Hello everyone!

Great forum you have here! This is my first post, which I'm reluctantly making after several hours of searching and browsing.

I'm aware that the LBA-48 barrier of 137GB in Windows 98SE has now been broken with a new user-supported driver that replaces the ESDI506 files. I'm very happy to hear this, after partitioning my large drives in 125GB chunks for many years now!

However... this fix is nearly USELESS to me if I can't do a Scandisk - I have many drives with THOUSANDS of files, and occasional data corruption is just a matter of course... I have to have a way to fix disk data problems when they occur.

Has any progress been made toward creation of a Scandisk version that actually works above 137GB? I'm aware of Tihiy's 32-bit scandisk, but it also seems to have the 137GB limit (as well as being KERNEL32 dependent) so I don't see that as a solution to the problem.

Any feedback? I'm very grateful for any help that can be offered!
Roostron

NDD v. 10E (from Norton Utilities 2002) will do it OK, in DOS mode;
Win ME Scandisk also works OK in DOS mode. It is findable on MDGx's site. Please try it and the other programs in this package and tell us about your experience afterwards: http://www.mdgx.com/files/BHDD30.ZIP.
NDD32 from Norton System Works 2005 and the ones from NSW 2004 and 2003 work in Win 98SE, but there is controversy about the maximum disk size they actually are able to work with. It seems that 1 TB is too much for them, but they can go up to about 500 GB without problems. HTH.

Edit (in view of the next post):
@RetroOS: Sure! I have now corrected the above text... Thanks a lot!
I guess I should read more carefully what I write...

Err, you mean 1TB and 500GB, right?

Scandisk in DOS mode works fine.

Hi!



Thank you - that's GREAT news!
Does anyone know if DOS mode Scandisk will also work in a MS-DOS window from Windows for USB based large hard disks?

Thanks!

Yes, many of us do know, and the answer is *no*: not in a MS-DOS Box (or window, if you like).
Pure, plain, DOS mode only! From Windows, you'll have to "Restart in DOS Mode" to use it. Or run it before starting Windows.

What you need isn't scandisk, but rather dskmaint.dll. The former is simply a front-end for the latter. Updating the latter with the ME version would do the trick.

Are you sure about this? That the ME would do?

AFAIK the one I'm currently using is 4.90.3000 from ME, and I can testify scandisk works fine on my 250GB partition ever since it was installed.

Unforunately, the need to replace dskmaint.dll is not well documented, so you can imagine my glee and surprise when scandisk suddenly started working on my large drive.

Can you post it here?

The above package I had already indicated before has ME Scandisk for DOS, ME Scandisk for Win and ME dskmaint.dll.
It was created by Maximus-Decim some time ago, but is much less generally known than his other releases... Yet, it rocks, as M-D's releases use to do. HTH.

So is the Win98se Scandisk.exe file for DOS safe to run in 'real-mode dos' on data above >137G. I can't use WinME one.

Sure you can. Do download BHDD30.ZIP and you'll have all the necessary files. Win ME Scandisk together with Win ME dskmaint.dll will work OK with disks grater than 137 GB, provided the are not bigger than about 500 GB. So, only in case you do have a disk bigger than 500 GB you cannot use it.

CORRECTION - 6/19/08 - IT DOES WORK - see my posting below

It does NOT work for me. I extracted dskmaint.dll and scandskw.exe, both v4.90.3000, and copied them to \Windows\, replacing scandskw.exe v4.70.1998 (there was no dskmaint.dll before in \Windows\).

This new ScanDisk did work on a 123GB FAT32 partition of a 750GB ext.USB HDD. But on the 3 other partitions of 192GB each, the new ScanDisk produced the err msg "ScanDisk could not continue because your computer does not have enough available memory."
The same err msg with a 232GB FAT32 partition of a 300GB ext.USB HDD. I am using the Genensys USB Storage Driver v1.61

Any suggestions? Maybe a 3rd file is required? I am using regular Win98SE, no additional updates.

