Verifying SD Cards

On 5/4/2016 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 5/4/2016 3:24 PM, mike wrote:
>> On 5/4/2016 11:46 AM, rickman wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2016 2:21 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2016 2:15 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume the SDHC cards topped out at 32 GB because they used FAT32
>>>>> which also tops out at 32 GB.  Rather than switch the format used,
>>>>> they
>>>>> just worked within that limit and postponed the bigger change for SDXC
>>>>> cards until later.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a bit confused.  I just looked it up and FAT32 has an upper
>>>> limit of
>>>> 2 TB!  So why can't FAT32 be used for one partition holding all of a 64
>>>> or 128 GB SD card?
>>>
>>> I did a little digging and there is some sort of functional limit to
>>> FAT32 at 32 GB but it seems to mostly be Microsoft's laziness by not
>>> supporting the creation of larger partitions with their built in tools,
>>> or maybe just some of them.  I found a utility that let me format the 64
>>> GB SDXC card to FAT32.
>>>
>>> So will I be able to boot a raspberry Pi from this SDXC card this way?
>>>
>>> http://arius.com/photos/FAT32_64GB.png
>>>
>> Isn't the FAT32 limit due to address space limitations?
>> If you want bigger partitions, you need to have bigger allocation units.
>> Wastes a lot of space if you have many small files.
>
> That's not a limit.  That's a tradeoff.

OK, but it's a tradeoff made by Microsoft.  You don't get to pick the 
standard.
You can choose to circumvent it and deal with any consequences.

It's like the highway speed limit.
Somebody else set that arbitrary limit well below the capabilities
of most automobiles.
Those who stay below it experience fewer undesirable
consequences than those who don't.

I suppose if you had millions
> of small files it would waste a lot of space.

My win7 C: drive has 987,441 files.

Up to that point it's a
> macht nichts or mox nix, your choice.
>
> The point is there is nothing to prevent the use of a single bootable
> partition on SDXC cards.
There's nothing to prevent YOU doing anything you want.
There are compatibility and marketing forces driving MS offerings.
>
> I really don't like partitioning mass storage into multiple smaller
> partitions.
>

On 5/4/2016 5:36 PM, mike wrote:
> On 5/4/2016 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
>> On 5/4/2016 3:24 PM, mike wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2016 11:46 AM, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2016 2:21 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2016 2:15 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume the SDHC cards topped out at 32 GB because they used FAT32
>>>>>> which also tops out at 32 GB.  Rather than switch the format used,
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> just worked within that limit and postponed the bigger change for
>>>>>> SDXC
>>>>>> cards until later.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a bit confused.  I just looked it up and FAT32 has an upper
>>>>> limit of
>>>>> 2 TB!  So why can't FAT32 be used for one partition holding all of
>>>>> a 64
>>>>> or 128 GB SD card?
>>>>
>>>> I did a little digging and there is some sort of functional limit to
>>>> FAT32 at 32 GB but it seems to mostly be Microsoft's laziness by not
>>>> supporting the creation of larger partitions with their built in tools,
>>>> or maybe just some of them.  I found a utility that let me format
>>>> the 64
>>>> GB SDXC card to FAT32.
>>>>
>>>> So will I be able to boot a raspberry Pi from this SDXC card this way?
>>>>
>>>> http://arius.com/photos/FAT32_64GB.png
>>>>
>>> Isn't the FAT32 limit due to address space limitations?
>>> If you want bigger partitions, you need to have bigger allocation units.
>>> Wastes a lot of space if you have many small files.
>>
>> That's not a limit.  That's a tradeoff.
>
> OK, but it's a tradeoff made by Microsoft.  You don't get to pick the
> standard.
> You can choose to circumvent it and deal with any consequences.
>
> It's like the highway speed limit.
> Somebody else set that arbitrary limit well below the capabilities
> of most automobiles.
> Those who stay below it experience fewer undesirable
> consequences than those who don't.

You've lost me.  There is no rule that you can't use a FAT32 volume over 
32 GB under windows.  You just can't easily make it.  I formatted my 64 
GB SDXC card in one partition with FAT32.  I'm not sure what you are 
trying to say.  Where is the down side?


>> I suppose if you had millions
>> of small files it would waste a lot of space.
>
> My win7 C: drive has 987,441 files.

Ok, how many are "small"?  Assuming each one wastes 16 kB, that's still 
just 32 MB total.  Much less than 0.1% of a 32 GB SD card.


> Up to that point it's a
>> macht nichts or mox nix, your choice.
>>
>> The point is there is nothing to prevent the use of a single bootable
>> partition on SDXC cards.
> There's nothing to prevent YOU doing anything you want.
> There are compatibility and marketing forces driving MS offerings.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

-- 

Rick C

On Wed, 4 May 2016 18:44:24 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> Gave us:

>You've lost me.  There is no rule that you can't use a FAT32 volume over 
>32 GB under windows.  You just can't easily make it.  I formatted my 64 
>GB SDXC card in one partition with FAT32.  I'm not sure what you are 
>trying to say.  Where is the down side?
>

  Windows being able to recognize and actually read files written past
that point on the drive.  Doh!

