumb question, but are you sure the drive is good? if its crashing out and all?

Also as noted earlier in the thread you need to setup an apple partition map that splits the drive up in multiple partitions in order to boot from it. if its larger than 2GB

 

Interceptor2

Active member
Don't we just like success :) as you know I've been trying to format that 10GB Seagate with various tools and now by chance I find Hard DiskTools 2.0.5 by FWB Software lurking on an old drive and as if by magic... it formats the drive!! It does the 2GB limit, so it formats the drive automatically into 8 x 2GB and whatever is left is the 5th partition, neat.

I did this using OS7.0.1 in a IIfx - I used the termy and power on the HD and it all worked (scsi 0 was an Apple 40MB Quantum). Checkout that software. Nice.

:)

Ahh.. I have just seen this:

"System Requirements

Unlike earlier versions of HDT, version 2.x removes support for 68000 Macs such as the Mac Plus and SE. Any Mac beginning with the Mac II and later is supported. System 7.0.1 or later and 3 MB of free RAM is required."

 

JDW

Well-known member
We apparently have few Macworld magazine subscribers here. I refer you to the back page (pg.96) in the July 2010 issue. John Siracusa talks about the future of OS X, and the need for a modern file system in light of the fact that HFS+ (still used in 10.6.x) is more than 12 years old, which is based upon HFS which is 25 years old.

Here is the complete article:

http://www.macworld.com.au/blogs/apples-other-operating-system-5059/

 

MacJunky

Well-known member
I have to agree that we really need a new filesystem. It is getting very absurd.

I have found as he has found, most commonly data is not lost to HDD failure, but to software failure. Sure I have backups but that is not the point, the point is that it should not be failing and it's problems cause downtime.

 

QuicksilverMac2001

Well-known member
I am extremely curious to know why, in a forum primarily geared to the Macs all the other forums forgot, and in a sub-forum on the oldest of those OLD Macs, you are arguing for (MODERN) Macs to remove the last chains of relation (so many have already been broken from the Classic to X transition, the PowerPC to Intel transition, the upgrade to Leopard which dropped Classic Mode on PowerPC Macs, the upgrade to Snow Leopard which is Intel only and drops the last semblance of AppleTalk support, that the Mac isn't modern enough for you? I happen to be an old Mac buff myself, liking 68k and PowerPC Macs running the Classic Mac OS, and for the new Macs to lose what little compatibility with the older ones they still have would make me begin to think the only thing they have in common is an Apple logo, and that in my opinion is not enough for a computer to be a Mac.

Please don't take away the filesystem too! I beg you, please don't! I am not mad, just desperately pleading here! (I do not mean to offend anyone, but I have to make my views on this point pellucidly clear, so please I beg you to forgive me...)

Thanks so much and have a great day!

 

MacJunky

Well-known member
Just because the primary filesystem used on the boot drive is different does not mean you cannot have some support for other filesystems.

 

Scott Baret

Well-known member
All one needs to look at for proof of multiple filing systems existing on the same system is Windows--when NTFS came out, FAT managed to peacefully coexist.

Yes, HFS as a whole is getting rather old (will be 25 in January with HFS+ turning 13 the same month). In some respects, I'm surprised they've kept it as long as they have, especially given how crude it is compared to the now-mature Mac OS X.

Apple knew they had to make improvements on MFS given its shortcomings, and that took only two years to figure out. It was a full 12 years before they changed HFS to HFS+ (from January 1986 with System 3.0 - January 1998 with OS 8.1). However, the Mac OS was still the same basic software from 3.0 to 8.1, with many features added along the way (especially in 7.0).

HFS+ almost seemed to be a patchwork fix of sorts. It's basically HFS with some enhancements, much like how OS 9 was really a heavily upgraded System 7. It was another project I like to call "sedimentary rock" from Apple, a type of project that occurred all too often in the 1990s. New layers were added on top of old ones, just like we saw in the OS, with software such as AppleWorks, and even with computers (where old boards were used for new architectures). With OS X, we saw the sedimentary rock shatter to bits.

My fear is that Apple is in danger of doing it all again, except now we're dealing with an eroding rock (HFS+) underneath our currently building sediment (OS X). They need to modernize this file system and at this point I'd say to redo it from scratch so long as compatibility for HFS+ is retained. Apple needs to keep ahead of the competition and also must remember how powerful the OS running atop the eroding rock is. (They also need to re-write everything occasionally to prevent 17 year old, nine-layered sedimentary rocks from forming).

