Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #3077 > unrolled thread

maximum number of partitions

Started byHaines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net>
First post2016-05-26 13:16 -0400
Last post2017-02-13 08:12 +0100
Articles 12 on this page of 72 — 16 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware


Contents

  maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-26 13:16 -0400
    Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-26 20:22 +0200
      Re: maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-26 16:02 -0400
        Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-26 21:02 +0000
          Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-27 00:36 +0200
          Re: maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-27 07:08 -0400
            Re: maximum number of partitions floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2016-05-27 04:03 -0800
              Re: maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-27 09:25 -0400
                Re: maximum number of partitions floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) - 2016-05-27 05:53 -0800
                  Re: maximum number of partitions Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-27 12:48 -0400
            Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-27 14:50 +0200
    Re: maximum number of partitions Vilmos Soti <vilmos@soti.ca> - 2016-05-26 12:40 -0700
    Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-26 22:29 +0200
      LVM [was: maximum number of partitions] Haines Brown <haines@engels.histomat.net> - 2016-05-27 07:44 -0400
        Re: LVM [was: maximum number of partitions] Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-27 18:07 +0200
    Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-05-26 22:27 +0100
      Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-27 06:05 +0000
        Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-05-27 08:36 +0100
          Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-27 12:17 +0200
          Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-27 18:49 +0000
            Re: maximum number of partitions Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2016-05-27 19:08 -0500
              Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-28 07:11 +0000
                Re: maximum number of partitions Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2016-05-28 09:22 -0500
        Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-05-27 10:07 +0200
        Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-27 18:07 +0200
          Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-27 20:30 +0200
            Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 00:05 +0200
              Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-28 04:45 +0200
                Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 07:26 +0200
                  Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-28 07:15 +0000
                    Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 10:25 +0200
                      Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-05-28 11:14 +0000
                        Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 13:52 +0200
                          Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-05-28 18:46 +0200
                            Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 19:57 +0200
                              Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-05-28 20:15 +0200
                                Re: maximum number of partitions Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2016-05-28 12:04 -0700
                                Re: maximum number of partitions Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2016-05-28 22:47 +0200
                                  Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-05-29 07:36 +0200
                                    Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-29 13:48 +0200
                        Re: maximum number of partitions Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-06-04 09:50 +0200
                          Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-05 10:10 +0000
                            Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0200
                              Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-05 13:53 +0000
                                Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-06-05 16:18 +0200
                                  Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-05 18:53 +0000
                                    Re: maximum number of partitions Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2016-06-05 17:58 -0400
                                      Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-06 14:09 +0000
                                        Re: maximum number of partitions Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2016-06-06 10:32 -0400
                                        Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-06-06 16:48 +0200
                                          Re: maximum number of partitions Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-06-08 22:23 +0200
                                        Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-06 15:55 +0100
                                          Re: maximum number of partitions Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-06-06 17:41 +0200
                                            Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-06 17:23 +0100
                                              Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-06-06 22:36 +0200
                                                Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-06 21:51 +0100
                                              Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-07 04:54 +0000
                                                Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-07 08:43 +0100
                                                  Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-07 19:04 +0000
                                                    Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-06-07 20:30 +0100
                                                      Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-08 07:08 +0000
                                          Re: maximum number of partitions Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2016-06-06 15:50 +0000
                              Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-06-05 16:03 +0200
                    Re: maximum number of partitions noSpam@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 18:57 +0000
                  Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-28 17:10 +0200
                    Re: maximum number of partitions Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-05-28 18:07 +0100
                      Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-05-28 21:33 +0200
    Re: maximum number of partitions novinhael@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 18:10 -0800
      Re: maximum number of partitions Robert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid> - 2017-02-08 07:58 -0600
      Re: maximum number of partitions faeychild <faeychild@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-02-13 15:23 +1100
        Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2017-02-13 08:04 +0100
      Re: maximum number of partitions "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2017-02-13 08:12 +0100

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]


#3156

FromHenrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com>
Date2016-06-08 07:08 +0000
Message-ID<nj8g8n$o4u$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#3155
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:30:35 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Yes, that’s what early userspace means.

Ok, I wrongly thought that you meant early startup scripts before going 
multiuser.

regards Henrik
-- 
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc351(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
root@localhost postmaster@localhost

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#3148

FromHenrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com>
Date2016-06-06 15:50 +0000
Message-ID<nj4649$okc$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#3146
On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 15:55:06 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> I thought fsck of / was done from early userspace.

Yes, this depends upon your distribution and its startup system. In 
Slackware, the startup script /etc/rc.d/rc.S is run before going to 
multiuser. It has the following lines:

-8<------------------------------
# Check the root filesystem:
if [ ! $READWRITE = yes ]; then
  RETVAL=0
  if [ ! -r /etc/fastboot ]; then
    echo "Checking root filesystem:"
    /sbin/fsck $FORCEFSCK -C -a /
    RETVAL=$?
  fi
  # An error code of 2 or higher will require a reboot.
  if [ $RETVAL -ge 2 ]; then
    # An error code equal to or greater than 4 means that some errors
    # could not be corrected.  This requires manual attention, so we
    # offer a chance to try to fix the problem in single-user mode:
    if [ $RETVAL -ge 4 ]; then
      echo
      echo "***********************************************************"
      echo "*** An error occurred during the root filesystem check. ***"
      echo "*** You will now be given a chance to log into the      ***"
      echo "*** system in single-user mode to fix the problem.      ***"
      echo "***                                                     ***"
      echo "*** If you are using the ext2 filesystem, running       ***"
      echo "*** 'e2fsck -v -y <partition>' might help.              ***"
      echo "***********************************************************"
      echo
      echo "Once you exit the single-user shell, the system will reboot."
      echo
      PS1="(Repair filesystem) \#"; export PS1
      sulogin
-8<------------------------------

So if fsck is able to automagically repair your / file system during boot 
everything is fine. If fsck fails you will be given a root prompt where 
you can make your own attempt to fix the broken / file system.

regards Henrik
-- 
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc351(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
root@localhost postmaster@localhost

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#3139

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es>
Date2016-06-05 16:03 +0200
Message-ID<c2od2d-vfk.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#3137
On 2016-06-05 14:31, Aragorn wrote:

> No...  The first step is to create a physical volume with 
> /sbin/pvcreate.  This can span an entire hard disk, so that the hard 
> disk doesn't even need to have a partition table (although it can), 

I heard recently of at least one distribution having problems with this
method. I would have to search to find out what the exact problem was.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#3161

FromnoSpam@gmail.com
Date2016-07-18 18:57 +0000
Message-ID<nmj8qk$jin$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#3105
In article <nibgi9$4rh$2@dont-email.me>, Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> wrote: 

> On Sat, 28 May 2016 07:26:46 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> 
> >>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:
> >>>> With separate partitions the damage is limited to single
> >>>> partition(s), the rest remain intact.
> >>> 
> >>> I guess you don't know how logical drives in an MSDOS disk label
> >>> extended partition work.
> >>
> >>Actually, I do.
> > 
> > Then, how do partitions 6+ survive if 5's partition sector is gone?
> 
It's not easy.

The last time my P23 became inaccessible because of the linked-chain
corrupting, I ended up <jumping over P23, from P 22 to P24>.

But I have fixed the chain/S a few times.

> Broken file systems is what you might get at power outage. Such problems 
> needs to get fixed by some fsck tool. Broken partition tables are really 
> rare.
> 
A diplomatic/evasive answer.

> regards Henrik

When in the 90s, when my ISP told that "Win3 is no longer supported,
you must get W95", I said "screw you", and looked around and found:
slackware3 & ETHoberon.  

Having knowledge of DOS:TurboPascal made the very optimised
Native-Oberon very productive for me. 
[Now I use ETH Oberon (2.4.3) for Linux x86, to write/send this;
because all my NNTP: pan,knode,pine are broken; this article 
fetched by pan & passed to ETH Oberon]

Since minimalist Native-Oberon used separate partitions instead
of a directory-tree, I had 12 topic-partitions; which needed 36
partitions, for 2-backups.

Plus a few linux partitions gives [using Oberon to call Linux]
System.Execute fdisk -l == ...
/dev/hda45           6582        6612      248976   82  Linux swap
/dev/hda46           6613        6720      867478+  4c  Unknown <-ETHO
/dev/hda47           6721        6869     1196811   4c  Unknown
/dev/hda48           6870        7018     1196811   4c  Unknown
/dev/hda49           7019        7194     1413688+  4c  Unknown
/dev/hda50  *        7195        7437     1951866   83  Linux
/dev/hda51           7438        7686     2000061   4c  Unknown
/dev/hda52           7687        7935     2000061   83  Linux
/dev/hda53           7936        8433     4000153+  83  Linux
/dev/hda54           8434        8557      995998+  83  Linux
/dev/hda55           8558        8584      216846    c  W95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/hda56  *        8585        9070     3903763+  83  Linux
/dev/hda57  *        9071        9729     5293386   83  Linux


[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#3112

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es>
Date2016-05-28 17:10 +0200
Message-ID<dvoo1d-jit.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#3103
On 2016-05-28 07:26, Marc Haber wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:
>> On 2016-05-28 00:05, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> wrote:
>>>> With separate partitions the damage is limited to single partition(s),
>>>> the rest remain intact.
>>>
>>> I guess you don't know how logical drives in an MSDOS disk label
>>> extended partition work.
>>
>> Actually, I do.
> 
> Then, how do partitions 6+ survive if 5's partition sector is gone?

I have never seen a corrupted partition table (or list, in this case)
because of power failure or software disaster (only because of operator
error or hardware failure in that precise area). Only the filesystem is
normally affected. On the other hand, there are good tools to find out
the partition layout if it is deleted. Plus, you can have the data to
recover the partition layout backed out, even printed in paper.

On the other hand, I have known of badly broken LVMs, and /I/ don't know
how to recover those. There are people that do know, but as I'm not one
of them, I keep out of using LVM for that precise reason ;-)

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#3115

FromRichard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk>
Date2016-05-28 18:07 +0100
Message-ID<87k2ieaz6i.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
In reply to#3112
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> writes:
> I have never seen a corrupted partition table (or list, in this case)
> because of power failure or software disaster (only because of operator
> error or hardware failure in that precise area). Only the filesystem is
> normally affected. On the other hand, there are good tools to find out
> the partition layout if it is deleted. Plus, you can have the data to
> recover the partition layout backed out, even printed in paper.
>
> On the other hand, I have known of badly broken LVMs, and /I/ don't know
> how to recover those. There are people that do know, but as I'm not one
> of them, I keep out of using LVM for that precise reason ;-)

The way you recover from any of these problems (whether or not you are
using LVM) is to restore from backups.  If you’re messing about with
recovery tools then you’ve already lost.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#3119

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es>
Date2016-05-28 21:33 +0200
Message-ID<vc8p1d-rd5.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#3115
On 2016-05-28 19:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> writes:
>> I have never seen a corrupted partition table (or list, in this case)
>> because of power failure or software disaster (only because of operator
>> error or hardware failure in that precise area). Only the filesystem is
>> normally affected. On the other hand, there are good tools to find out
>> the partition layout if it is deleted. Plus, you can have the data to
>> recover the partition layout backed out, even printed in paper.
>>
>> On the other hand, I have known of badly broken LVMs, and /I/ don't know
>> how to recover those. There are people that do know, but as I'm not one
>> of them, I keep out of using LVM for that precise reason ;-)
> 
> The way you recover from any of these problems (whether or not you are
> using LVM) is to restore from backups.  If you’re messing about with
> recovery tools then you’ve already lost.

On my worst disasters, only one partition was completely lost beyond
repair. On the rest, I could recover all without needing the backup.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#3281

Fromnovinhael@gmail.com
Date2017-02-07 18:10 -0800
Message-ID<40e85365-8ae9-4e29-879a-83409e4e3e93@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#3077
So none of you can come up with and answer? Come on people. Maximum number of partitions on a hard drive. easy question.


Found the answer here:
http://superuser.com/questions/368173/what-is-the-maximum-number-of-partitions-that-can-be-made-on-a-hard-drive

"The EFI specification mandates that a GUID Partition Table (GPT), which all modern operating systems support, is capable of containing a maximum of 128 partitions on any size hard disk. GPT is also required to boot from hard disk drives larger than 2 TB."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#3282

FromRobert Nichols <SEE_SIGNATURE@localhost.localdomain.invalid>
Date2017-02-08 07:58 -0600
Message-ID<o7f85g$8rg$1@omega-3g.local>
In reply to#3281
On 02/07/2017 08:10 PM, novinhael@gmail.com wrote:
> So none of you can come up with and answer? Come on people. Maximum number of partitions on a hard drive. easy question.
>
>
> Found the answer here:
> http://superuser.com/questions/368173/what-is-the-maximum-number-of-partitions-that-can-be-made-on-a-hard-drive
>
> "The EFI specification mandates that a GUID Partition Table (GPT), which all modern operating systems support, is capable of containing a maximum of 128 partitions on any size hard disk. GPT is also required to boot from hard disk drives larger than 2 TB."