On Wed, 04 May 2016 19:08:13 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

>On Wed, 4 May 2016 18:44:24 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> Gave us:
>
>>You've lost me.  There is no rule that you can't use a FAT32 volume over 
>>32 GB under windows.  You just can't easily make it.  I formatted my 64 
>>GB SDXC card in one partition with FAT32.  I'm not sure what you are 
>>trying to say.  Where is the down side?
>>
>
>  Windows being able to recognize and actually read files written past
>that point on the drive.  Doh!


AFAIK, Windows has no problem reading FAT32 volumes up to 2TB.  It's
just that recent versions of FDISK (or equivalent) won't let you
create one bigger than 32GB.  The FDISK from Win98 had no such
restriction.  Third party versions can do that as well.

On 04 May 2016 18:41:09 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> declaimed the following:


>This irritates me too.  Lack of support can reduce the longevity of existing
>devices (it's now getting trickier to buy 2GB cards to work on old non-SDHC
>devices, for instance).
>
	Try finding 1GB Compact Flash cards! (My BOSS BR-600 won't work with
2GB CF cards -- though for real laughs, I have a 128MB [yes MB] TransFlash
sitting in arm's reach)
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

On Wed, 4 May 2016 18:44:24 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> declaimed the
following:


>Ok, how many are "small"?  Assuming each one wastes 16 kB, that's still 
>just 32 MB total.  Much less than 0.1% of a 32 GB SD card.

	Since 16kB is the cluster size for Windows on 32GB partitions...  NTFS
is only 4kB per cluster up to multiple TB partitions.

	But one may want to consider what the inherent SD card allocation unit
is (and if you can get the format to align the clusters with allocation
units).
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

On 5/4/2016 3:44 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 5/4/2016 5:36 PM, mike wrote:
>> On 5/4/2016 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2016 3:24 PM, mike wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2016 11:46 AM, rickman wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2016 2:21 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/4/2016 2:15 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I assume the SDHC cards topped out at 32 GB because they used FAT32
>>>>>>> which also tops out at 32 GB.  Rather than switch the format used,
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> just worked within that limit and postponed the bigger change for
>>>>>>> SDXC
>>>>>>> cards until later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm a bit confused.  I just looked it up and FAT32 has an upper
>>>>>> limit of
>>>>>> 2 TB!  So why can't FAT32 be used for one partition holding all of
>>>>>> a 64
>>>>>> or 128 GB SD card?
>>>>>
>>>>> I did a little digging and there is some sort of functional limit to
>>>>> FAT32 at 32 GB but it seems to mostly be Microsoft's laziness by not
>>>>> supporting the creation of larger partitions with their built in
>>>>> tools,
>>>>> or maybe just some of them.  I found a utility that let me format
>>>>> the 64
>>>>> GB SDXC card to FAT32.
>>>>>
>>>>> So will I be able to boot a raspberry Pi from this SDXC card this way?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://arius.com/photos/FAT32_64GB.png
>>>>>
>>>> Isn't the FAT32 limit due to address space limitations?
>>>> If you want bigger partitions, you need to have bigger allocation
>>>> units.
>>>> Wastes a lot of space if you have many small files.
>>>
>>> That's not a limit.  That's a tradeoff.
>>
>> OK, but it's a tradeoff made by Microsoft.  You don't get to pick the
>> standard.
>> You can choose to circumvent it and deal with any consequences.
>>
>> It's like the highway speed limit.
>> Somebody else set that arbitrary limit well below the capabilities
>> of most automobiles.
>> Those who stay below it experience fewer undesirable
>> consequences than those who don't.
>
> You've lost me.  There is no rule that you can't use a FAT32 volume over
> 32 GB under windows.  You just can't easily make it.  I formatted my 64
> GB SDXC card in one partition with FAT32.  I'm not sure what you are
> trying to say.  Where is the down side?

If you can make what you want and the result makes you happy, there's no 
downside for you.
If you expect broad support by the industry so that everything just works,
that's another issue.
MS cares about the latter.
>
>
>>> I suppose if you had millions
>>> of small files it would waste a lot of space.
>>
>> My win7 C: drive has 987,441 files.
>
> Ok, how many are "small"?  Assuming each one wastes 16 kB, that's still
> just 32 MB total.  Much less than 0.1% of a 32 GB SD card.

