2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

[stj]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

if your not in the root folder then:
mkdir /drive2

[binsonk]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

Okay, I'll delete the folder /drive2, then execute that command.

Sorry, same result: mount point /drive2 does not exist

[stj]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

if you type:
ls /
you should see all the folders & files in root - it should include that folder

[stj]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

btw, why are you using puppy instead of something "bigger" like openSuSE or MINT ?

[stj]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

i just thought of something.

when i refer to the root, i mean the root of the drive, not a folder called "root"

[binsonk]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

Speed & efficiency. It does everything I want. Does it quickly. Small enough to understand. I use it for everything. There are many versions, with special capabilities. Good rescue disk as well.

[binsonk]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

I put a folder in the root of the drive. It had an odd symbol on it. And when I ran the command mount -a, I got a similar result: 'special device /dev/sdb1 does not exist.' I'll try it again with the mkdir command.

Same thing: special device /dev/sdb1 does not exist

Regarding naming of the partition. GParted called the hard drive sdb. I don't really know what Puppy calls the partition because Puppy doesn't see it. There is only one partition on this drive, so I assume it is named sdb1.

[stj]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

special device?
so not mount-point this time?

sounds like the problem is now how the drive was formatted.

[binsonk]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

Yes, when I make a directory in root (as in / ) the folder has a small circle on the top edge. I check Properties of this directory, under "Type: mount point for /dev/sdb1 (unmounted)". The next line below that, "inode/mount-point"

I believe the "special device" is /dev/sdb1.

The drive was set up as ext3 with GParted.

I changed the name of the partition to sdb, with the following result

# mount -a
[mntent]: line 2 in /etc/fstab is bad

[stj]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

sdb is the second drive,
sdb1 is the first partition on it.

when you used gparted, did you remember to format the partition after you wrote the partition table?

[stj]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

a bit more:

sd is scsi-device - dont worry about the fact your using SATA - the commands are still scsi

a,b etc is the drive number.
so the first drive is sda, the second is sdb and so on.
the number at the end is the partition number.

[Per Hansson]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

Opinion: The limitation is on how much internal disk space the SATA controller can manage. Each SATA port does not have a separate controller.There is only one SATA controller for both onboard SATA ports. It doesn't matter how many hard drives are in operation. What matters, what is limited, is the aggregate internal disk capacity. The SATA controller is controlled by BIOS, which cannot see more than 2.1 TB. This is a design limitation, not a bug.

That is incorrect, the limitation is per device.
Disks are accessed using LBA's.
If you have a second drive you wont suddenly be adding LBA's to the first, unless you create a RAID or JBOD array.

Keep in mind of course that there could be special BIOS bugs, like the one I mentioned in my first post.

What output does one or both of these commands show?
sfdisk -luM
fdisk -l

And also by default a Dell BIOS will not enable unused ports in the BIOS, have you enabled the port for this disk in the BIOS and what size does the BIOS say it has?

[binsonk]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

Both SATA ports are enabled in BIOS. The second drive is correctly identified as well.

# fdisk -l
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 2614 20992000 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 2614 243074 1931497472 83 Linux
/dev/sda3 243074 243202 1024000 82 Linux swap

Noted: /dev/sdb1 is not listed

As expected, BIOS shows identical drives for Drive 1 (SATA-0) and Drive 2 (SATA-2), each sized 2 TB

I can't say with certainty that I formatted the first hdd, but I can say with certainty that I formatted the second hdd. Doesn't GParted format automatically when it sets up a partition?

If formatting is an issue, I can re-install Linux on the 20-gig sda1 partition after formatting.

Before I installed the first 2TB hdd as a single drive, I had two SATA drives working, 1TB and 500GB. These two drives never had a problem being recognized.

[binsonk]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

I just appended fstab to make /dev/sda2 automount. After adding the line and creating a directory in root named data, I ran 'mount -a'. This produced no error, and the drive was mounted. However, when I rebooted, the drive was not automounted. When I clicked /etc/fstab, the drive mounted. I can live with this shortcoming, because I open at least three instances of /dev/sda2 when I first boot to desktop, by clicking its icon three times. I just wanted to draw the distinction between appending fstab for a partition /dev/sda2 that actually exists and a partition /dev/sdb1 that the OS does not see, for which GParted reports No devices present. There is no icon for /dev/sdb1, and never has been.

[stj]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

can you test the second drive in another computer, AND format it.
btw, afaik parted does not format the partitions unless you tell it to.

[binsonk]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

Another nice thing about Puppy is that I can put it in another computer, just like Win98. Having reached the point of needing another hdd, I am in transition. I have a candidate for switching out these two drives. It's a dual core Dell Precision with 4GB ram. Only problem is, it's physically narrow, so I can't set a monitor on top of it, not stably. I will remind you that the newer drive is already tested as a single drive in this computer (Dimension 3100). I partitioned and formatted it in this computer, after I temporarily removed the original drive. What am I testing when I put it in another computer?

Just to confuse things more, I will introduce another variable in this. The second drive has 20 GB of unpartitioned space at the beginning of the drive, for the purpose of making it the main hdd should the original drive fail. It also has about 700 MB of unpartitioned space at the end of the drive, for linux swap. Contingency planning, like that.

[goontron]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

Another nice thing about Puppy is that I can put it in another computer, *snip*.

you can do that with any linux system, and you can do that with BSD aswell.

[binsonk]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

I tried another workaround. I installed a PCI SATA controller card. I connected the data cable from the second hdd to the card. The card setup menu provided the option of "Spare Drive", which I tried. The OS still does not recognize the second drive. A colleague told me that Windows doesn't normally see a large second drive either, but that the hardware manager software forces the detection.

[brethin]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

The 2TB not 2.1TB limit is per drive not total space unless you are doing a raid (pre OS via raid bios etc).
Your system should see as many drives up to the 2TB limit as you have ports to connect them too. You can not combine them pre or post OS though and go over the 2TB limit.
Its as simple as that and any issues you are having accessing the drives are not OS related but are simple lack of knowledge or oversight in the hardware setup or the OS operation.

[goontron]

Re: 2.1-TB limitation on hdd space for older computers

*snip
Its as simple as that and any issues you are having accessing the drives are not OS related but are simple lack of knowledge or oversight in the hardware setup or the OS operation.

+1

Another nice thing about Puppy is that I can put it in another computer*snip

Windows not doing that is an issue with the NT being so broken that it breaks with things it shouldn't. any modern POSIX OS like Linux or BSD is somewhat modular and can be transplanted from any computer to any computer with the same architecture. good example of what was wrote above by brethin.