[CentOS] Large partition problem

[Bryan J. Smith]

HaraldFinnås <spamcatcher at lantrix.no> wrote:
> I really hope someone has a clue on this one.... :)
> I've got a 2.2TB array mounted on a 3ware 9500 controller.
> I installed it last week ensuring that LBA was enabled and
> using gpt with parted to get the full size available on one
> array.

Just because you can slice (partition) an array doesn't mean
the filesystem will format and/or be usable.

> I also think I chose reiserfs for the array.

I would very much recommend against that on any Fedora-based
distro.  ReiserFS support is not tested or guaranteed.

> We then moved ALOT of data to the array.
> Problem now is that after a reboot LBA doesn't seem to be
> in effect. ... I can no longer mount sdc1; the error is the
> usual invalid superblock.

That doesn't surprise me.  Given the comments you were
getting from the kernel, it sounds like there is some
inconsistency in how it handles 1-2+TiB (1.1-2.2+TB)
filesystems.

> parted does however list the correct size and filesystem.

But Parted just reads basic information from the slice.  It's
not actually doing anything on the filesystem.

> Any tips on how I can get the array mounted again?
> And what might have changed since last boot? :)

> I've rolled my own kernel to get reiser support,
> but I haven't recompiled or done any changes...

Er, um, there are a _lot_ of considerations beyond 1TiB
(1.1TB) that _must_ be considered when you build a kernel
with various filesystem support.  There's a reason why you
should stick with the distro's kernels (regardless of
distro).

Any reason you must have ReiserFS?  And if so, I'd consider
SuSE instead.  Of course, some things don't work on
SuSE-based/ReiserFS as they do on Fedora-based/Ext3, such as
NFS.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith     Professional, Technical Annoyance                      b.j.smith at ieee.org      http://thebs413.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------
*** Speed doesn't kill, difference in speed does ***