Embedded images too big
jfine last edited by
I'm trying to install the 1.2.3 2G img on a 2GB SanDisk CF. The SanDisk reports 1908MB (rounded) which is 2000683008 bytes. The 2GB img is trying to copy 2001194496 bytes which will never fit.
So I have two questions. The first is, why is the size of the img larger than 2000000000 (the base 10 size of drives)? The second is, is the only solution to use a smaller img (ie the 1GB), if so what are the downsides?
Thanks for an awesome product and thanks for your help.
Trent_R last edited by
I think there aren't many downsides since (from my experience with software firewalls) it's unlikely that you'll ever come close to filling that 1GB.
I've got a 4GB card and used the 2GB image right away without even checking if the 4GB image fits my card.
I have to forward your thanks to the devs. It's a great product and the project shows a lot more activity than other software firewalls.
When the images were sized before, we polled the community and came up with a size that worked for the vast majority of people.
I have yet to see a card that they didn't fit on, but others have hit some since. Apparently, over the last year, some CF makers have shrank the size of their cards for no discernible reason.
We have shrank the 2.0 images a little, but really CF cards are dirt cheap even for 4GB cards there is little reason to keep getting 2GB cards…
jasonlitka last edited by
I've ordered a few MicroSDHC cards lately that have come in with varying sizes, even across the same part numbers. I think the factories are setting "minimums" and as long as the bad blocks aren't enough to push a card below they ship it. My guess is that the bare minimums are exactly what the OP suggested, base 10 representations.
jfine last edited by
Thanks guys. It's not a huge deal and like it was mentioned these cards just keep getting cheaper and cheaper every day. It's just that I bought the ALIX kit from Netgate and it came with a 2GB SanDisk CF so I was trying to install onto that. After banging my head a bit I thought it'd be good to investigate and after searching a bit on the forums and not finding much I thought it'd be good to post.
Personally I think it'd be be better to go for a "safe" size to try to fit 100% of the audience, maybe take the base 10 of 2GB and - 2-5%? I think legally the requirement of the drive manufactures is simply to hit the base 10 byte number, so for 2GB it'd be 2,000,000,000 bytes (1,907.34MB).
cmb last edited by
At the time the sizes were chosen about 15 months ago they fit every single card we and users could get our hands on, with room to spare. In the past month, SanDisk shrunk their cards (without changing the model number even, lovely) by 5%, leaving the images now too large. 2.0 shrinks them further.