Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:48:14 +0100 | From | Anders Henke <> | Subject | Re: using 2 TB in real life |
| |
On Dec 12th 2002, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 04:03, Mike Black wrote: > > Looks like it's already handled in 2.5. > > Here's a patch for 2.4: > > http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/patches-index.html > > The result of the device size calculation that Anders complained about > in 2.4.20 was wrong in a different way in Peter's >2TB patch, last I > looked. I don't think Peter's patch is necessary for a 1.9TB device, > anyway.
Peter's patch is not necessary for a 1.9TB device, but (from a quick glance at the source) should fix the display problem I mentioned.
Personally I've no problem using 2.4.20 without this patch applied, although sd.c makes 1.9TB devices look as being something coming from a very dark corner of the universe ...
I knew of the 2 TB limit before, but the strange output brought me to extensively test both xfs and ext3 on it before writing any important data on the device. Other people might assume that Linux simply cannot handle (scsi/fc) devices larger than 0.5 TB or think Linux of being of less quality than $other_operating_system ("they claim 2 TB is the limit, but it somehow chokes at only 0.5 TB").
It would be a very kind thing if someone knows how to fix sd.c that way would do it before such ideas arise - unluckily, I don't have the in-depth knowledge to do this, so I'm sending this as a notice to linux-kernel (as this is the place where I believe the ones are who know how to do fix it).
Regards,
Anders -- http://sysiphus.de/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |