Printable View
Hi!
I purchased a 200 Gb disk yesterday, and I was hoping that I could use without having to create several partitions due to partition size limits. Well, looks like a no go.
Does anyone know what the partition size limit is on kernel 2.4.18 and kernel 2.2.20??
Thanks!
Regards,
Ole S.
Hi Ole,
I am sure that one of my knowlegeable friends will answer your question.
My comment is that you SHOULD consider partitions, as this is much more effective when creating back-ups. And I know that you DO create backups :D
What I am saying is that your drive has the equivalent of 42 DVDs. A lot of stuff you have is probably on CD/DVD or you can get it from the net, so you would not want to back it up.
Other items are personal to you.....pictures, documents, music etc, and you would not be able to recreate them without backups that you have made yourself.
I would suggest that you give this some thought.
Cheers
:)
Addressable memory space is indeed a factor and limitation of a computing kernel, whether that is RAM, Hard Drive Space, or any form of storage. 32 Bit kernels have less addressable space than 64. Limitations are overcome by trickery such as paging, on board bios interrupts etc. and the file system or boot loader of choice or patching kernels.
In large data volumes, such as 200GB it is often better to have a few partitions. Sure you waist a little space but gain performs factors and other benefits. One I subscribe to is isolating the OS into its own partition so you can re-install it without messing up all those nice pieces of data you may have. Indexing a full volume of 200GB worth of files would take forever. Not to mention you want a boot partition and swap partition in typical fashion?
In a nutshell: Limitations are a factor of the kernel, which was passed a long time ago, the controller card, the file system, the bios of devices, chipsets of devices and the encoding method of the media. Today they are over come by translations in BIOS that talk to the media and the kernel. It’s hard to say exactly what your issue could be? As for the kernel: there is increased bit addressing support available through a patch for the latest kernel you mentioned. But even with that I believe the limitation factor is not yet breached for a drive of your size? More likely the limitation is in hardware or firmware?
from the answer google about ext3:
Filesystem block size:.. 1kB...........2kB...........4kB............8kB
File size limit:................16GB........256GB.......2048GB.....2048GB
Filesystem size limit:......2047GB...8192GB.....16384GB....32768GB
windows has some limitations too but the numbers are huge as above...