From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Goswin von Brederlow Subject: Re: RAID6 questions Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:57:56 +0200 Message-ID: <87iqiaofpn.fsf@frosties.localdomain> References: <2bdd5a4c0907020822s7d136681g23a4e34e13f0be8@mail.gmail.com> <871vozox2r.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <87f94c370907021513mfd59e27g87e0deac74e4bfb9@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87f94c370907021513mfd59e27g87e0deac74e4bfb9@mail.gmail.com> (Greg Freemyer's message of "Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:13:39 -0400") Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Greg Freemyer Cc: Goswin von Brederlow , Marek , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de List-Id: linux-raid.ids Greg Freemyer writes: > 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 In case someone misunderstands, the "It certainly is safe. But it seems stupid as well." refers to creating 20+ raid6. Not the major/minor problem. :) MfG Goswin