Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:38:50 +0200 | From | Andries Brouwer <> | Subject | Re: 2.5 'what to expect' |
| |
On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:56:13AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Definitely. I'm hoping that people will decide upon a userland that > supports the popular (non-raid) partition tables as well as the simple > raid partitions, too.
That reminds me.
Our DOS-type partition tables are close to their limit - regularly people complain about things that do not work with disks of size between 1 TB and 2 TB, and if not today then very soon we'll see disks too large to handle with DOS-type partition tables.
Two years ago or so I wrote some simple-minded stuff - maybe there also was discussion on Linux-type partition tables, I forgot all about it. (Maybe the format was plan9-inspired, with sequence number, start, size, label and uuid, all in ASCII.)
What is the situation today? What is the structure of these LVM or raid partition tables? Is there some natural type suitable for crossing the 2 TB limit? Is it better to invent a Linux-type partition table?
Andries
- 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/
| |