Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > Definitely. I'm hoping that people will decide upon a userland that
> > supports the popular (non-raid) partition tables as well as the simple
> > raid partitions, too.
>
> That reminds me.
>
> Our DOS-type partition tables are close to their limit -
> regularly people complain about things that do not work
> with disks of size between 1 TB and 2 TB, and if not today
> then very soon we'll see disks too large to handle with
> DOS-type partition tables.
>
> Two years ago or so I wrote some simple-minded stuff -
> maybe there also was discussion on Linux-type partition tables,
> I forgot all about it.
> (Maybe the format was plan9-inspired, with sequence number,
> start, size, label and uuid, all in ASCII.)
>
> What is the situation today? What is the structure of these
> LVM or raid partition tables? Is there some natural type
> suitable for crossing the 2 TB limit?
> Is it better to invent a Linux-type partition table?
What are the limits of the "Windows Logical Disk Manager (LDM)"
partition format? I've never used it myself, but it's there in
fs/partitions and presumably there are people using it on modern PCs.
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 22:00:44 EST