Which size NanoBSD embedded would you like to see us ship for 1.2.3?
-
As cmb mentioned, the compromise seems to be to make the build system flexible enough to generate differently sized images… We're using 1GB industrial CF cards aswell for embedded.
-
Is there an issue with some hardware (32 bit) being unable to boot from >2GB CF cards? ???
-
And again, i guess there may be problems with this decisionmaking situation. I suggested that the original problem is the question (see my post above), then there may be a problem with interpreting the likely 2/3 votes for 4g, and i would wonder if the factory will spend time and energy with shipping nano in several size versions.
Do those who vote for 4g mean that they want the system partition be that size, or they just are to use this size of cf? If the factory image always lays down a 1g system partition wouldn't it be enough to fit the vast majority of the installations including the packages? Wouldn't it be an option to ship a simple script which adds another partition to make the other 1,3,7 or 15 gigs available, and adds it to the fstab, so everyone can enjoy their actual sizes?
-
I have several systems deployed where 256MB CF cards are used, does this pool means that in the future I won't be able to upgrade them to newer releases?
-
I have several systems deployed where 256MB CF cards are used, does this pool means that in the future I won't be able to upgrade them to newer releases?
Yes, 512 MB will be the minimum for 1.2.3 and newer. The dual partition scheme of nanobsd means double the space is required, and we're at a 256 MB minimum each to ensure future upgradability (actually less than that, part is the configuration partition).
-
Yes, 512 MB will be the minimum for 1.2.3 and newer. The dual partition scheme of nanobsd means double the space is required, and we're at a 256 MB minimum each to ensure future upgradability (actually less than that, part is the configuration partition).
so a 4gb image will fit on a 4gb card and not need an 8gb card?
can a 2gb image accept a 4gb image upgrade or is it a complete reinstall?
silly me…... has put a 2gb image on a 4gb card!!!
-
Yes, you can flash a smaller image to a larger card.
No, you can not switch from one size to another from my knowledge.No problem.
As a side note to the wear leveling. Almost all newer cards use wear leveling now. If you buy a cheap 8Go card and flash the 2GB image there will effectively be 6Go not used.
However, the wear leveling of flash cards will use these cells for wear leveling. This means that the life expectancy of your cheap Compact Flash card will now be effectively 4 times as long.I am still using the same consumer 1GB apacer 133x card I purchased over 2 years ago with my Full install. Although the card is only 1Go I am only using ~120Mo of space, this means that the card life should be expected to be a lot longer, based on the number of write cycles per cell, which doesn't change.
Something to keep in mind.
Side Note: The (very cheap) no name 1Go CF cards I got from PCengines.ch with my alix boards failed within the year, it appears these cards did not have wear leveling. This was even with a embedded release on them. You should be safe to assume that any consumer Compact flash card with a higher operating speed should have wear leveling. Atleast from the major brands.
e.g. Kingston, Sandisk and Apacer. Others might work as well. -
that's interesting…..
are you sayng that it's actually better to have unused space on a CF card?
so with my example above, where i'm using a 2gb image on a 4gb card..... the card would have a longer lifecycle that with a 4gb image on a 4gb CF? card for card of course! -
Well this is a bit late but…I assume this card would work OK
http://www.amazon.com/Sandisk-Compact-SDCFH-004G-Package-RescuePRO/dp/B002T84DQI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1263355975&sr=8-1