Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #203854 > unrolled thread

Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? conover@rahul.net (John Conover) - 2019-01-03 09:10 +0100
    Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 11:40 +0100
      Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2019-01-03 21:10 +0100
        Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 11:00 +0100
          Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-04 14:40 +0100
            Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 17:30 +0100
              Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-04 17:40 +0100
                Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 05:00 +0100
              Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-04 17:40 +0100
                Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2019-01-04 18:50 +0100
              Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2019-01-04 20:10 +0100
                Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-05 10:30 +0100
                  Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-01-05 10:40 +0100
                    Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-05 12:00 +0100
                Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-07 13:30 +0100
            typos (was: Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card?) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 04:20 +0100
            Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 04:20 +0100
            Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-05 04:40 +0100
              Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-05 10:10 +0100

#203854 — Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card?

I'm want to format a "standard" 16G/32G SD card to OEM format.

Could someone please verify that the following will do this:

    mkdosfs -I /dev/sdX
    fdisk /dev/sdX n,p,1,default,default,w
    mkfs.vfat /dev/sdX1

It seems to work, but could someone please verify that its correct?

    Thanks,

    John

-- 

John Conover, conover@rahul.net, http://www.johncon.com/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#203860

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 12:07:21AM -0800, John Conover wrote:
>I'm want to format a "standard" 16G/32G SD card to OEM format.
>
>Could someone please verify that the following will do this:
>
>    mkdosfs -I /dev/sdX
>    fdisk /dev/sdX n,p,1,default,default,w
>    mkfs.vfat /dev/sdX1
>
>It seems to work, but could someone please verify that its correct?


The "mkdosfs" seems to be superfluous, to me. As far as I can see, that
will put a FAT16 filesystem directly onto the device. You then write a
MBR-type filesystem over the top of it, and then a FAT32 filesystem into
the sole partition.

That said the documentation for mkdosfs "-I" is pretty unclear so
perhaps it's doing something that you intend and I have missed.

I assume  the arguments to fdisk are intended to indicate the
interactive options you would supply when running it and are not
explicitly command-line arguments. I think fdisk will suggest an offset
for the partition that is a multiple of the physical block size already,
which you probably want.


-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203899

Le 03/01/2019 à 11:35, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 12:07:21AM -0800, John Conover wrote:
>> I'm want to format a "standard" 16G/32G SD card to OEM format.

What is "OEM format" ?

>> Could someone please verify that the following will do this:
>>
>>    mkdosfs -I /dev/sdX
>>    fdisk /dev/sdX n,p,1,default,default,w
>>    mkfs.vfat /dev/sdX1
>>
>> It seems to work, but could someone please verify that its correct?
> 
> The "mkdosfs" seems to be superfluous, to me.

It does not seem to, it is. It may also cause a lot of confusion if 
enough of the FAT boot sector is left untouched by the partition table.

Also, note that mkdosfs is the same as mkfs.vfat.

> As far as I can see, that
> will put a FAT16 filesystem directly onto the device.

No, the FAT type is chosen from the device size unless explicitly 
specified. 16 or 32 GB will select FAT32.

> You then write a MBR-type filesystem

Nonsense. You mean a partition table or disk label.

> and then a FAT32 filesystem into the sole partition.

Because the FAT type is chosen from the device size. Not because the 
command is invoked as mkfs.vfat. VFAT has nothing to do with FAT32, it 
just adds support for long file names on top of any FAT type and is only 
a mount-time feature.

> That said the documentation for mkdosfs "-I" is pretty unclear so
> perhaps it's doing something that you intend and I have missed.

-I forces mkdosfs to accept a whole unpartitioned device.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203946

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 08:59:50PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>Le 03/01/2019 à 11:35, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
>>You then write a MBR-type filesystem
>
>Nonsense. You mean a partition table or disk label.

Thank you yes, that was a typo ("Nonsense" is a bit harsh)

>>That said the documentation for mkdosfs "-I" is pretty unclear so
>>perhaps it's doing something that you intend and I have missed.
>
>-I forces mkdosfs to accept a whole unpartitioned device.

Perhaps you could consider writing a patch for the man page.

