Slightly undersized CF cards with nanobsd images?
-
Just note, all 5 of the SanDisk cards I have are the same size - too small, and they are from a "reputable" brand…so you can't trust much.
You may have purchased "fake" SanDisk memory cards. They are mostly prevalent on auction sites and rarely on by major retailers.
-
Yes, even assuming 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes is not enough for many cards.
gloomrider started this thread and posted that he has a 1GB card with only 998,129,664 bytes.
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,18809.msg96850.html#msg96850
-
Yes, even assuming 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes is not enough for many cards.
gloomrider started this thread and posted that he has a 1GB card with only 998,129,664 bytes.
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,18809.msg96850.html#msg96850
Actually, I was referring to the previous poster's CF card sizes. But using that card as an example, it could still be used with a 512MB image.
All of the 2GB and 4GB Sandisk cards I have bought recently work just fine with nanobsd. I'm thinking the developers are having similar experiences and downsizing images for undersized cards are not a big priority. But that's just speculation on my part.
-
Just note, all 5 of the SanDisk cards I have are the same size - too small, and they are from a "reputable" brand…so you can't trust much.
You may have purchased "fake" SanDisk memory cards. They are mostly prevalent on auction sites and rarely on by major retailers.
Doubtful, they came with my Alix boxes from NetGate, so I suspect they are legit.
-
The sizes have been nudged down a tad, so keep an eye on the snapshots for new images:
https://rcs.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense-tools/repos/mainline/commits/7ff3db783970b1fadf0ffbea06bcae0c3dc23ed2
-
Thanks!
-
Is it better to use 2 GB image with 2 GB cards? Since my 2 GB cards also couldn't fit the old 2 GB images, I've been using the 1 GB images forever.
-
Is it better to use 2 GB image with 2 GB cards? Since my 2 GB cards also couldn't fit the old 2 GB images, I've been using the 1 GB images forever.
That is really up to you. Some people believe they will use all the space, so they don't want to "waste" any, but also consider what databeestje wrote in this post:
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,17369.msg97591.html#msg97591 -
Is anyone still having a problem with current nanobsd images not fitting on their cards?
The sizes were reduced by a good chunk to accommodate the smallest ones that were posted.
-
I have not reflashed any of the "2GB" cards that I was using.
I'll give it a shot when I get a chance and let you know. -
I just hit the problem 8-(
The CF is a Transcend Ultra 1 GB Industrial.
Here's what I got :```
[root@gojira pfSense]# zcat pfSense-1.2.3-1G-20090918-0711-nanobsd.img.gz | dd of=/dev/xvdb1 bs=16k
dd: writing `/dev/xvdb1': No space left on device
28821+0 records in
28820+0 records out
472195584 bytes (472 MB) copied, 32.5402 seconds, 14.5 MB/s -
I just hit the problem 8-(
The CF is a Transcend Ultra 1 GB Industrial.
Here's what I got :```
[root@gojira pfSense]# zcat pfSense-1.2.3-1G-20090918-0711-nanobsd.img.gz | dd of=/dev/xvdb1 bs=16k
dd: writing `/dev/xvdb1': No space left on device
28821+0 records in
28820+0 records out
472195584 bytes (472 MB) copied, 32.5402 seconds, 14.5 MB/sThat's a different problem. Your card filled up after 472 MB.
-
Ooops, you're right.
Sorry 8-(Stupid partition table on brand new CF…
Now nicely working :```
[root@gojira pfSense]# zcat pfSense-1.2.3-1G-20090918-0711-nanobsd.img.gz | dd of=/dev/xvdb1 bs=16k
60858+0 records in
60858+0 records out
997097472 bytes (997 MB) copied, 57.9339 seconds, 17.2 MB/s -
Finally getting a chance to work on this again (this is a project at work, so its get time when I have time to spare :)).
Flashed the slightly reduced images onto my "2GB" cards…
Successfully!
About to overwrite the contents of disk 2 with new data. Proceed? (y/n) y
2001194496/2001194496 bytes written in totalBoot fine as well. Thanks for taking the feedback and working with it, it is appreciated.
