Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Goswin von Brederlow<goswin-v-b@xxxxxx> wrote: >> Marek <mlf.conv@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > <snip> >>> 6. Is it safe to have 20+ partitions for a RAID5,6 system? Most RAID >>> related sources state that there's a limitation on number of >>> partitions one can have on SATA drives(AFAIK 16), but i digged out >>> some information about a recent patch which would remove this >>> limitation and which according to some other source had also been >>> accepted into mainline kernel, though I'm not sure about it. >>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/701825 >>> http://lwn.net/Articles/289927/ >> >> Should be 15 or unlimited. Look at the major/minor numbers of sda* and >> sdb. After sda15 there is no space before sdb comes. So unless sda16 >> gets a dynamic major/minor it can't be accessed. >> >> It certainly is safe. But it seems stupid as well. > > That patch went in 2.6.29 I'm pretty sure. Not that I have ever > needed more than 15 partitions on one drive. > > And yes major/minor after the first 15 are now dynamic I believe. > > Greg In case someone misunderstands, the "It certainly is safe. But it seems stupid as well." refers to creating 20+ raid6. Not the major/minor problem. :) MfG Goswin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
