From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Terrence Martin Subject: Re: Stock 2.6.4 with CONFIG_LBD=y and qla2xxx driver, reportswrongdevice size Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:28:28 -0800 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <40620B8C.1080207@physics.ucsd.edu> References: <200403242207.i2OM7wW19491@dns1.watkins-home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from newport.ucsd.edu ([132.239.73.89]:6850 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261170AbUCXW2g (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:28:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200403242207.i2OM7wW19491@dns1.watkins-home.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Guy Cc: 'James Bottomley' , 'SCSI Mailing List' Thanks Guy, I think I might just do that, create an MD device out of 3 equal sized disks. Where I may have gone wrong and gotten confused is that the Logical Drive limit is 64TB. However I have now read, and I assume it is still current, that each LUN is only 32bits limiting a LUN to 2TB. You then need some sort of additional RAID (hardware or software) presumably to map those LUNS to a single disk. Linux RAID0 should handle this nicely I think. Thanks Terrence Guy wrote: >Beyond my knowledge... Wish I was you! :) > >But, if the device has a bug like "bit 33 lopped off". >If he splits the array into 2 luns/devices then it may be fine. >Then create the RAID0 with them. > >Guy > >-----Original Message----- >From: James Bottomley [mailto:James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:01 PM >To: Guy >Cc: 'Terrence Martin'; 'SCSI Mailing List' >Subject: RE: Stock 2.6.4 with CONFIG_LBD=y and qla2xxx driver, >reportswrongdevice size > >On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 16:53, Guy wrote: > > >>This is just a guess!!!!! But I think I am correct. >> >> > >The standards are very explicit about what READ CAPACITY(10) should >return for a >2TB device. sd detects this and retries with a READ >CAPACITY(16). > >There is no message in the log indicating this happened, so I think the >device reported an incorrect size to READ CAPACITY(10). It may have >reported its size with bit 33 lopped off, but that's still a device >problem. > >James > > > > >