Well, you really need to add at least one update: LLXX's modded ESDI_506.PDR v. 4.10.0.2225 to your system for correct 48-Bit LBA addressing or your data will end up trashed in your disk if it is PATA. Even if you don't have a big PATA disk, it is good to change your original ESDI_506.PDR by this one because you might add a big disk later on and you'll already be on the safe side having it installed now. As for SATA, be sure you're using VIASRAID.MPD v. 2.0.950.220, available from the link I pointed in this post.
But your problem seems not to be related to the above for you also had the same error with a USB drive. So it seems to me that Windows ME Scandisk may be hopless for you, after all. The reason may be that as it is a NE executable, a 16-bit windows program, and so its buffer for the fat-32 entries is limited to 64 kiB, no matter how much RAM is available on your system... For me it seems clear that your partitions cause it to overflow. You just demonstrated that my info about 500 GB is wrong. Sorry about that!
Now, you might try Symantec's NDD (Norton Disk Doctor) from SystemWorks 2003 or, preferably 2005. NDD may work as it's a PE, a true 32-bit executable, thus able, in principle, to work with a FAT-32 of any size. But, as you know, that's not a free program, although it can be found quite cheap on eBay.
Then again, there is DiskMinder, over in MDGx's site, that also might be worth a try.
Good luck!

dskmaint.dll is in Windows/System. You installed it in the wrong folder, therefore it didn't work.

This is rather amazing to me, as the post you've quoted clearly mentions BHDD30.ZIP, which includes an installer. That you've managed to improperly install it regardless is, to me, quite amazing. Incredible, even.

Way to go, SlugFiller!!!
I should sleep more or drink much more coffee, 'cause I'm missing things I shouldn't miss...



But, of course, there is the original dskmaint.dll v. 4.70.0.1998 in Windows/System, and that is being executed in preference to dskmaint.dll v. 4.90.0.3000 in Windows! That's why it didn't work, then!

But don't be so hard on Multibooter for it. Everyone makes mistakes (although I guess I'm doing more than my share of them, lately, myself )...

First of all, my apologies for posting wrong information. I actually had searched my HDD for the wrong file name, diskmaint.dll instead of dskmaint.dll, and nothing was found, the filename was misspelled twice in this topic as "diskmaint.dll", and I had copied & pasted this wrong filename into Find (I remember wondering why it had 9 characters, but didn't investigate further, and even more amazing, I posted the correct spelling: "(there was no dskmaint.dll before in \Windows\)").

I have tested the new versions of scandskw.exe & dskmaint.dll [the latter placed in \Windows\System\], they DO WORK on a USB HDD (698GB=Seagate 750GB) with 3 large partitions (2x240GB & 218GB). Thanks again, SlugFiller.

Delving a little deeper into ScanDisk, another question arose: Does Scandisk.exe (NOT scandskw.exe) work with partitions >137 GB? There are 2 versions of ScanDisk, and the one running at startup with a blue screen seems to be Scandisk.exe (see pp.428 of Windows 98 Resource Kit). This Scandisk.exe in \Windows\Command\ seems to be the crucial one which gets called after a bad shutdown: "During reboot, Win.com reads that bit [fourth bit of 8th byte of the reserved first 112 bytes of FAT32]. If it is set to 0, it runs ScanDisk [Scandisk.exe] to check the drive for errors." (p.451 in Windows 98 Resource Kit)

I prefer to stay away from installers, it's much easier to undo a file copy. The eMule software, for example, is posted in 2 versions, as an installer and as a zip file for file copy, which does not modify the registry. About 9% of the 11 million downloads of the eMule software are of the zip file for file copy, rather than the installer http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=53489

Well, I apologise for the misspelling (which I know have corrected, BTW, thanks!) and the consequences it had thereof. Sorry!

