Re: 48-bit LBA "upgrade" - is a complete repartition required?

• Previous message: Joseph Harvell: "Promise SATAII 150 TX4"
• In reply to: Rodd Snook: "Re: 48-bit LBA "upgrade" - is a complete repartition required?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:52:13 GMT

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:01:41 +1100, Rodd Snook wrote:
> No, Linux does not see the full capacity because I'm running an old
> kernel without 48-bit LBA support. It came in with 2.4.19, and I have
> 2.4.18. A browser of the kernel development mailing list archives seems
> to indicate that the BIOS upgrade is a Good Idea anyway -- some older
> controllers can have issues even if Linux is bypassing the BIOS.
>
> I'm really just wondering if the existing partition table is still going
> to be valid when I upgrade the kernel.

 Don't worry about upgrading your kernel. When you boot up with the new
kernel, the partition table will still correctly describe a 137GB
partition on each disk. Linux doesn't mind that the partitions don't use
the whole disk. Also, Linux doesn't depend on the partition table to
find the size of the whole disk, so you're not going to confuse it.

 If you work out how to boot with BIOS LBA48 support, you can extend your
partitions by using parted, for example. It knows how to grow the
filesystem on the partition, too, the way resize2fs does. (I don't think
it knows how to grow LVM or RAID, so you'll have to use mdadm or pvresize
(the latter is unfortunately not implemented yet)). If you can live with
keeping /boot on a filesystem within the first 137GB (not necessarily on
its own filesystem, though. I usually leave /boot as part of the root
filesystem, and have LVM logical volumes for /home, /usr, /var/cache, etc.
on RAID1 or non-RAID as appropriate for the volume :)

 So anyway, the simplest thing for you to do is create new partitions in
the free space which an upgraded Linux will be able to see.

If you use the same RAID level as on the other partitions, add them to LVM
volume group you already have, otherwise make a new VG. I like to have a
RAID1 volume group (for /, /home, /usr/local, and stuff like that) and a
non-RAID volume group (for /var/cache, /usr/src, and other places I put
stuff I could download again, or that I don't really mind losing.)

-- 
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X(peter@cor , des.ca)
"The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
 Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
 my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BC

• Previous message: Joseph Harvell: "Promise SATAII 150 TX4"
• In reply to: Rodd Snook: "Re: 48-bit LBA "upgrade" - is a complete repartition required?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]