The Definitive EVB-002 Guide to Adding Large Hard Drives/SSDs (Power Mac G4 DA)

[DieHard]

FBz and I have expanded our knowledge and broken known boundaries in the 1st quarter of 2022 with respect to installing large storage drives into various Power Mac G3/G4 models.  We will be explaining and showing real world results realted to upgrading internal storage with large IDE/PATA drives, large mechanical SATA drives, and of course, SATA SSD drives.  This topic/guide will ignore SCSI technologies and SATA add-in cards, since we will be focusing on the absolute cheapest way to go for our members on a low budget.

This low-cost approach to adding storage will target using internal IDE/PATA controller(s) with the $5 EVB-002-3 IDE to SATA adapter known affectionately here on the forum as the “bribge” IDE to SATA adapter. Also, we will included some new undocumented knowledge for G4s that can natively address drives larger than 128GB (macs that have an IDE controller that is 48-bit LBA compliant)

Lastly, we be adding information that has been discovered via trial an error for successfully installing different drive combinations into many beloved macs.  No doubt, this info will be valuable to beginners and have some real surprises in store for our veteran users.

[DieHard]

Power Mac G4 DA (Digital Audio) Internal IDE/PATA Controller

So, it became clear that it was time to get a Power Mac G4 DA (Digital Audio) Tower out of storage and run some tests in 2022...

Unfortunately, there is some misinformation on this awesome machine, so let's get it right.

From Low end Mac...

Macs that don’t include big drive support include tray-loading iMacs, slot-loading iMacs, beige G3s, blue & white G3s, Yikes! G4s, Sawtooth (a.k.a. AGP) G4s, Digital Audio G4s...

So, the DA G4 was released about 6 months BEFORE the Quicksilver 733 G4 (rev 1 board) and yet we found some really cool new information that I will break down, but first, as previously explained from our site:

If you intend to use hard drives larger than 128GB under OS 9, then be aware that you will need a Mac with an IDE controller that is 48-bit LBA compliant. What the hell is that, you ask? Well, it is the ability of the Mac to see the total number of heads, cylinders, and sectors of large hard drives... the Power Mac G4 QuickSilver 733, 800, Dual 800, 867, 933, and Dual 1 GHz with logic board 820-1276-A will NOT work and peak out at 128 GB.

Of course, the revision B Quicksilver Board (820-1342-B) can address drives over 128GB.

So it does not make sense that the DA (released BEFORE the QS rev A board) would be able to utilize drives over 128GB.  In fact, all documented info. states that the DA is NOT 48-bit LBA compliant... but the DA has a secret waiting for those to discover...

I have verified the the Power Mac G4 DA 533 (with a logic board model of 630T3523/630-3633) is 48-bit LBA compliant.

After installing a single 500GB Western Digital Blue Hard drive (WD5000AAKB), I created 4 Partitions and was able to boot to Mac OS 9 without issue and was able to utilize the entire 500GB of space in Mac OS 9.  We will now need this DA break-thru independently confirmed.

[DieHard]

The Elusive EVB-002-3 / Bribge Adapter and a single SATA Drive



To lighten the mood, and add some humor, it is obvious the Chinese manufacturer misspelled the word "Bridge" and the actual printed circuit board reads... "Host Bribge"  The lowercase "b" is a lower case "d" reversed, but we don't care, we are happy to have this low cost option so many years later.

Our forum inventory has this adapter in great abundance and as a special for members, they’re available for $8.99 each (which includes postage within the continental United States)

It must be stressed that the easiest configuration with this adapter in a G4 DA tower is a single SATA drive (mechanical or SSD) and the adapter jumper set to "Master".

The single drive scenario may sound limiting, but a large SATA mechanical drive or SSD (500GB or 1 TB) is going to one killer G4 with Mac OS 9.

Create a partition of 190GB or less for the OS9 Boot volume and partition the rest how ever you want.

[DieHard]

The Elusive EVB-002-3 / Bribge Adapter and a Dual Drive Setup

So, this is where things get a little strange, but we will lay out some rules to live by when installing the EVB-002-3 Adapter in a G4 DA Tower with more than one drive...

RULE 1: There has been NO successful combination found of (2) SSD drives with a EVB-00203 adapter working together on the same controller in the G4 DA Tower that works, so don't try it unless you have a lot of time on your hands

We have tried many combinations of different sizes and manufacturers of SSD drives, and many combinations of setting the drive jumper on the EVB adapter to Master or Slave (or even removed) and none yield a working system.  A working system is defined as one that can boot to OS 9 and where both SSD drives are visible/usable after booting. Every attempt has been marked by failure... the most common failure exhibits itself as "flashing folder with no system boot" or "flashing folder with system boot after a long timeout and only one drive being seen."

RULE 2: If you must use (2) drives, use (1) SATA SSD or mechanical drive with an EVB adapter and (1) mechanical IDE drive on the same controller in the G4 DA Tower

To achieve success the only documented combination to work is to use a Seagate hard drive jumpered as "Master with non-ATA compatible slave” and the EVB adapter jumpered as "Slave" (Jumper removed)



If your Seagate diagram looks different on your hard drive, don't panic. All Segate Baracuda drives tested so far (7200.x) have the setting "Master w/non-ATA compatible slave" even though the pictured jumper settings may not list this as an option.  Again, this sometimes undocumented setting is absolutely critical to get an SATA SSD drive and a mechanical IDE drive working together on the same IDE cable in a Power Mac G4 DA. This setting is achieved by jumping the (2) sets of pins (5,6,7,8) that are closest to the IDE Cable connector on the Seagate drive.

A useful physical setup, is to mount the Mechanical Seagate IDE Drive (set to "Master with non-ATA compatible slave”) to the tray and literally Velcro the SSD (connected to the EVB set to slave) on top of the Seagate drive.

[DieHard]

List IDE/PATA mechanical Drives that could not be set to "Master with non-ATA compatible slave” and failed to work with the EVB set to slave:

Western Digital Caviar Blue WD5000AAKB IDE ATA/100

[FBz]

Testing the EVB-002-3 “Bribge” SSD adapters in the G3 B&W and the G4 AGP…
BUT NOW confirming DieHard’s findings with the Digital Audio machine.
Just tested here with a G4 733 MHz DA.

AND YES, the DIGITAL AUDIO 533 MHz broke the 128 GB barrier
long before the Quicksilver model 2002 Rev. B boards.


  Above graphic used with permission of EveryMac.com and gleaned
  from their always helpful “Ultimate Mac Comparison” feature via...
  https://everymac.com/ultimate-mac-comparison-chart/
  [Huge thanks to EveryMac.com.]

AND have not actually tested an SSD in any of the following benchmark scenarios
(yet / see below) but these results are from IDE/PATA and SATA drives (with the
Bribge in that latter instance). Certainly warrants the application of possibly one
LARGE SSD in the Digital Audio machines with a Bribge - - - now that we know
that the DA’s are capable of greater than 128 GB drives?

Appears that the Western Digital drive(s) have a slight edge over the Seagates?


First the single, solo IDE / PATA drives:
Seagate Barracuda IV - 40 GB


Western Digital - 320 GB


AND now that latter instance…

A Seagate Barracuda (SATA) - 750 GB (w/ Bribge)
One partition @128 GB yielded 124.01 GB with remainder
yielding 574.56 GB. (698.57 GB total after formatting.)



The Dual Drive Route with Bribge and a Seagate
(Jumpered as "Master w/ non-ATA compatible slave” on the the bottom).
And a jumpered SATA slave drive (with Bribge) on top.

Seagate - 1 TB SATA


Western Digital - 1 TB SATA


Could’ve just as easily tested the 1 TB SATA drives solo in the DA…
but who needs more graphics / benchmarks? The point here is that
with a Bribge you can utilize the larger SATA drives… PLUS SSDs.

Ahh hell, here’s QuickBench results from a 128 GB Inland SSD.

Just a bit better than the Western Digital SATA, but zero noise
& no added heat - PLUS benefit of reduced PSU strain & drain.

[FBz]

Digital Audio 128GB HD Limitation Conundrum

Not entirely ready here to throw the baby out with the bathwater, with thanks to mopar300m and his comments & questions about “What happens to certain partitions available under OS 9 when I boot into OS X  just disappearing on my Digital Audio?”. He also mentioned the fact that anything above and beyond 128 GB (on any partition / master or slave drive) simply “vaporized” and went un-seen and not mounted when booting into any version of OS X. (Similar experience here with the G3 B&W / with Tiger, Panther and Jaguar.)

Ding-ding-ding!
Or perhaps, Bong!

Thanks to many others that may have already realized some of the inherent folly here
and for simply not mentioning the proverbial “fly in the ointment / sand in the vaseline”.

“AND YES, the DIGITAL AUDIO 533 MHz broke the 128 GB barrier
long before the Quicksilver model 2002 Rev. B boards.” - Big Dumb Guy (Me)

Well yes, no - and maybe.
Well… maybe not really.

Seems that as long as you format and partition larger hard drives (above 128 GB) with Drive Setup 2.1 under OS 9… you CAN have oodles of partitions and usable space above and beyond 128 GB - or just one big honking space under OS 9. Now here’s the catch / caveat / heartbreaker. (You reading along here IIO?)

Just as soon as any version of OS X rears its’ head into the mix, installed on any of the primary (master) hard drive’s partition(s) - or on the secondary (slave) drive AND BOOTED… well then, ANY partition on either drive above the 128 GB limit… POOF! becomes invisible and does not mount under OS X. Nice, ehh? G-O-N-E.

*You may notice that none of the examples in the above, previously posted “confirmation” post ran or used any example or result from a boot of OS X? Well, that wasn’t intentionally omitted… but testing went on here for FOUR solid days (at least) and between mopar300m, DieHard and myself… AND for even a longer period of time (since the beginning of this month). Borgmac just volunteered yesterday to begin testing too.

Works GREAT under and with only OS 9. BUT OS X does not play well.
AND again, fine if you wish your Digital Audio to be OS 9 - ONLY.
Bring on those larger than 128 GB BIG DRIVES!

Throwing in the towel.
(And maybe a little workaround.)

Yesterday, finally applied mopar300m’s observations and three-partitioned a 480 GB Crucial SSD with Drive Setup 2.1. (Attached to a Bribge EVB-002-03 adapter / master.) Assigned the first partition 41 GB, the 2nd partition 41 GB and left the 3rd partition with the remainder of 367 GB. (Which, as will later, painfully be shown here… OS X only recognized 47.92 GB.)

After partitioning… 40.04 + 40.04 + 47.92 = 128 (Per OS X Tiger)
OS 9 sees things just a bit differently. Here’s that 480 GB Crucial SSD.



All three partitions mounted and present. Redundant “Get Info” graphic below from OS 9:



This approach allowed OS X (Tiger) to acknowledge and mount that third partition AND
possibly allow someone to test whether there’s actually 367 GB of usable space.

OR ONLY… the 47.92 GB “Capacity” as noted below.
(Although it does also state 367 GB “Available”.)



Now, here’s an idea. Why not four-partition the drive with three equal partitions that
would total 128 GB - AND leave the balance beyond 128 GB to the remaining fourth
partition? OS 9 would see it and mount it and OS X simply would not. In this way,
that space would theoretically still be available to OS 9 for file writes, storage, etc.?

This may pertain to IIO’s old questions here:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,5955.msg44520.html#msg44520

There’s always the concern about dragging / copying items from OS X back to OS 9
but far less concern about the opposite. AND OS X would be mounted and available
to “receive” from a proposed OS 9 fourth “Ghost Partition”… unseen by OS X?

Anyway, onward…

OS 9’s Disk First Aid reported all as: “appears to be OK”.
Which is different - compared to OS X’s DFA results.
(That graphic below this one.)




This graphic below, is from a Sunday test, and OS X’s First Aid
reported similar results as for the 367 GB partition referenced above.


That’s a 320 GB Western Digital PATA HD seen as 128 GB (not as 320 GB) under OS X Tiger, above.
The 173 GB partition on that HD only equaled 3 GB Capacity - while also reporting 173.1 GB Available?


If OS X cannot see or mount a proposed Fourth “Ghost Partition”…
then no “Invalid number of allocation blocks” problem. Or “Volume
needs repair / task reported failure on exit” for a herein proposed
3rd partition & any larger than (outside the 128 GB) fourth partition.

That’s 42.6 GB OS 9, 42.6 GB OS X, 42.6 GB empty space and
the remaining space beyond 128 GB for the “Ghost Partition”.

There was a problem with the above-configured Sunday dual-HD
setup. The partition entitled “Space” previously contained an OS 9
installation, installed from the same install disk as the WDC Mac
OS 9.2.2 partition. It would not boot from the WDC Mac OS 9.2.2
partition - no matter how approached. The machine would always
default boot to the OS 9 (which once occupied the “Space” partition).

No problems between WDC’s 9.2 and DieHard’s “prototype” 9.2.

Had no problems running OS 9 as a solo OS on any SSD in a DA
- but I always prefer having another OS (and HD?) present as well
in other machines here. So, while the 128 GB DA limitation might
not actually be broken here, this does offer an option. And with the
added benefits of cooler running, better energy efficiency and a
quieter operation... SSD.

Thus, an invitation to all Apple DA owners to test & challenge
these findings AND possibly to break that 128 GB barrier with
their Digital Audio machines.

Otherwise, go get yourself a “B” boarded Quicksilver.
OR have a bootable OS X install, on an external drive
& keep the Digital Audio as primarily a dedicated OS 9 machine?

[IIO]

yes, i am reading.

given that the whole line of 4 machines of the DA series was released in 2001(!) it was not to expect that their weird apple-only ATA 4.5 / ATA 6 nonsense only supports classic OS out of the box.

when the 533 DP came out that was only 7 months before the QS 2001 were shipping with 10.0. - and OSX fully supported a PM 7100 hardware, isn´t it.

but good that you noticed it in time, and maybe there is a real fix one day to replace your current workaround.
 
 
i am living am a bit out of the drive setup realm because for me personally it is normal to originally format drives under 10.4.11 and then use them mostly under OS9.

of course a good solution will always include full support for dual boot use cases as well as OS9-only machines.
 
 
48 mb/s on a 66 MB/ bus is not great. but also not catastrophic.

except maybe for audio people who needed the bandwidth more than the ultra fast search time a SSD offers.

i wonder if the cheapo bribge and/or the fact that you were using different partitions might have some influence in that result? have you tried running a 70mb/s IDE HD in comparison?

[IIO]

"Why not four-partition the drive with three equal partitions that
would total 128 GB - AND leave the balance beyond 128 GB to the remaining fourth
partition?"

not a solution for 2 TB disks.

[FBz]

Please refer to opening statements of this topic and more specifically, this:
“We will be explaining and showing real world results related to upgrading internal storage with large IDE/PATA drives, large mechanical SATA drives, and of course, SATA SSD drives.”
 
In addition, the prefaced primary focus of these efforts was to optimize and increase performance of these machines (using the specific machines themselves) without “SCSI technologies and SATA add-in cards, since we will be focusing on the absolute cheapest way to go for our members on a low budget ”.

given that the whole line of 4 machines of the DA series was released in 2001(!) it was not to expect that their weird apple-only ATA 4.5 / ATA 6 nonsense only supports classic OS out of the box.  when the 533 DP came out that was only 7 months before the QS 2001 were shipping with 10.0. - and OSX fully supported a PM 7100 hardware, isn´t it.

Seems all a bit moot here as the QS 2001 also had the Ultra ATA/66 (ATA-5) HD Interface and was also similarly limited - until the 2002 QS “B” boards. Refer to graphic above: http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6233.0;attach=9786;image

but good that you noticed it in time, and maybe there is a real fix one day to replace your current workaround.

Again, all in an effort to optimize and possibly increase performance with these machines, in a low-cost manner. (And of course to keep you mildly amused.) 

i am living am a bit out of the drive setup realm because for me personally it is normal to originally format drives under 10.4.11 and then use them mostly under OS9.

Do please explain how this might be possible with a Digital Audio, using only a Digital Audio - to accomplish this formatting with Tiger for the DA? All of my attempts to format internal DA drives (HDD & SSD) with Tiger… and only with a DA booted from a Tiger Install Disc - reported the drives as only 128 GB in spite of their actual size. IF you’ve an approach that I am unaware of, such information could be helpful in this effort. (And no fair using a machine other than a DA to do so.)

*I prefer to format, partition and install OS’es almost always in a Quicksilver and then move those drives to their targeted “host” machines (in this case a DA). But that’s a little cheating here and perhaps questionable.

of course a good solution will always include full support for dual boot use cases as well as OS9-only machines.

Exactly. And the reason why the 480 GB SSD was tested and those results posted above. And, as mentioned… testing of any “Ghost Partition” theory is still necessary to determine IF that large remaining space would be fully accessible / usable to OS 9. Thus, the invitation for Digital Audio (or similar machine) owners to test it.

The theoretical “Ghost Partition” approach allows for:
(1). Dual-booting between OS 9 and OS X from the SSD and…
(2). Possible use of that remaining (367 GB) on a fourth partition and…
(3). The possible addition of another HDD - in the bottom position (master jumper)
 
48 mb/s on a 66 MB/ bus is not great. but also not catastrophic.
except maybe for audio people who needed the bandwidth more than the ultra fast search time a SSD offers.
i wonder if the cheapo bribge and/or the fact that you were using different partitions might have some influence in that result? have you tried running a 70mb/s IDE HD in comparison?

Are you confusing mega-bits (mb/sec) with Mega-Bytes (MB/sec)? 

Well, the Crucial 480 GB SSD did test slightly better than that. AND the Addonics or StarTech “RED” Marvel-based adapters have yet to be tested to see if they might provide better numbers. (They did not in the G3 B&W.) BUT here,  even the inexpensive Inland 128 GB SSD (also with a Bribge adapter) QuickBenched better than 48 MB/sec. http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6233.0;attach=9779;image

And it seems that in my haste, I neglected to attach / post the QuickBench results from the Crucial 480 GB SSD. (Too many tests and too many graphics here lately… I simply forgot it.) Here it is now:



And while the DA might not be the first choice for “audio people”
it does seem that it is improving here - and at very little added cost.

"Why not four-partition the drive with three equal partitions that
would total 128 GB - AND leave the balance beyond 128 GB to
the remaining fourth partition?"

not a solution for 2 TB disks.

Sorry, no 2 TB disks here to test…
but welcome any attempts by other DA owners.
(And especially you IIO.) 

AND really looking forward to your insights & contributions to the Quicksilver and MDD portions of this exercise - when those two are tested & examined here. In the meantime, I’ll try to get back to your questions concerning the Mac Mini SSD adapters and the 1TB SSD here: http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,5955.msg44520.html#msg44520

Test, test, testing, and more testing.

[IIO]

Do please explain how this might be possible with a Digital Audio, using only a Digital Audio - to accomplish this formatting with Tiger for the DA?

you already found out that it doesnt even work under OSX and i dont think i know more.^^

the ones which could explain that are the guys at apple who built that strange stuff.

IF you’ve an approach that I am unaware of, such information could be helpful in this effort.

i was only commenting the (here) frequently discussed requriement of a certain version of drvie setup. my solution is to simply not use it.

spearking of formatting tool: did you look at the DA using silverlining yet?

move those drives to their targeted “host” machines (in this case a DA). But that’s a little cheating here and perhaps questionable.

for sure it is. the requirement of another PC would be worst additional requirements of all & it would not answer the original question.

Are you confusing mega-bits (mb/sec) with Mega-Bytes (MB/sec)? 

no, why? i am used to "mb" for megabytes and "mbit" for megabit.

(And especially you IIO.) 

luckily i avoided these machines back in the days. and then i ran into the 733 trap.

[FBz]

     Then after installing and booting Tiger - POOF! The Ghost Partitions disappear.

[DieHard]

This is by far some of the best testing, graphics, and posts FBz !

OK, to water this down to the simplest terms...

1) We have determined on (2) separate DA G4s with logic board 630T3523/630-3633 that a large PATA/IDE Hard drive (over 128 GB) can be partitioned, initialized (formatted), and used without issue under Mac OS 9.2.2 with drive setup 2.1, with all partitions usable.

2) With the exact same hardware, Tiger limits the the drive to 128GB of usable space ?!!?

So, is this an apple conspiracy that limited the drive size in OS X on this machine ?  How could 48-bit compliance (a hardware attribute) be reduced in the OS ?

Another possible test, is to change the machine type of the DA in Open Firmware to a 1 Ghz. QS or MDD and see if Tiger reacts differently as far as the 128GB limit.  Please anyone with a DA, try this, mine is back in storage

[mopar300m]

I still have my DA accessible and mostly working.  Can you point me towards a guide on how to change the machine type?

[DieHard]

OK, I know this is crazy, but I confirmed today that FBz results are 100% accurate.

Mac OS X Leopard 10.5.8 will only partition/initialize a 500GB Western digital (WD5000AAKB) as 128GB !

So the Digital Audio 533 large drive access is crippled under every version of OS X we tested, yet Mac OS 9.2.2 (Drive setup 2.1) will Partition/initialized large drives and all partitions are fully working without issues.  I filled the entire 500GB drive under OS 9.2.2 and all volumes still test perfectly with First Aid.

So, to clarify the DA 533 can support large drives, but in an OS9 only environment. Mac OS X or Dual boot systems will NOT support large drives and will most likely lead to corrupting the volumes (past 128GB) when accessing them in OS X.

