From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: 64-bit SCSI LUN addressing on Linux Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:06:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20050630170634.GA31249@infradead.org> References: <42C41745.1020302@datadirectnet.com> <42C4245C.8010008@torque.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:30856 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263006AbVF3RGg (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:06:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42C4245C.8010008@torque.net> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Douglas Gilbert Cc: "Martin W. Schlining III" , Linux-SCSI Mailing List On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 12:57:00PM -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > Martin W. Schlining III wrote: > >Does Linux support 64-bit SCSI LUN addressing? > > No. Linux supports 32 bit LUNs. > > >Suppose I have a system > >that can create SCSI LUNs that are greater than 2TB using a block size > >of 512 bytes and can accept 16 byte CDBs, can I use this LUN with a 2.6 > >series Linux kernel? > > There is no relationship between 64 bit LUNS (which, > for example, support a hierarchy of up to 4, 16 bit LUNs) > and the ability of a logical unit (LU) (e.g. a disk) to > support 64 bit logical block addressing (LBA). > > Christoph's reply more accurately addresses the question > I think you were trying to ask... Yeah, people tend to say LUNs when they mean storage devices a lot, so I've started to look over the slight misuses if things make sense otherwise.