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. Regards, Will 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. > > John. > > 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 > http://www.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20061005/80bcf55a/attachment-0005.html>