[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SATA 3TB: unsupported sector size -1548812288.

On 8/29/2011 11:58 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 30/08/11 13:52, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 8/29/2011 2:50 PM, Lisi wrote:
On Monday 29 August 2011 19:32:05 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
There is no
compatibility or other reason I know of that would force one to stay on

KDE 3.5.10.

The OP stated the machine with the problem is a server. I would guess
that most *nix sysadmins run servers with only a VGA text console. GUI
compat issues shouldn't be reason to avoid upgrading in this case.

I'd agree - though it should (and I'd be surprised if it isn't) be
possible to support larger drives by just upgrading the kernel without
upgrading to Squeeze.

Oh, it's certainly possible, with a backported or self built kernel, but most people posting here aren't into rolling their own kernels. If the OP who posted the question rolls his own kernels he would not have posted the question.

Also, I've not taken a full dive into the issue of 3TB drive support, but I'm guessing it would require much newer fdisk, parted, cfdisk, etc than what ships with Etch or Lenny. These probably haven't been back ported, so one would have to compile these from source. Again, most folks aren't into building system utilities such as these from source and getting them to work properly due to libc version dependencies, etc.

I can think of several industry reasons for not upgrading - but I'm
'assuming' they wouldn't apply in an instance where change control and
other policies allowed hardware to be purchased *without* checking for
support first.

I would make an educated guess that entities exercising system level change control policies probably aren't using Debian, but using a commercial distro such as Red Hat or SuSE.

I suspect you mean "proper *nix sysadmins"... I come across "sysadmins"
running servers from machines they use as desktops (they also backup to
the same machine).

Well, the latter aren't sysadmins. There aren't "proper" and "non-proper" sysadmins, only sysadmins. ;) Such folks as you describe fall into a lesser category of IT grunt. Feel free to pick your own name for them.


Reply to: