Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:38:18 +0100 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: 2.5 'what to expect' |
| |
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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |