similar to: [PATCH 1/5] fat: fix minfatsize for large FAT32

Hi Ady, On 2016.02.25 02:08, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > There is an "extra" sector, in comparison to... what exactly? Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think I implied that the Large FAT32 fat size had an extra sector compared to minfatsize, when of course I meant the opposite (the Large FAT32 has one less sector than the minfatsize computed by the unpatched code, hence the check

> Hi Ady, > > On 2016.02.25 02:08, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > > There is an "extra" sector, in comparison to... what exactly? > > Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think I implied that the Large FAT32 fat size > had an extra sector compared to minfatsize, when of course I meant the > opposite (the Large FAT32 has one less sector than the minfatsize >

Hi Ady, Your insightful post prompted me to to a little bit more digging as to how the Ridgecrop algorithm computed its FAT size, with the result of my investigations presented below. NB: For those who don't want to go through this whole part, there's a TL;DR near the end. For reference, the computation of the FAT size all done in the GetFATSizeSectors(), the code of which is at [1]

On 02/26/16 09:54, Gene Cumm via Syslinux wrote: >> >> I'm not exactly sure how that would work (how would you mark those clusters >> as wasted when my understanding is that the FAT's can't provide any >> knowledge about them in the first place?) and unless it is automatically >> integrated and ran during the Syslinux installation, it sounds quite >>

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Pete Batard via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > Hi Ady, > > Your insightful post prompted me to to a little bit more digging as to how > the Ridgecrop algorithm computed its FAT size, with the result of my > investigations presented below. > > NB: For those who don't want to go through this whole part, there's a TL;DR

> When trying to installing Syslinux on a FAT32 drive formatted using > Ridgecrop's Large FAT32 formatting tool [1], the installer will bail due > to the minfatsize check, as there is an extra sector being used. This > fix addresses that. > > [1] http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/index.htm?fat32format.htm > The expression: "...as there is an extra sector being

In the following text, I am about to use terms such as "inaccurate". I don't mean to question what some code does, but rather to compare the expressions against what I think is a more accurate one, in theory. I mean no disrespect, and I am not saying that developers are doing the wrong thing. In addition, of course I could be wrong (or type in incorrectly, or some formatting

Hi Ady, I won't comment on the reasons why the original computation was wrong, but thanks for the detailed analysis. On 2016.02.26 08:05, Ady via Syslinux wrote: >> Thus we can finally get a formula for Fs that satisfies the above: >> >> Fs = (To - Rs + Nf * Cs) / ((Ss * Cs / Fe) + Nf) + 1 > > I believe such formula is slightly inaccurate too. > > My

Hi Gene, On 2016.02.26 11:49, Gene Cumm wrote: > I think there may be another answer to this: > > 1) a tool to fix the broken FSs by "wasting" the high clusters of the > file system, a non-destructive correction. As it stands they're > effectively wasted already and might risk a user thinking the file > system isn't full when in fact the FAT itself is.

On 2016.02.26 15:32, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > Regarding the "+1", when talking about the math (not the computer code > to achieve a result as accurate as it can be) Well, sorry, but I will not dissociate the context of application from the formula itself. I thought this was implied into what I wrote, which was in the context of fixing a computation algorithm bug. The sole

> > instead of _always_ adding "+1" (which would be > > incorrect and inefficient from the point of view of the resulting > > allocatable size). > > I carefully considered this, and I dispute the fact that this is incorrect. > (snip) > Still, I won't prevent you (or anybody else interested) to provide a > proper formula if you want. ;) >

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Pete Batard via Syslinux <syslinux at zytor.com> wrote: > Hi Gene, > > On 2016.02.26 11:49, Gene Cumm wrote: >> >> I think there may be another answer to this: >> >> 1) a tool to fix the broken FSs by "wasting" the high clusters of the >> file system, a non-destructive correction. As it stands they're

Hi, As I am embedding part of the Syslinux code in Rufus [1], I have encountered various issues that I would like to see addressed, so that I can keep most of my code in sync with the official mainline. Some of these fixes have to do with being more friendly with MSVC compilation, and other are fixes for actual Syslinux issues, that Rufus users have encountered. For convenience, the

Hi... I decided to delete my fat32 partition (sda1, with win2k on it). I did that with fdisk and added a linux partition, then formated it with "mkfs -t ext3 /dev/sda1" ... Everything seemed to work fine... I can even mount it with "mount -t ext3 /dev/sda1 /mnt" ... but there seem to be some fat32 rubbish left because when I do "mount /dev/sda1 /mnt" it seems to

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11805 Bug ID: 11805 Summary: Rsync -av source > destination does not wiite FAT of FAT32 USB stick correctly Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Hardware: x64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P5 Component: core

I know syslinux supports FAT16 and works very well, but how about FAT32? Does syslinux support FAT32? If so, which version? eg., 3.11 and above Thanks!

Sorry for the late response. I am set to digest on this list. One of my chief complaints about mailman (besides non-searchable archives), is that you can either get every message or digest, but not "digest except for threads to which I have responded for which I want every message directly". > The command line installers have the core module and the bootloader file, all embedded

hello, I plan to use rsync for backing up my data to a FAT32 USB disk. I'm running the last Mandriva linux 2006 and my filesystem is ext8 using UFT-8 charset. I run into a problem with some of my folders that have full caps names on the ext3 disk (/home/foo/BAR/ for example). When rsync creates the folder on the USB disk, it doesn't create /home/foo/BAR/ but /home/foo/bar/. And then

My problem is that whenever I try to copy a large file from a client machine to a fat32 partition (ext3 works fine) mounted under samba, the host linux machine will lock up completely. I can, however, copy small files to the fat32 partition just fine (ie. 1 KB to 1 MB size file), it's only when I copy files that are about 200 MB and larger, that the computer will lockup. NAT still

Hi, I have a problem backing up my music collection, that is stored on a fat32 formated hard drive to my ext3 formated backup drive (ext3 to ext3 works like a charm :) ). The problem is, that rsync always transfers all of the files and not only the one that were changed/added. I know of the limitations fat32 has but I can't find the correct options to run the backup. Thanks Thomas