Maybe this is a real dumb-[donkey] question, but ever since I upgraded my MBW-II (blue-ring) from a pair of 500 gig to a pair of 1T drives, (http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/upgrade-blue-ring-500gb-the-easy-way), I have been wondering… . .
What are the real, where-the-rubber-meets-the-road, limitations on the size of a hard drive that can be hooked up to a SATA controller, and why?
I already understand the existence of certain limits:
- The ancient and crufty "msdos" partitioning scheme will only go so far - and at 2T it's busting it's britches.
- As a corollary, will your file-system even boot using something like a GPT, (etc.), partitioning scheme?
- The limits to the size of a hard drive in your particular OS.
Aside from that - are there any real reasons why someone could not stick a SATA drive of arbitrary size into a system? (15T, 3.5P? etc… .)
One of the main reasons I'm asking is because I have a couple of 2T drives sitting around, that are just itching with the idea of climbing into my MBW-II - just for the heck of it.
I already have a perfectly good, working set of 1T drives in that box. And I know that if I try it with 2T drives, it won't catch fire, the GPL / Free Software Foundation won't sue me, and I won't go to Hell for it.
So, (assuming that the operating system can handle it), is there anything that intrinsically limits the size of a hard drive that I can attach?
What say ye?