Re: [CentOS] 2TB limit, weird mounting issues on reboot

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



I'll read up more on LVM and GPT partitions.  Please forgive me for not completely RTFM'ing this thing.  I was just at the end of my rope and frustrated and figured someone on the mailing list would have some sage advice.  And it appears that is the case. :)

Thank you to all who replied.

Regards,
Will

On 10/5/06, John Newbigin <jnewbigin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
You can not have a DOS partition larger than 2Tb.  parted will create
one and tell the kernel about the size which works.... until you reboot
and then the partition is 2Tb smaller than it should be because the
partition table can not store the MSB of your partition size.

The solution is to use LVM or GPT partitions.

John.

W S wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I'm seeing some weird issues surrounding the 2 terabyte limit on my
> 3ware (9590SE, PCI Express model) raid controller.  Currently, the raid
> array is 6 x 500GB disks for a total of around 2.3 terabytes formatted.
> Looking at the documentation on the 3ware site, the raid card can handle
> a single partition over 2TB, but it still looks like fdisk fails to
> create a primary partition over the 2TB limit.  I did resort to parted,
> and it creates a partition over 2TB.  And, in fact, I can run mke2fs on
> this partition, and mount it.  I also have an entry for this partition
> in the /etc/fstab file.
>
> However, if I reboot the system, the partition fails to mount from the
> init scripts.  If I comment out the /etc/fstab line, and run a mount
> command from rc.local , that works; however, the partition is now seen as
> a 259GB partition, and not the 2.3TB I originally had to start.  I have
> the feeling the partition table is getting hosed on a reboot.  Fdisk
> seems to handle the partition on the raid array just fine if it is a
> hair under 2TB, and from all the things I've read, it seems fdisk and
> other disk utilities still have real problems with partitions greater
> than 2TB (32-bit x 512-byte blocks, etc).
>
> I guess I'm shocked.  I figured this wouldn't be an issue as of 2006,
> but it still is..... anyone have any similar experiences?  If so, any
> workarounds other than just stay at the 2TB limit?
>
> Regards,
> Will
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


--
John Newbigin
Computer Systems Officer
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
http://www.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]
  Powered by Linux