LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   Don't wanna waste money. (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/dont-wanna-waste-money-4175444940/)

Terje 01-10-2013 03:13 AM

Don't wanna waste money.
 
Searches have proven totally ineffectual, due to a glut useless info out there. So, I'll just ask directly. The HD on my desktop crapped out w/ no warning. Confirmed by placing in external HD case -- laptop knew something was there, but couldn't access it. Got everything backed up on laptop, but prefer to keep some things offline. Smallest HD I can find locally is 320G. All I need to know is whether Slackware 14.0 (32-bit) can handle that size HD. I recently acquired Slack14 on a disk w/ a copy of the magazine "Linux Forum." The HD that died was 160G, and Slack13 handled it just fine. All I need to know, before I blow the dough, is whether Slack14 can handle a 320G HD. Simple, and straightforward. Nothing fancy. Thanx, in advance.

wigry 01-10-2013 04:02 AM

Slackware 14 (or more precisely a filesystems offered by Slackware like ext2, ext3, reiserfs etc) support this size of disk for sure.

kabamaru 01-10-2013 04:02 AM

It handles pretty well my 2TB disks :)

wigry 01-10-2013 04:08 AM

Here is the list of size limits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems

Code:

ext2 -    32TB =      32768 GB
ext3 -    32TB =      32768 GB
ext4 -      1EB =  1073741824 GB
JFS -      32PB =    33554432 GB
ReiserFS - 16TB =      16384 GB
XFS -      8EB =  8589934592 GB
Btrfs -    16EB = 17179869184 GB

Terabyte (TB) - 1024GB
Petabyte (PB) - 1024TB = 1048576 GB
Exabyte  (EB) - 1024PB = 1073741824 GB


jhw 01-10-2013 05:20 AM

3.7TiB logical volume with ext4 in use here under Slackware64-14.0. Never had a problem.

storkus 01-11-2013 07:21 AM

Terje, what you're really asking is whether the Linux KERNEL can handle a drive that size--it doesn't matter whether it's Slackware, Arch, Fedora, or Ubuntu, they all run the (mostly same) Linux kernel. As Wigry's link to the Wikipedia entry shows, for newer file systems, ABSOLUTELY! Since this isn't a server we're talking about, you are extremely unlikely to ever come close to any of those limits.

I also have a suggestion: if money and capacity aren't too big of issues on that machine, replace your failed HD with a SSD instead--the speed-up you will see will blow you away! I dropped an SSD on my 4 year old laptop and it was almost like buying a new machine...well, except for the graphics, of course!

wigry 01-11-2013 08:52 AM

SSD is certainly faster but recent articles about different SSD controller behaviour and performance in Anandtech give reason to believe that for long term storage solution SSD has still somewhat to improve. The NAND flash will introduce technical issues of its own and different drives try to circumvent them differently. So here is a good place to read couple of articles.

http://www.anandtech.com/tag/storage


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09 AM.