[CentOS] 2TB limit, weird mounting issues on reboot
ws3reg at gmail.com
Thu Oct 5 14:55:45 UTC 2006
I'll read up more on LVM and GPT partitions. Please forgive me for not
completely RTFM'ing this thing. I was just at the end of my rope and
frustrated and figured someone on the mailing list would have some sage
advice. And it appears that is the case. :)
Thank you to all who replied.
On 10/5/06, John Newbigin <jnewbigin at ict.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> You can not have a DOS partition larger than 2Tb. parted will create
> one and tell the kernel about the size which works.... until you reboot
> and then the partition is 2Tb smaller than it should be because the
> partition table can not store the MSB of your partition size.
> The solution is to use LVM or GPT partitions.
> W S wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > I'm seeing some weird issues surrounding the 2 terabyte limit on my
> > 3ware (9590SE, PCI Express model) raid controller. Currently, the raid
> > array is 6 x 500GB disks for a total of around 2.3 terabytes formatted.
> > Looking at the documentation on the 3ware site, the raid card can handle
> > a single partition over 2TB, but it still looks like fdisk fails to
> > create a primary partition over the 2TB limit. I did resort to parted,
> > and it creates a partition over 2TB. And, in fact, I can run mke2fs on
> > this partition, and mount it. I also have an entry for this partition
> > in the /etc/fstab file.
> > However, if I reboot the system, the partition fails to mount from the
> > init scripts. If I comment out the /etc/fstab line, and run a mount
> > command from rc.local, that works; however, the partition is now seen as
> > a 259GB partition, and not the 2.3TB I originally had to start. I have
> > the feeling the partition table is getting hosed on a reboot. Fdisk
> > seems to handle the partition on the raid array just fine if it is a
> > hair under 2TB, and from all the things I've read, it seems fdisk and
> > other disk utilities still have real problems with partitions greater
> > than 2TB (32-bit x 512-byte blocks, etc).
> > I guess I'm shocked. I figured this wouldn't be an issue as of 2006,
> > but it still is..... anyone have any similar experiences? If so, any
> > workarounds other than just stay at the 2TB limit?
> > Regards,
> > Will
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > CentOS mailing list
> > CentOS at centos.org
> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> John Newbigin
> Computer Systems Officer
> Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
> Swinburne University of Technology
> Melbourne, Australia
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CentOS