That's not a limit.  The GPT can be any size from 4 partitions and up.  To be compatible with EFI, it needs to accommodate _at_least_ 128 partitions.

-- 
Bob Nichols         AT comcast.net I am "RNichols42"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#3283

Fromfaeychild <faeychild@nomail.afraid.org>
Date2017-02-13 15:23 +1100
Message-ID<o7rc8k$emt$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#3281
novinhael@gmail.com wrote:

> So none of you can come up with and answer? Come on people. Maximum number
> of partitions on a hard drive. easy question.
> 
> 
> Found the answer here:
> http://superuser.com/questions/368173/what-is-the-maximum-number-of-partitions-that-can-be-made-on-a-hard-drive
> 
> "The EFI specification mandates that a GUID Partition Table (GPT), which
> all modern operating systems support, is capable of containing a maximum
> of 128 partitions on any size hard disk. GPT is also required to boot from
> hard disk drives larger than 2 TB."

 I just fitted a 6TB drive today and I am sure fdisk suggested partitions 1 
- 128 and it insisted on GPT 


-- 
faeychild
Running kde on 3.14.43-desktop-1.mga4 kernel.
Mageia release 4 (Official) for x86_64

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#3284

From"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es>
Date2017-02-13 08:04 +0100
Message-ID<rc28nd-c6b.ln1@minas-tirith.valinor>
In reply to#3283
On 2017-02-13 05:23, faeychild wrote:
> novinhael@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> So none of you can come up with and answer? Come on people. Maximum number
>> of partitions on a hard drive. easy question.
>>
>>
>> Found the answer here:
>> http://superuser.com/questions/368173/what-is-the-maximum-number-of-partitions-that-can-be-made-on-a-hard-drive
>>
>> "The EFI specification mandates that a GUID Partition Table (GPT), which
>> all modern operating systems support, is capable of containing a maximum
>> of 128 partitions on any size hard disk. GPT is also required to boot from
>> hard disk drives larger than 2 TB."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table#Partition_table_header_.28LBA_1.29

«The partition table header defines the usable blocks on the disk. It
also defines the number and size of the partition entries that make up
the partition table. The EFI stipulates a minimum of 16,384 bytes be
reserved for the partition table array, so there are 128 partition
entries reserved, each 128 bytes long.»

Notice the wording "minimum". There can be implementations using bigger
sizes, thus.

>  I just fitted a 6TB drive today and I am sure fdisk suggested partitions 1 
> - 128 and it insisted on GPT 
> 
> 


-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#3285

From"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es>
Date2017-02-13 08:12 +0100
Message-ID<4s28nd-3cb.ln1@minas-tirith.valinor>
In reply to#3281
On 2017-02-08 03:10, novinhael@gmail.com wrote:
> So none of you can come up with and answer? Come on people. Maximum number of partitions on a hard drive. easy question.
> 
> 
> Found the answer here:
> http://superuser.com/questions/368173/what-is-the-maximum-number-of-partitions-that-can-be-made-on-a-hard-drive
> 
> "The EFI specification mandates that a GUID Partition Table (GPT), 
> which all modern operating systems support,
> is capable of containing a maximum of 128 partitions on any size
> hard disk. GPT is also required to boot from hard disk drives larger than 2 TB."

No, not that easy. Traditional or new (GPT)? Version of driver? Because
traditional partitions with the old scsi drivers was limited to 15
partitions (numbered 1 to 15). And Haines Brown is using traditional
partitions (he has one primary, then logicals from number five upwards,
thus there must be one extended. Still, his setup is within that limit.

With the current driver, however, there is no limit on the number of
traditional partitions.

-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.hardware


csiph-web