HFS support basically did away with floppies, which were obsolete 11 years before Snow Leopard even came out, but HFS+ support will be needed for years to come due to the amount of hard drives, backup devices, and removable media solutions formatted with it.

(NOTE: I'm going with the version number of the System file, not the "System Software" release here. System and Finder numbers were different during the mid-80s and it's split in the community as to what to refer to these releases as; I always use the System version number).

 

~Coxy

Leader, Tactical Ops Unit
I don't know if it's the fault of HFS+ per se, or if whether all this journalling and permissions and other extra crap added on top of the lean mean base system has brought it on, or perhaps it's the GPT partition scheme and multi terabyte hard disks, but it's frankly quite temperamental these days.

I never remember getting any file system issues at all in all my years on classic Mac OS, but in modern times we seem to have issues galore.

Randomly can't boot? Run a Fix inside Disk Utility. Files disappearing? Run a Fix inside Disk Utility. Volume mounts as read-only? Run a Fix inside Disk Utility.

Disk Utility won't fix it? Hope you bought Disk Warrior...
vent.gif


 

Scott Baret

Well-known member
Coxy--great points about the added software on top of HFS+. Again, it looks like another bad case of the sedimentary rock phenomenon. Remember all those extensions we needed from around System 7.5 forward? The default Mac OS 9 installation alone has nearly an entire row on an 800 x 600 display, and any time you get a bunch of extensions, you're asking for problems. (Those of us who survived the olden days of troubleshooting INIT and cdev conflicts certainly remember how unstable everything could get).

When the new filing system comes out someday, those features will certainly be rolled into it rather than built on top of an old platform, or at least we can hope.

 

QuicksilverMac2001

Well-known member
I do not argue any of your points in theory as being bad for Apple or not moving the platform forward. The only two points I was trying to make sure were not overlooked are:

1. Since you've changed everything else, removing HFS+ makes it only have one entirely superficial relationship with my precious 128k, which is the Apple logo. That's great if you're trying to make a profit, but it's awful for the few of us who actually view the 128k as a Mac which, along with the Lisa (by the way, they acronym'ed it "Local Integrated Software Architecture" which is a really unjust acronym to the specialness of the computer (I am digressing here, but sometimes you like to throw trivia in there) is almost a paragon of good compared to the modern Intel rubbish that makes huge profits for Apple but yet out of those huge profits they refuse to support the Macs which allowed them to get to this point, like the 128k, the Lisa, the SE/30, the Portable, the Color Classic, the Macintosh TV, etc.

I mean, it shouldn't only be NeXT machines Apple makes the Apple Geniuses pay attention to. The 128k, without the derogatory 128k badging, of which I am proud to be an owner, was Steve Jobs's baby too. If he is going to pamper his NeXT hardware that came later, and never had a Superbowl ad done on it (according to anything I ever read) Steve should definitely pamper an original Model M0001 128k, not some 128k/512k combo 128k granted with a M0001P serial number, because that's his creation too. Yet Apple does not.

Point number two (that I apologize so sincerely for disagreeing with, I wish I didn't, but I get excited by things like this), is that it's a forum in a website dedicated to the Macs time forgot, in a sub-forum devoted to the oldest of those Macs, and yet you are endorsing (for some reason I only wish I could understand) an Apple that has a philosophy completely contrary to the one I grew up with, and much more than that encouraging them to go further down this road that makes them so much NOT the company I fell in love with as a kid. It makes me think all the more my Intel Macs aren't really Macs, just some freak of nature that just happens to have an Apple logo on it.

I truly do apologize sincerely for my feelings on these issues, as they are admittedly intense, and if you want to send me a PM I can give any of you my address so you can come to my house and I can apologize in person if my utterly sincere feelings have offended you. If that extreme is not necessary, just understand that I apply Star Wars (which was supposedly actually a morality lesson) to life and so I can grade my computers based on worthiness, along with the Apple who made them (whether it's pre-Steve Jobs Exile Apple, post-Steve Jobs exile Apple, or varying degrees of Post-Steve Jobs Return Apple.

Star Wars has an interesting moral lesson in it, at least the 6 full on movies do. Try Googling "George Lucas Star Wars Moral Lesson" and it should pop up some version of those remarks.

Again, I am willing to apologize in person if you need it and I hope you all are blessed much and have a great day!

 
Top