What about that 300 GB partition you mentioned earlier? And does it work with all your partitions or is there any it doesn't work with? And, BTW, do you use LLXX's patched file for your PATA drives?

Yes, Scandisk.exe in \Windows\Command\ is the one that runs on startup. And yes, it does work with large partitions, but the ME version of it is the one you should use.

And, for sure, you're not alone: I, for one, do lots of installs by hand too. Many of us do...

"The same err msg with a 232GB FAT32 partition of a 300GB ext.USB HDD" http://www.msfn.org/board/Windows-98SE-LBA...772#entry773772 The maximum size of partition which I was able to make Norton Disk Doctor 2004 swallow was 240GB http://www.msfn.org/board/Help-I-need-to-G...468#entry763468 Disk size apparently doesn't matter to NDD, only partition size, I have tried various disk sizes up to 750GB.
The new Scandskw.exe works on all my partitions, but I don't know yet whether it works correctly, time will tell. Norton Disk Doctor 2004 has worked correctly for me EXCEPT FOR FIXING PARTITION TABLES/BOOT RECORDS (use Partition Table Doctor v3.5 for it!). But right partitioning for large disks so that NDD under Win98 does not hang with BSOD on large disks, after err msg "Error on drive xx: Invalid Disk Table in Boot Record", is VERY difficult:

1) if you want to create large logical partitions inside of an ExtendedX partition (partition type 0F=ExtendedX): only use Powerquest Partionmagic v8.01 (max.Partitionsize=196GB) or Acronis Disk Director v1.0. build 2089 or earlier (build 2160 hangs if you have a 2nd internal HDD partitioned as NTSF by Vista, when the Acronis hdd engine starts while the splash screen is displayed). If you use Acronis Disk Director you can create much larger FAT32 (EXT) partitions, but after partitioning with Acronis Disk Director you SHOULD repair(!) the created partition tables with Partition Table Doctor. VCOM Partition Commander 10.0 and Paragon Partition Manager 9 can only create large logical partitions at with Norton Disk Doctor 2004 will choke with BSOD.

2) To create large primary partitions acceptable to NDD 2004 (I use 4), you must use a little trick: you must leave some free space (e.g. 7.8MB) after the last primary partition. Acronis Disk Director and PartitionMagic v8.01 can in this way create large partitions acceptable to NDD, not VCOM Partition Commander 10 and Paragon Partition Manager 9, however.
The little bit of free space after the last primary partition will apparently cause that the last partition is properly seen. Without using the free-space-trick when creating primary partitions, Partition Table Doctor will display the last primary partition as free space and VCOM Partition Commander 10 & Paragon will hang at the startup splash screen.

c) For the moment I have decided to use primary partitions instead of logical partitions contained in an ExtendedX partition, because I want to be able to use Paragon & VCOM, perhaps for accessing/exporting data of NTSF partitions. Paragon and VCOM just choke under Win98 at large ExtendedX partitions. Eventual problems with drive lettering under different opsys, however, might make me reconsider.

NO, I still have a 2GB FAT16 and a FAT32 partition <128GB on the 1st HDD (PATA). Eventually I may reconsider increasing the FAT32 partition, but I want to see what the experience of others is, and there is no urgency. The only huge directory I have does not have to be on a bootable drive. It is on my 3rd HDD (USB), it's the install-to directory of the German Digitale Bibliothek, currently about 120+GB with 430.000 files.
Is the ME version available anywhere?

You'll have to grab the DOS version of scandisk.exe from Win ME from inside MDGx's package SCANFRAG (link), because only the windows version is present in BHDD30e.ZIP. But, of course, you don't need to actually install the SCANFRAG package (myself, I don't like both Win ME meconfig and regenv32, and stick to the older Win 98 msconfig), get it just to grab scandisk.exe from inside it.