[IIO]

thanks guys for all your efforts.

at least we have learned something, and i think it was worth a try.
 
 
my new spare QS rev2 arrived, and now i am finally going to buy 2x 4TB disks to do some experiments with low level formatting.

there is also an IDE card on its way to me (not sure model/specs yet) which i want to check out in conjunction with regular "green" (not bribge) adapters.

i will also be able to test the new 3112 drivers for a bit - please recommend me a cheapo card to buy.

[IIO]

I had to delete your post, since I did not want to confuse newbies,

1) It is NOT a side effect of drive setup 2.1

2) In order for the partitions past the 128GB to function (read and write), the hardware has to be 48-bit compliant period

Seems that as long as you format and partition larger hard drives (above 128 GB) with Drive Setup 2.1 under OS 9… you CAN have oodles of partitions and usable space above and beyond 128 GB - or just one big honking space under OS 9. Now here’s the catch / caveat / heartbreaker. (You reading along here IIO?)

 
i have to open up the old sore once more, because i simply can not believe that apple put an ATA-6 controller into the DA and then limited the transfer speed to ATA-5, which is not even supported by the newly introduced device configuration overlay.

are you guys sure you have evidence that these volumes can fully be used? which probably would require at least to write more than 128 gb worth of data onto the partitions?

and how do we explain then that OSX does not allow you to format the disk like that on the DA? (and not even use the disk)

 
while i am on the >2 TB experiment i might try to reproduce your >128 experiment on an old QS rev1.

[FBz]

Not so much an “old sore” - but more like countless hours and effort spent to test and substantiate that it does in-fact work in the Digital Audio machines… by DieHard, mopar300m and myself. (Surprising as all that might actually be.) AND DieHard did actually test & accomplish filling those “extra” partitions - above and beyond the previous accepted as fact, 128 GB limit - reading AND writing data. (mopar300m ALSO did the write/read ritual.)

It was however, on an “OS 9 only” DA machine.

My only concern was the problem with also having OS X present and effectively “throwing a wrench” into the works. I do however intend to return to this and test with OS X on a separate drive (either as Master or Slave) and thus keep it apart from the OS 9 only, now extended capability of the larger drive. Whether that may be on another SSD, a Seagate with the double jumper  “Master with non-compatible slave” capability OR just a regular old HDD of that era.

Don’t care if all the partitions mount and appear under OS X in the above scenario - as that will only serve to not allow writing backwards to them from OS X. (We know what that can cause.)

And I don’t like the idea of a regular HDD mounted on top of an SSD (on the ribbon cable Master / Slave order) as a Slave… so it may be another SSD or the “special” Seagate Mwncs HD on the bottom. (Although I think I’ve already tested that?) At any rate, don’t like not having OS X present and will again retest. Always, more testing.

Und “How do we explain this working?” You might note DieHard’s comment above… “OK, I know this is crazy, but…”.  IT works. Period. Full stop.

As far as testing the >128 GB on an old QS Rev.1… that could be interesting but I suggest that you post those results under http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,6234.0.html as again, it may confuse this issue, here, further… otherwise.

Now, if you’ve a DA and have additional results from testing that… do please post those results here.

*Think I still have a Rev.1 QS board installed in a QS and I may try it as well (and also post any results from that, in the aforementioned above thread. (*It’s that QS Rev.1 board that I hacked the Bus speed to 150 MHz.)

[DieHard]

are you guys sure you have evidence that these volumes can fully be used?
which probably would require at least to write more than 128 gb worth of data onto the partitions?

Yes, as stated...

I filled the entire 500GB drive under OS 9.2.2 and all volumes still test perfectly with First Aid.

I filled volumes 2 and 3 with toast images from our site.  No errors, tested them with first aid (both volumes were past the 128GB boundary), NO errors; then I copied some files randomly from volumes 2 and 3 to a FW drive

and how do we explain then that OSX does not allow you to format the disk like that on the DA? (and not even use the disk)

That is the whole purpose of this post, OS 9 does NOT not have a dynamic drive overlay (as far as anyone knows), so it would stand to reason that the hardware itself in the DA is 48-bit compliant, yet OS X cannot format the drive past 128GB, so I am definitely stumped, it makes no sense at all !.

The DA is supposedly made before... (from Wikepedia)

The IDE standard included 22-bit LBA as an option, which was further extended to 28-bit with the release of ATA-1 (1994) and to 48-bit with the release of ATA-6 (2003)

But the QS 2002 rev 2 is also made before 2003 and it is documented to support large drives, so we really got some scientific data that does not make sense, yet the real world experiments have proven the facts on 3 different DA units.