From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Freemyer Subject: Re: RAID6 questions Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:13:39 -0400 Message-ID: <87f94c370907021513mfd59e27g87e0deac74e4bfb9@mail.gmail.com> References: <2bdd5a4c0907020822s7d136681g23a4e34e13f0be8@mail.gmail.com> <871vozox2r.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <871vozox2r.fsf@frosties.localdomain> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Goswin von Brederlow Cc: Marek , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Marek writes: >> 6. Is it safe to have 20+ partitions for a RAID5,6 system? Most RAID >> related sources state that there's a limitation on number of >> partitions one can have on SATA drives(AFAIK 16), but i digged out >> some information about a recent patch which would remove this >> limitation and which according to some other source had also been >> accepted into mainline kernel, though I'm not sure about it. >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/701825 >> http://lwn.net/Articles/289927/ > > Should be 15 or unlimited. Look at the major/minor numbers of sda* and > sdb. After sda15 there is no space before sdb comes. So unless sda16 > gets a dynamic major/minor it can't be accessed. > > It certainly is safe. But it seems stupid as well. That patch went in 2.6.29 I'm pretty sure. Not that I have ever needed more than 15 partitions on one drive. And yes major/minor after the first 15 are now dynamic I believe. Greg -- Greg Freemyer Head of EDD Tape Extraction and Processing team Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer Preservation and Forensic processing of Exchange Repositories White Paper - The Norcross Group The Intersection of Evidence & Technology http://www.norcrossgroup.com