You can also run the DOS Norton Disk Doctor (from Norton Utilities 2002 rev..10E), findable in your Norton System Works 2004 disk. If you decide to make it run instead of SCANDISK.EXE on reboot after a crash, just copy NDD.EXE to \WINDOWS\COMMAND\ and rename it to SCANDISK.ALT (this is the official Microsoft way of doing it!) and that's it.

I believe that both Win ME SCANDISK.EXE and NDD.EXE (2002 rev..10E), will work OK with all your partitions.

I also think you'll find much interesting reading in this thread, too, although some of what is said there has already been said here: Problems-with-1-TB-RAID

I think this is clear to you, Multibooter, but for the sake of those for whom this is still a confused issue, I think it's advisable to state this fact once more: SCANDISK, DEFRAG, CVT, NDD and (Norton) Speed Disk depend on partition size and their limit is the maximum FAT-32 size they can represent internally. LLXX's patched ESDI_506.PDR and VIASRAID.MPD deal with 48-bit access, and are dependent on total disk size: if all your PATA and SATA disks are smaller than 137 GB (=128 GiB), then you're on the safe side, if not you need them, regardless of the size of the partitions you use. For USB and Firewire disks, this problem doesn't exist.

Thanks for the link. I'll be back in the US in Sept. and will try it then on a resized partition >137GB. On a USB HDD I cannot try out the DOS version of ScanDisk: Although the motherboard I am using has USB legacy support, I have disabled it because when USB legacy support is enabled, the system freezes when the BIOS is checking the connected USB HDD (750GB, 4 primary partitions).

This leads to the next can of worms, USB legacy support at the BIOS level: What is the largest USB HDD capacity for USB legacy support on Asus motherboards? Can you have more than 1 partition? What partition types are recognized? (ExtendedX/Logical, Primary, FAT16, FAT32, FAT32 EXT). Is there a conflict if you have a USB HDD driver installed & the USB HDD is already recognized at the BIOS level? I remember vaguely, when I had USB legacy support enabled, Win98 came up with Windows Explorer showing about 20 HDD icons.

The DOS Scandisk.exe does NOT look at the backup File Allocation Table, while the Windows Scandskw.exe looks at both Primary and backup File Allocation Table and determines which File Allocation Table is better in case of errors.

Is NDD.exe (DOS) smarter than Scandisk.exe (DOS), does it look at both file allocation tables? In that case, the renaming trick would be rather useful.

NDD is far smarter than SCANDISK... See this comment by Joep van Steen (author of DiskPatch) in this page reprinted from the October 2003 issue of PC Update (link)... Of course, DiskPatch may also be an alternative (but is not for free). While NDD is not for free either, I know you already have it.

Of course, in the quoted text, Joep is making his case as to why DiskPatch is more reliable than NDD, and in the process also tells why NDD is better than SCANDISK.
It is also noteworthy that Symantec actually recomends using the DOS version of NDD, instead of the Win version, to perform the most low-level repairs:

I do not agree.
- NDD fixes cross linked files by truncating both files before the cross link instead of making copies like Scandisk.
- NDD 2001 sometimes incorrectly detects cross linked files on DriveSpace volumes where Scandisk doesn't find anything wrong and the files are fine. Sometimes it finds a single cross linked file (a file cross linked with nothing else). I don't know about NDD 2002+ because I stoped using it on DriveSpace.
- Scandisk DOES compare FATs; it just doesn't say it like NDD. I had errors like mismatched FAT copies and Scandisk detected and fixed them.

My favorite disk utility was Disk Fixer (of V-COM System Suite v6.0.14 or Fix-It Utilities 6), but I changed over to NDD 2004 about 3 years ago, when an external USB HDD of 250 GB (in reality about 232GB) was too large for Disk Fixer. Here an old note of mine, in my system log of Jan.2004:
"Disk Fixer Is a better repair utility than Norton Disk Doctor or ScanDisk:
NDD crashed when attempting to fix H: when a lot of files were cross-linked (err msg: "cannot copy - access denied")
ScanDisk refused even to start diagnosing, err msg: "not enough memory"
DiskFixer did it
Addendum in Feb.04: the HDD may have been damaged by the sp.exe virus, identified on 25.Jan.04
This is a reason why to have several different utility packages installed - in case of a virus infection maybe one still works! "

By the way, the infection with sp.exe was the only malware infection I had in the last 10 years, Kaspersky at that time had only this short description: "September 11", now no more description.

Disk Fixer under Win98 does NOT work on a 250GB USB HDD, it terminates after nearly completing the File Allocation Table check
Under WinXP, however, Disk Fixer does work Ok with a 250 GB USB HDD, 232GB FAT32 partition. So maybe Loew's 137GB patch can put good old Disk Fixer back to work under Win98? But since the HDD was a USB drive, could it be that the drive capacity limitation of Disk Fixer was caused by the Win98 USB driver for the HDD (WinXP does not need a special USB driver)? Is there a different USB disk/partition size limitation if I use an external enclosure with a different USB driver?

Livingston & Straub in "Windows ME Secrets" (p. 1091) state that the DOS version of ScanDisk always uses the primary copy of the FAT (unless ScanDisk finds a physical disk error), while the Windows version of ScanDisk uses both primary & backup FATs. You must have run Scandisk under Windows when Scandisk detected and fixed mismatched FATs.

No. DOS version.
It's true that most of the time, Scandisk decides that FAT #1 is good and fixes FAT #2 by making a copy of #1. This might be because FAT #1 is updated first and sometimes a computer crash occurs before FAT #2 is updated, not because Scandisk doesn't use FAT #2.

Is that so for the Win98SE version of Scandisk.exe (143.818 bytes) and the version of Scandisk.exe for WinME (245.324 bytes)?

Livingston & Straub claim on the same p.1091 that WinME Scandskw.exe (=Windows version) calls code located in Dskmaint.dll AND Shell.dll. Is this correct or incorrect also? If correct, should one use the WinME version of Shell.dll when using the WinME versions of Scandskw.exe+Dskmaint.dll under Win98?

I never used WinME Scandisk.

It can be demonstrated that Scandskw.exe depends on Dskmaint.dll, Shell.dll, KRNL386.EXE and USER.EXE, while
Dskmaint.dll itself depends on Shell.dll, KRNL386.EXE, KEYBOARD.DRV and USER.EXE. All these dependencies can be satisfied with Win 98, Win 98SE or Win ME files. Of them, the only ones that you need to have from Win ME are Scandskw.exe and Dskmaint.dll, which are much improved form the 98SE ones.

BTW, I've been discussing similar things also in this topic, which might be of interest to you all.

I've used the DOS version of NDD.EXE (2002) since 2002, and it never gave me grief. Before that I had the 2000 version. I cannot say anything about the 2001 version, because I've never had it. I'm also very paranoid about backups, so that when things get really bad (cross-linked files, for instance) I usually delete the files and get them from the most up-to-date existing backup. Things too new to be in a backup can be gotten again from the same source I got them the first time, or were mine own, which I can always recreate. If I have no choice but to try to recover some file I first create a forensically sound image of the disk where the damaged file is, and then can try the recovery in as many ways as I can think of, because I can always restore the image and start again. For simpler tasks both SCANDISK and NDD are adequate, and NDD is usually faster and smarter, although I do remember that Marius'95's 1 TiB RAID was too much for NDD.

I used to use NDD because it was more verbose, and seemed more reliable (unlikely to crash itself, at least), but lesser performance and consistent issues with localized filenames prompted a return to good old scandisk.
Overall, NDD isn't so great. It has a plethora of issues, and doesn't apply fixes smoothly enough.

At any rate, with my current disk size, I prefer only to run a scan when there is valid suspicion of a file-system error, and do so manually. After all, it can easily take the better part of an hour with modern disk sizes.

There's useful info findable by folowwing the links in this post. HTH