Re: 2.5 'what to expect'

[Jamie Lokier]

Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > Definitely.  I'm hoping that people will decide upon a userland that
> > supports the popular (non-raid) partition tables as well as the simple
> > raid partitions, too.
> 
> That reminds me.
> 
> Our DOS-type partition tables are close to their limit -
> regularly people complain about things that do not work
> with disks of size between 1 TB and 2 TB, and if not today
> then very soon we'll see disks too large to handle with
> DOS-type partition tables.
> 
> Two years ago or so I wrote some simple-minded stuff -
> maybe there also was discussion on Linux-type partition tables,
> I forgot all about it.
> (Maybe the format was plan9-inspired, with sequence number,
> start, size, label and uuid, all in ASCII.)
> 
> What is the situation today? What is the structure of these
> LVM or raid partition tables? Is there some natural type
> suitable for crossing the 2 TB limit?
> Is it better to invent a Linux-type partition table?

What are the limits of the "Windows Logical Disk Manager (LDM)"
partition format?  I've never used it myself, but it's there in
fs/partitions and presumably there are people using it on modern PCs.

-- Jamie