Mkfs.vfat Problem! Generates Only 1gb Fs!

[daniel3000]

Hello,

preparing my new C3200 for pdaXrom I have a problem:
I partitioned the 6GB HDD into

/dev/hda1 128MB swap
/dev/hda2 512MB Linux
/dev/hda3 5.4GB Win95 FAT32 (LBA)

I wanted to format the large partition to FAT32 with

Code: [Select]

mkfs.vfat -F 32 /dev/hda3
However, if I mount the generated FS, it is only 1GB in size.
Is the mkfs.vfat program on pdaXrom buggy?
Or do I have to give some more options which I don't know of?

I also tried the [blocks] parameter of mkfs, using the exact blocks value which fdisk shows for this partition, but mkfs only gives an error message:

Code: [Select]

# mkfs.vfat -F 32 /dev/hda3 5374152
mkfs.vfat 2.11 (12 Mar 2005)
Warning: block count mismatch: found 1048576 but assuming 5374152
After mounting that FS, df -h shows indeed 5.1 GB free, but I am not sure if I ca trust the integrity of the FS.

Thanks for any hint!
daniel

[Meanie]

Hello,

preparing my new C3200 for pdaXrom I have a problem:
I partitioned the 6GB HDD into

/dev/hda1 128MB swap
/dev/hda2 512MB Linux
/dev/hda3 5.4GB Win95 FAT32 (LBA)

I wanted to format the large partition to FAT32 with

Code: [Select]

mkfs.vfat -F 32 /dev/hda3
However, if I mount the generated FS, it is only 1GB in size.
Is the mkfs.vfat program on pdaXrom buggy?
Or do I have to give some more options which I don't know of?

I also tried the [blocks] parameter of mkfs, using the exact blocks value which fdisk shows for this partition, but mkfs only gives an error message:

Code: [Select]

# mkfs.vfat -F 32 /dev/hda3 5374152
mkfs.vfat 2.11 (12 Mar 2005)
Warning: block count mismatch: found 1048576 but assuming 5374152
After mounting that FS, df -h shows indeed 5.1 GB free, but I am not sure if I ca trust the integrity of the FS.

Thanks for any hint!
daniel
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146127\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

run fsck.vfat on it?

[daniel3000]

fsck failed!

Now, I have apperantly found a solution:
The mkfs.vfat of the B+D emergency boot linux seemed to create a correct 5.1GB FS on /dev/hda3.
So far no problems.

But it is strange. The pdaXrom default mkfs.vfat indeed seems to have a bug.

daniel

[adf]

fsck failed!

Now, I have apperantly found a solution:
The mkfs.vfat of the B+D emergency boot linux seemed to create a correct 5.1GB FS on /dev/hda3.
So far no problems.

But it is strange. The pdaXrom default mkfs.vfat indeed seems to have a bug.

daniel
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146136\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

You know.... I was just setting up my 3100 so that using sd on usb storage I could boot desktops to DSL, and found exactly the same problem.  I just made a 1 gig on /mnt/card and a 3 gig on /mnt/card2

We'll see how the dsl installation goes

EDIT:  I switched my 6000 to OZ/GPE.  Thought I'd give the 4 gig sd a go in that. Perfect- I now have a 4 gig formatted SD

[Meanie]

how about we create a pdaxrom beta3 issues and workarounds thread and have it pinned? then all the issues and bugs for beta3 can be collected in a common thread and hopefully it will also have some useful workarounds so all the beta3 users have a handy thread to get their system relatively stable and usable much quicker and easier

[adf]

how about we create a pdaxrom beta3 issues and workarounds thread and have it pinned? then all the issues and bugs for beta3 can be collected in a common thread and hopefully it will also have some useful workarounds so all the beta3 users have a handy thread to get their system relatively stable and usable much quicker and easier
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146142\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

good idea.

re my earlier post DSL seem not to want to install over the usb to the Z ( I had to make an ext2 linux partition -1- and a fat partition -2- and script swapping their mount points for various uses.  PIA that DSL is being cranky. It would be nice to be able to boot a pc from the Z (using the toram option), and then set the z to usb networking and X-forward back into it.  I expect the whole thing, otr much of it, could be scripted, given that it would all live in the z (or pc ram)
Was that enough of a digression?

Back to your point.  We are all really hoping that something better (in the way beta 3 is good ) will come along, I think.  The use of Beta 3 isn't some mad ludditeness in the face of newer releases. it is a distate for some aspect of OZ or cacko and a distrust of the uboot based pdaXrom releases.

[Antikx]

how about we create a pdaxrom beta3 issues and workarounds thread and have it pinned? then all the issues and bugs for beta3 can be collected in a common thread and hopefully it will also have some useful workarounds so all the beta3 users have a handy thread to get their system relatively stable and usable much quicker and easier
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146142\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

I second it and will contribute.