I think we had different math teachers...
10e6 x 16 x 10e3 = 16 x 10e9 bytes
>
>
>> Up to that point it's a
>>> macht nichts or mox nix, your choice.
>>>
>>> The point is there is nothing to prevent the use of a single bootable
>>> partition on SDXC cards.
>> There's nothing to prevent YOU doing anything you want.
>> There are compatibility and marketing forces driving MS offerings.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about here.
I concur.
>

On 5/4/2016 6:28 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 05/05/16 11:45, mike wrote:
>> I think we had different math teachers...
>> 10e6 x 16 x 10e3 = 16 x 10e9 bytes
>
> I agree. We obviously had different math teachers.
>
> Hint: 10e6 is ten million. 10e3 is ten thousand.
>
> Clifford Heath.
You are correct, I messed up the notation.
how about I say
One million files times 16 thousand bytes wasted per file = 16GB

On 5/4/2016 9:45 PM, mike wrote:
> On 5/4/2016 3:44 PM, rickman wrote:
>> On 5/4/2016 5:36 PM, mike wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2016 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2016 3:24 PM, mike wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2016 11:46 AM, rickman wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/4/2016 2:21 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/4/2016 2:15 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I assume the SDHC cards topped out at 32 GB because they used FAT32
>>>>>>>> which also tops out at 32 GB.  Rather than switch the format used,
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> just worked within that limit and postponed the bigger change for
>>>>>>>> SDXC
>>>>>>>> cards until later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm a bit confused.  I just looked it up and FAT32 has an upper
>>>>>>> limit of
>>>>>>> 2 TB!  So why can't FAT32 be used for one partition holding all of
>>>>>>> a 64
>>>>>>> or 128 GB SD card?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did a little digging and there is some sort of functional limit to
>>>>>> FAT32 at 32 GB but it seems to mostly be Microsoft's laziness by not
>>>>>> supporting the creation of larger partitions with their built in
>>>>>> tools,
>>>>>> or maybe just some of them.  I found a utility that let me format
>>>>>> the 64
>>>>>> GB SDXC card to FAT32.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So will I be able to boot a raspberry Pi from this SDXC card this
>>>>>> way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://arius.com/photos/FAT32_64GB.png
>>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't the FAT32 limit due to address space limitations?
>>>>> If you want bigger partitions, you need to have bigger allocation
>>>>> units.
>>>>> Wastes a lot of space if you have many small files.
>>>>
>>>> That's not a limit.  That's a tradeoff.
>>>
>>> OK, but it's a tradeoff made by Microsoft.  You don't get to pick the
>>> standard.
>>> You can choose to circumvent it and deal with any consequences.
>>>
>>> It's like the highway speed limit.
>>> Somebody else set that arbitrary limit well below the capabilities
>>> of most automobiles.
>>> Those who stay below it experience fewer undesirable
>>> consequences than those who don't.
>>
>> You've lost me.  There is no rule that you can't use a FAT32 volume over
>> 32 GB under windows.  You just can't easily make it.  I formatted my 64
>> GB SDXC card in one partition with FAT32.  I'm not sure what you are
>> trying to say.  Where is the down side?
>
> If you can make what you want and the result makes you happy, there's no
> downside for you.
> If you expect broad support by the industry so that everything just works,
> that's another issue.
> MS cares about the latter.

What "broad" support?  FAT32 works regardless of the partition size.  Do 
you know of any devices that won't work with a large FAT32 partition? 
Microsoft products work with it.


>>>> I suppose if you had millions
>>>> of small files it would waste a lot of space.
>>>
>>> My win7 C: drive has 987,441 files.
>>
>> Ok, how many are "small"?  Assuming each one wastes 16 kB, that's still
>> just 32 MB total.  Much less than 0.1% of a 32 GB SD card.
>
> I think we had different math teachers...
> 10e6 x 16 x 10e3 = 16 x 10e9 bytes

Yeah, that's the "new" math.  Where have *you* been?


>>> Up to that point it's a
>>>> macht nichts or mox nix, your choice.
>>>>
>>>> The point is there is nothing to prevent the use of a single bootable
>>>> partition on SDXC cards.
>>> There's nothing to prevent YOU doing anything you want.
>>> There are compatibility and marketing forces driving MS offerings.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about here.
> I concur.

Glad we are finally on the same page.

-- 

Rick C

On 5/4/2016 9:20 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On 04 May 2016 18:41:09 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> declaimed the following:
>
>
>> This irritates me too.  Lack of support can reduce the longevity of existing
>> devices (it's now getting trickier to buy 2GB cards to work on old non-SDHC
>> devices, for instance).
>>
> 	Try finding 1GB Compact Flash cards! (My BOSS BR-600 won't work with
> 2GB CF cards -- though for real laughs, I have a 128MB [yes MB] TransFlash
> sitting in arm's reach)

Yeah, I used to use a Magellan handheld GPS with the same issues.  Heck, 
earlier units didn't even work with 512 cards, or at least would only 
use the first 256 MB.  I have a small collection of 1GB SD cards just in 
case I want to go back to using that unit.

-- 

Rick C