1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 02:19 on Wednesday 24 November 2010, Peter |
2 |
Humphrey did opine thusly: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Tuesday 23 November 2010 23:54:19 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
5 |
> > 16 for SCSI is plenty in real life, |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Well, you'd think so, but in my meddling days I hit my head on the |
8 |
> ceiling. My other box, with whatever version of IDE was current then, |
9 |
> had three more. |
10 |
|
11 |
Oh, I've hit that limit too. But each time I was being thick in the head. |
12 |
|
13 |
Besides, with that many partitions, you are going to need more flexibility |
14 |
than you can get with fdisk, you are going to want to move them around and |
15 |
resize them, so |
16 |
|
17 |
use LVM. Sorted |
18 |
|
19 |
> > and it's a hardware limitation not a software one so the driver can't |
20 |
> > be updated for this. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> That's what I was asking about. What hardware limit is that? |
23 |
|
24 |
The SCSI disk controller will only deal with 16 partitions. |
25 |
|
26 |
> > 24 drive letters has *nothing* to do with partition number limits. |
27 |
> > They are not even vaguely related. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Just, if you happened to have 24 partitions, Windows would be ready to |
30 |
> label them all. Foresight? Windows? Must be a mirage. |
31 |
|
32 |
No it won't label them, it will give them some arbitrary name ordered in some |
33 |
arbitrary fashion and make that your de-facto access method. |
34 |
|
35 |
It's perfectly reasonable to predict the user would want to name a disk by any |
36 |
name they chose, and for the vendor to have made this possible right from the |
37 |
very beginning. But no, it worked for floppies so we'll just keep using for |
38 |
everything else even when it makes no sense at all... |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |