Re: maximum partition size for RHEL
"Eric Warnke" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.hardware.dell.poweredge,gmane.linux.redhat.release.nahant.general,gmane.linux.redhat.release.taroon.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I have had nothing but trouble using MSDOS partition types on devices larger than 2TB ( eg Apple XRaid ). Using fdisk/msdos partitions APPEARED to work, but on reboot would shrink down to partition-2Tb in size and results in fs corruption. Using parted and gpt works around that issue. On systems the size you are talking, you should also be using LVM. I never, initially, make the partition fill the drive. I leave room for snapshots and latter growth. Using LVM also means that scsi device renumbering will not affect your mountpoint ( a huge plus ). Cheers, Eric On 4/18/06, wolf2k5 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > We're running several Dell PowerEdge 1850 servers with RHEL3 U7 and > RHEL3 U3, some of them running the i686 version, others running the > x86_64 version. > > We use an iSCSI array for data storage, only the server OS is stored > on the local HD. > > Some of the servers use the Linux iSCSI initiator (software), while > others use the QLogic iSCSI HBA (hardware). > > We usually create a pretty big volume (several TBs) on the iSCSI array > and then create one or more (up to 4) primary partitions on it. > > We use the standard partion table (MS-DOS), not the new one (GPT). > > We use use ext3 as filesystem type. > > What is the maximum partition size that we can safely use in such > environment? > > I found a good resource about system configuration limits on the RH web > site: > http://www.redhat.com/rhel/details/limits/ > > Unfortunately it doesn't include the maximum partition size, though > it includes the maximum filesystem size. Can I safely assume that the > first value is equal to the latter? > > IIRC, I read somewhere that the maximum partition size is 2TB. > If so, how does RHEL4 support 8TB partitions, as per their web site? > > Also, we've the ability to create a filesystem directly on the iSCSI > volume without creating a partition at all, e.g. mkfs.ext3 /dev/sdb > instead of mkfs.ext3 /dev/sdb1. > I don't know if that is possible with a regular HD at all, it appears > to work fine with an iSCSI volume. > What are the pros and the cons of creating a filesystem w/o a partition? > > Thanks. > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-PowerEdge mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge > Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq > _______________________________________________ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list [email protected] http://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq