200 Gig hard drive limit

briz · 02-16-2003, 03:00 PM

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

jvarsoke · 02-16-2003, 10:59 PM

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

jvarsoke · 02-17-2003, 02:07 PM

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

Helper_Monkey · 02-17-2003, 02:13 PM

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.

guitargeek · 02-17-2003, 05:16 PM

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...)

Electro · 02-17-2003, 08:56 PM

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.

jvarsoke · 02-18-2003, 12:11 AM

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

briz · 02-18-2003, 10:00 AM

My current file system is linux ext2 linux kernel version 2.4.18

finidi · 02-18-2003, 10:22 AM

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 ????

sardaukar_siet · 02-19-2003, 06:47 AM

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

finidi · 02-19-2003, 07:21 AM

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 !

briz · 02-19-2003, 10:36 AM

I'M NOT USING FAT OR FAT32 !!!!!!!!!!

moses · 02-20-2003, 10:30 AM

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.

sardaukar_siet · 02-20-2003, 12:57 PM

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...

moses · 02-20-2003, 01:42 PM

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. . . ;-}