Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 06:56:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 06:56:08 -0500 Received: from compsciinn-gw.customer.ALTER.NET ([157.130.84.134]:6289 "EHLO picard.csi-inc.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 06:56:07 -0500 Message-ID: <029301c2a1d6$85cbe280$f6de11cc@black> From: "Mike Black" To: "Anders Henke" , References: <20021212111237.GA12143@schlund.de> Subject: Re: using 2 TB in real life Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:03:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2227 Lines: 61 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anders Henke" To: Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:12 AM Subject: using 2 TB in real life > I've just added a 1.9 TB array to one of my servers (running 2.4.20, > the device is an 12bay-IFT IDE-to-Fibre-RAID connected via a > Qlogic 2300 HBA): > > Disk /dev/sdb: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 247422 cylinders > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes > > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System > /dev/sdb1 1 247422 1987417183+ 83 Linux > [...] > Attached scsi disk sdb at scsi2, channel 0, id 0, lun 0 > SCSI device sdb: -320126976 512-byte hdwr sectors (-163904 MB) > sdb: sdb1 > > > Another array (1.2 TB) gives almost the same effect: > Disk /dev/sdb: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 157450 cylinders > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes > > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System > /dev/sdb1 1 157450 1264717093+ 83 Linux > [...] > Attached scsi disk sdb at scsi2, channel 0, id 0, lun 0 > SCSI device sdb: -1765523456 512-byte hdwr sectors (195564 MB) > sdb: sdb1 > > These issues arise when using arrays larger than around 0.5 T; > nevertheless, these devices do work fine with both xfs or ext3, > it's "just" a cosmetical issue. However, this negative > values make one feel like Linux isn't truely capable of using up to > 2 TB of disk devices and so this should be resolved. > To me it seems that sd.c doesn't know how to calculate the > correct values for such beasts - any ideas? > > > 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/ - 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/