On Thu 04 Aug 2022 at 13:27:34 (-0400), gene heskett wrote:
> On 8/4/22 10:47, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> > From: Charles Curley
> > Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2022 13:39:00 -0600
> > > The preparation of any storage medium requires at least two steps. To
> > > format means ...
> > >
> > > In an
On Wed 03 Aug 2022 at 08:37:24 (-0700), pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> From: David Wright
> Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 14:15:26 -0500
> > So "primary store" probably means Master Copy of Your Data.
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/primary#Adjective sense 2.
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/master#Ad
On 8/4/22 10:47, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
From: Charles Curley
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2022 13:39:00 -0600
The preparation of any storage medium requires at least two steps. To
format means ...
In another step one lays down a file system: ...
Understood, at a superficial level at least.
From: Charles Curley
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2022 13:39:00 -0600
> The preparation of any storage medium requires at least two steps. To
> format means ...
>
> In another step one lays down a file system: ...
Understood, at a superficial level at least. Haven't invented or
implemented a fil
> ... reformat the card to an ext format and you can forget about that.
According to several other messages alignment and block size are
concerns in reformatting.
> So "primary store" probably means Master Copy of Your Data.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/primary#Adjective sense 2.
https://en
In previous copies of this message I omitted attribution of the quotes.
From: David Wright
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 14:15:26 -0500
> ... reformat the card to an ext format and you can forget about that.
According to several other messages alignment and block size are
concerns in reformatt
> ... reformat the card to an ext format and you can forget about that.
According to several other messages, alignment and block size are concerns.
> So "primary store" probably means Master Copy of Your Data.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/primary#Adjective sense 2.
https://en.wiktionary.org/
From:
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 06:58:27 +0200
> AFAIU, the only critical parameter for a partitioner is the alignment,
> anyway.
> ...
> AFAIK there is no "protocol" for the media to tell your OS about its
> preferred block size, and (USB/MMC) flash storage cheats anyway (the
> reality is ju
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 05:07:06PM -0700, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
[...]
> 8 x 10^9 bytes / 1.6 x 10^7 sectors
> ~= 8/16 x 10^3 bytes/sector
> ~= 512 bytes/sector.
> A familiar old number.
>
> Gparted also shows 4.00 MiB unallocated bytes at the front of the
> device.
This is gparted's d
From: The Wanderer
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 12:29:54 -0400
> The filesystem that's on the device when it's shipped from the factory
> is almost certainly already configured in this way. My understanding is
> that that is usually what is meant by saying that the "factory format"
> of a flash
On Sun 31 Jul 2022 at 07:51:22 (-0700), pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> From: Linux-Fan
> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2022 21:37:37 +0200
> > Formatting it to ext2 should work and not cause any issues ...
>
> Other authorities claim "factory format" is optimal and wear of flash
> storage is a concern. A revise
On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 12:29:54PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2022-07-31 at 10:51, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
>
> > From: Linux-Fan
> > Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2022 21:37:37 +0200
>
> >> Formatting it to ext2 should work and not cause any issues ...
> >
> > Other authorities claim "factory
On 2022-07-31 at 10:51, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> From: Linux-Fan
> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2022 21:37:37 +0200
>> Formatting it to ext2 should work and not cause any issues ...
>
> Other authorities claim "factory format" is optimal and wear of flash
> storage is a concern. A revised "forma
pe...@easthope.ca writes:
From: Linux-Fan
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2022 21:37:37 +0200
> Formatting it to ext2 should work and not cause any issues ...
Other authorities claim "factory format" is optimal and wear of flash
storage is a concern. A revised "format" can impose worse conditions
fo
From: Linux-Fan
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2022 21:37:37 +0200
> Formatting it to ext2 should work and not cause any issues ...
Other authorities claim "factory format" is optimal and wear of flash
storage is a concern. A revised "format" can impose worse conditions
for wear? Does any manufactu
On Sat 30 Jul 2022 at 09:13:55 (-0700), pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> From: David Wright
> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 00:00:29 -0500
> > When you copy files that have varied permissions onto the FAT, you may
> > get warnings about permissions that can't be honoured. (IIRC, copying
> > ug=r,o= would not c
On Sat, 2022-07-30 at 22:26 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> Rumour goes that the processor in the stick/card can cope better with
> FAT. I don't know whether it's true, though.
A long time ago I heard something along the lines that the first blocks
in the storage device (where the the FAT woul
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 09:37:37PM +0200, Linux-Fan wrote:
> pe...@easthope.ca writes:
>
> > David,
> > thanks for the reply.
> >
> > From: David Wright
> > Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 00:00:29 -0500
> > > When you copy files that have varied permissions onto the FAT, you may
> > > get warnin
On Sat, 30 Jul 2022 09:13:55 -0700
pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> * In Linux, an ext file system avoids those complications. To my
> knowledge, all SD cards are preformatted with a FAT. Therefore ext
> requires reformatting.
Not quite. The preparation of any storage medium requires at least two
s
pe...@easthope.ca writes:
David,
thanks for the reply.
From: David Wright
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 00:00:29 -0500
> When you copy files that have varied permissions onto the FAT, you may
> get warnings about permissions that can't be honoured. (IIRC, copying
> ug=r,o= would not complain,
David,
thanks for the reply.
From: David Wright
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 00:00:29 -0500
> When you copy files that have varied permissions onto the FAT, you may
> get warnings about permissions that can't be honoured. (IIRC, copying
> ug=r,o= would not complain, whereas u=r,go= would.)
Pr
From:
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 06:22:53 +0200
> No. A FAT file system has no permissions (and no user/group ownership).
> All is faked one layer above.
Understood.
Aren't we saying the same thing in two ways. In natural language, 777
just means anyone can read & write & execute. 555 mea
On Thu 28 Jul 2022 at 14:49:03 (-0700), pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> https://tldp.org/FAQ/Linux-FAQ/partitions.html has this example.
>
> $ mkdir /dos $
> mount -t msdos -o conv=text,umask=022,uid=100,gid=100 /dev/hda3 /dos
>
> Therefore a new file receives permissions 755. Correct?
With these o
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 02:49:03PM -0700, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> https://tldp.org/FAQ/Linux-FAQ/partitions.html has this example.
>
> $ mkdir /dos $
> mount -t msdos -o conv=text,umask=022,uid=100,gid=100 /dev/hda3 /dos
>
> Therefore a new file receives permissions 755. Correct?
>
> But a
24 matches
Mail list logo
