search for: 2tib

I have a 3.5 TB RAID 5 Array through a 3ware 9590SE 8 port card, and am running into what seems like quite a lot of problems trying to get the system installed correctly. The system is a running dual Opterons with 2 GB of RAM, and I'm attempting to install through the x86_64 ServerCD. First, grub refuses to install on the disk, as it's too large. I can get around this though by

We recently bought a 32-bit Xeon system with a 12-port 3Ware RAID card and a dozen 500GB drives. We wanted to create 4TB drive arrays; however, we soon discovered that there is about a 2.2TB drive array size limit on 32-bit hardware. Does that sound correct? Would replacing the 32-bit mobo/cpu with a 64-bit mobo/cpu allow us to use drive arrays larger than 2.2TB? Thanks.

I installed 4.4 on a machine that's got two RAID volumes, one of which is a bit over 2.1 terabytes. The installer had no problem. However, fsck does. Commenting out the volume in /etc/fstab, the machine will boot. The machine will mount the volume and use it. Everything seems fine except fsck, which seems, well, fscked. When trying to run fsck, it says: # fsck /dev/sdb1 fsck 1.35

Hi all, I am working with a pc cluster, running redhat el 4, on opteron cpus. we have several bigger RAID systems locally attached to the fileservers; now I would like to create a big striped filesystem with around 15TB. ext3 unfortunatelly only supports filesystem size up to 8TB, do you have an idea if / when this border will be increased ? I already found some discussions on LKML about it ?

We have a server with about 6x750Gb SATA drives setup on a hardware RAID controller. We created hardware RAID 5 on these 6x750GB HDDs. The effective size after RAID 5 implementation is 3.4TB. This server we want to use it as a data backup server. Here is the problem we are stuck with, when we use fdisk -l, we can see the drive specs and its size as 3.4TB. But when we want to create two different

...balancing run to finish (which will take much longer than I thought; still running) I found out that as of kernel 3.3 changing the RAID level (aka restriping) is now possible: [2]. I got two questions now: 1.) Is there really no difference between btrfs-raid1 and btrfs-raid10 in my case (2 x 2TiB, 2 x 1TiB disks)? Same degree of fault tolerance? 2.) Summing up the capacities reported by ''btrfs filesystem df'' I only get ~2.25 TiB for my filesystem, is that a realistic net size for 3 TiB gross? $ btrfs filesystem df /mnt/archive Data, RAID1: total=2.10T...

...info in Cylinder 0 that XP needed for boot-time support. After a few more systems, I discovered that XP only wrote it if the boot volume passed the 33.8GB (32GiB) barrier -- at least on my disks that were BIOS LBA32 geometry with Sectors/Heads of 63/255. On newer disk arrays that break the 2.2TB (2TiB) barrier by supporting LBA48 / >255 heads, you _must_ basically use a LDM Disk Label. It appears Microsoft is not interested in any more "hacks" to support legacy BIOS/DOS Disk Labels -- especially given the fact that a lot of PC BIOS' out there are "broken" in their Ext...

Hello syslinux list, I have installed Arch over a btrfs-formatted dos/MBR primary partition* (no btrfs subvolumes, just installing everything including /boot in the root of the btrfs). I have been unsuccessful for several days trying to get it to boot with syslinux (6.02-8 package from Arch, also tried 4.07-1 Arch package). All I am getting is the copyright header line and a blinking cursor

Hello What is the largest file size that can be created on Linux ? is there any limitation ? Thanks

...c on irc about it, but I haven't managed to get a hold of him > so far. The only person I recall getting that advice was attempting to chainload from Windows to a btrfs volume. > * I am not using gpt because I want dual boot with winXP. This should be OK as long as you're under the 2TiB limit on total disk size and your BIOS cooperates. -- -Gene

...t managed to get a hold of him >> so far. > > The only person I recall getting that advice was attempting to > chainload from Windows to a btrfs volume. > >> * I am not using gpt because I want dual boot with winXP. > > This should be OK as long as you're under the 2TiB limit on total disk > size and your BIOS cooperates. > > -- > -Gene > _______________________________________________ > Syslinux mailing list > Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com > Unsubscribe or set options at: > http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux > Plea...

(I've already sent this message to Ted Ts'o directly. I should have sent it to this list first but I didn't know about it until today. My apologies to Ted.) Last Friday a system that I just inherited refused to mount a file system that had been working fine for about 6 months. This is on a Scientific Linux 4.3 system using a 2.6.9 kernel. This is another Linux distribution based on

I have just finished creating an array on our new enclosure and our CentOS 5 server has recognized it. It shows as the full 6tb in the LSI configuration utility as well as when I ran fdisk: [root at HOST sbin]# fdisk /dev/sdb Note: sector size is 2048 (not 512) The number of cylinders for this disk is set to 182292. There is nothing wrong with that, but this is larger than 1024, and could in

Hi: I need advice on implementing a storage server. I really do not have the $ to spend for a Dell iSCSI storage divice and I am thinking trunning CentOS 5.x with ftp or FreeNAS. Here is what I am looking at and concerned about. Situation: My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually. This will increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough est.). This box