LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Hardware
User Name
Password
Linux - Hardware This forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-16-2003, 04:00 PM   #1
briz
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: 0
200 Gig hard drive limit


I recently bought a Western Digital 200 gig drive with a promise controller card. I want to setup the drive as a slave for storage only. I'm running Linux Slackware 8.1 When I go to partition the drive it only see's 137 gigs. I know linux does not use the bios for drive info I have a 80 gig drive also as a slave that my bios does not see but linux has no problem with it so I guess the bios isn't an issue unless your booting from it. Any help is greatly appreciated
 
Old 02-16-2003, 11:59 PM   #2
jvarsoke
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: SuSE, Debian
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
I have the exact same drive and exact same problem. I contacted WesternDigital, but I'm still waiting for their response. If I find a solution I'll post it here. Please do the same.

-j
 
Old 02-17-2003, 03:07 PM   #3
jvarsoke
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: SuSE, Debian
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
Okay, I spent the last 2 days looking over google results on this. From reading the archives of the linux-kernel mailing list I've found that there was a patch released to do LBA48 (what you need to go over the 137Gig barrier). It's unclear to me but apparently this patch was integrated into the 2.4.19-pre3 kernel. So I'd assume it's also in the 2.4.20 kernel.

I don't have access to my stuff right now, but perhaps upgrading to that kernel would solve the problem. If you try it please post your results.

-j
 
Old 02-17-2003, 03:13 PM   #4
Helper_Monkey
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Connecticut
Distribution: RedHat 8.0, Knoppix, Gentoo
Posts: 39

Rep: Reputation: 15
What type of file system are you using? There may be a restriction in the file system, i know that there is a limit on fat and fat32 partitions.
 
Old 02-17-2003, 06:16 PM   #5
guitargeek
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Mandy 9.1
Posts: 134

Rep: Reputation: 15
I was thinking of getting that drive, too. I'm using the 2.4.19-24 kernel, so hopefully it will work correctly. I'll let you know how it goes if I get this drive (money permitting...)
 
Old 02-17-2003, 09:56 PM   #6
Electro
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,042

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
i know that there is a limit on fat and fat32 partitions.
FAT32 limits to 2 terabytes. If you are using Windows XP's format utility, the limit is 32 gigabytes. When using Win98's format DOS utility, you can format up to 2 terabytes. Just about any OS should read the whole drive. Microsoft explains this very well.

I haven't done any reading on file systems for UNIX/LINUX lately.
 
Old 02-18-2003, 01:11 AM   #7
jvarsoke
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: SuSE, Debian
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally posted by Helper_Monkey
What type of file system are you using? There may be a restriction in the file system, i know that there is a limit on fat and fat32 partitions.
The file system is not the problem. Or at least, you can't even get that far. Partitioning is the problem. The fdisk series of programs only see up to 137Gig in my setup. So I can't partition the drive to even see if the formatting works.

-j
 
Old 02-18-2003, 11:00 AM   #8
briz
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 6

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
My current file system is linux ext2 linux kernel version 2.4.18
 
Old 02-18-2003, 11:22 AM   #9
finidi
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: World
Distribution: Fedora Core 4
Posts: 127

Rep: Reputation: 15
I have to confirm the problem is LBA48, i.e. partitioning. Kernels 2.5.x incorporates ATA-6 so the limits are far beyond 137 Gb. I don't know if ATA-6 patch has been incorporated to 2.4.x kernels.

Filesystem's not a problem but.... FAT32 for a > 137 Gig drive ????
 
Old 02-19-2003, 07:47 AM   #10
sardaukar_siet
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Warsaw
Distribution: Fedora 8
Posts: 58

Rep: Reputation: 15
Exclamation FAT32 that big is a no-no!

FAT32 on a partition that big is NOT GOOD! What's the cluster size for that, 1 MB?! You should go with something more adequate. Ext2 is a 32-bit filesystem too, so... I don't know - XFS is 64-bit, and IBM's JFS is too so they are a better choice (more bits, smaller clusters). Even if these filesystems can't be used for a /boot partition, use them for /home or something. Definitely stay away from FAT!

Peace
 
Old 02-19-2003, 08:21 AM   #11
finidi
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: World
Distribution: Fedora Core 4
Posts: 127

Rep: Reputation: 15
It makes no sense to use a filesystem (designed for the typical disks of a personal computer in 1998) in a server sized disk.

Even if that design was performed by the most innovative software company of the world - ha !

Last edited by finidi; 02-19-2003 at 08:22 AM.
 
Old 02-19-2003, 11:36 AM   #12
briz
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 6

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
I'M NOT USING FAT OR FAT32 !!!!!!!!!!
 
Old 02-20-2003, 11:30 AM   #13
moses
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Arizona, US, Earth
Distribution: Slackware, (Non-Linux: Solaris 7,8,9; OSX; BeOS)
Posts: 1,152

Rep: Reputation: 46
I've got 5 200GB (Maxtor) drives on a disk server running 2.4.20,
and they work just fine. It's interesting, though, the BIOS sees the
drives as 202 GB, the RAID controller sees them as 173GB, and
the kernel sees them as 200 GB. . . No problems, though. . . It all
works out just fine.
 
Old 02-20-2003, 01:57 PM   #14
sardaukar_siet
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Warsaw
Distribution: Fedora 8
Posts: 58

Rep: Reputation: 15
Unhappy Doesn't that mess with you ?

I mean, you have three sizes... even if I asked you twice how big is that RAID, you could STILL be wrong.

Hope you're not working in a nuclear power plant...
 
Old 02-20-2003, 02:42 PM   #15
moses
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Arizona, US, Earth
Distribution: Slackware, (Non-Linux: Solaris 7,8,9; OSX; BeOS)
Posts: 1,152

Rep: Reputation: 46
It's really just a matter of how the different devices
(soft- or hard-ware) do Logical Block Addressing, and isn't really a
problem. By the way, I don't remember the exact numbers, just that
there were three different ones, and that they all hovered around
where they should. So, if anyone would like to do the math, I'm sure
they'll be disappointed if they use the above values. . . ;-}
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Debian install thinks my 60 gig drive is a 33 gig drive! Nebetsu Debian 13 06-04-2005 01:41 AM
200 GB hard drive not being usable with YaST in SuSE 9.1 Rob Roye Linux - Hardware 9 11-14-2004 09:13 PM
Why my 80 gig hard drive only shows 70 gig? dsuratman Linux - Newbie 3 11-20-2003 12:54 AM
External firewire 120 gig hard drive??? Thetawaves Slackware 5 10-10-2003 10:35 AM
Quota issue, hard limit doesn't limit users Gratz Linux - Software 2 09-16-2003 08:35 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration