On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michael Evans put forth on 1/21/2011 11:50 PM: > >> I wouldn't mind spending an extra $50 on the controller IF I knew it >> supported 48 or 64 bit LBA, however neither the documentation on Intel > > No product descriptions list 48 bit LBA because ALL SAS/SATA devices and HbAs > since ATA-6 (around 2003) natively support 48 bit LBA. LBA48 is what got us > past the 137GB barrier. The industry jumped from 28 bit LBA straight to 48 bit > LBA. Google will show you this information in about 0.5 seconds. I'll save you > those 0.5s: http://www.48bitlba.com/ Thank you, /that/ was the missing part of the picture; that ATA-6 required support for it. Ironically I'd seen most of the result articles on Wikipedia, but was expecting something like that in a place other than the very top paragraph. I was looking for some kind of table that specifically associated a standard with relevant minimal requirements. I'm also very glad that I asked here first since I would have just gone with the better sounding hardware (4x PCI-e 2.0) over the more reliable and closely priced older hardware (the 8x PCI-e 1.0). Also, you are half right about this being a 'dream' system. For years I've been using a carefully selected 6 port motherboard, and 3 PCI-e 1x cards to get a total of 12 ports. However I'm looking to rebuild that aging system and now that I have the proper funds want to do it with more reliable hardware. I wanted to buy an adapter that would last until whatever standard comes out in another decade or so and handle any drives that might come on the market within that time. -- 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