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203972

On 2019-01-04, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 08:59:50PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>>Le 03/01/2019 à 11:35, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
>>>You then write a MBR-type filesystem
>>
>>Nonsense. You mean a partition table or disk label.
>
> Thank you yes, that was a typo ("Nonsense" is a bit harsh)

Neither does "typo" appear to be the proper term for it. Rather it seems
your statement falls somewhere between nonsense and typographical error
into that vast, catch-all category sometimes referred to as "I misspoke."

>>>That said the documentation for mkdosfs "-I" is pretty unclear so
>>>perhaps it's doing something that you intend and I have missed.
>>
>>-I forces mkdosfs to accept a whole unpartitioned device.
>
> Perhaps you could consider writing a patch for the man page.
>

 -I  It is typical for fixed disk devices to be partitioned so, by default, you are not permitted
     to  create  a filesystem across the entire device.  mkfs.fat will complain and tell you that
     it refuses to work.  This is different when using MO disks.  One doesn't always need  parti‐
     tions on MO disks.  The filesystem can go directly to the whole disk.  Under other OSes this
     is known as the 'superfloppy' format.  This switch will force mkfs.fat to work properly.

I think PH's inference not too arduous from the above, frankly.

But how about:

  -I When using MO disks, where partitions aren't always required, modifies
     mkfs.fat's default behavior, allowing it to write the filesystem across the
     entire, unpartitioned device (called 'superfloppy' format under some
     other OSes).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203983

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:36:59PM +0000, Curt wrote:
>But how about:
>
>  -I When using MO disks, where partitions aren't always required, modifies
>     mkfs.fat's default behavior, allowing it to write the filesystem across the
>     entire, unpartitioned device (called 'superfloppy' format under some
>     other OSes).

Much better. But what does MO stand for?

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203984

On 2019-01-04, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:36:59PM +0000, Curt wrote:
>>But how about:
>>
>>  -I When using MO disks, where partitions aren't always required, modifies
>>     mkfs.fat's default behavior, allowing it to write the filesystem across the
>>     entire, unpartitioned device (called 'superfloppy' format under some
>>     other OSes).
>
> Much better. But what does MO stand for?
>


I haven't the slightest idea (but assumed you folks in the know knew,
though)!

(Having now looked it seems MO stands for "Magneto-optical.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto-optical_drive

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204067

On Friday, January 04, 2019 11:36:22 AM Curt wrote:
> On 2019-01-04, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> > Much better. But what does MO stand for?
> 
> I haven't the slightest idea (but assumed you folks in the know knew,
> though)!
> 
> (Having now looked it seems MO stands for "Magneto-optical.)
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto-optical_drive

Ok, but that begs the question (or doesn't be the question, depending on 
whether you are American or British), how did we get from SD cards to MO 
drives?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203985

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 04:25:30PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:36:59PM +0000, Curt wrote:
> >But how about:
> >
> > -I When using MO disks, where partitions aren't always required, modifies
> >    mkfs.fat's default behavior, allowing it to write the filesystem across the
> >    entire, unpartitioned device (called 'superfloppy' format under some
> >    other OSes).
> 
> Much better. But what does MO stand for?

I'd guess "magneto-optical". But I might be wrong.

Cheers
-- tomás

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203994

Hi,

Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > what does MO stand for?

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> I'd guess "magneto-optical".

It would match the term "superfloppy" in man mkdosfs.
(Larger, more heavy, even less reliable than floppy disks.)

Possibly some of the MO genes survived in DVD-RAM. E.g. the glossy rectangles
sprinkled over the writable surface or the cartridges around early DVD-RAM
media.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204011

Le 04/01/2019 à 17:25, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:36:59PM +0000, Curt wrote:
>> But how about:
>>
>>  -I When using MO disks, where partitions aren't always required, modifies
>>     mkfs.fat's default behavior, allowing it to write the filesystem across the
>>     entire, unpartitioned device (called 'superfloppy' format under some
>>     other OSes).
> 
> Much better.

I disagree. It misleads the reader into believing that the option 
applies only to magneto-optical disks, while it also applies to fixed 
disks and, I guess, any other storage device type.

IMO, the default behaviour does not make sense and the -I option should 
not even exist ; mkfs.fat should accept to create a filesystem on an 
entire unpartitioned device of any type by default, just like other 
mkfs.* do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204078

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 08:05:48PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 04/01/2019 à 17:25, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> >On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:36:59PM +0000, Curt wrote:
> >>But how about:
> >>
> >> -I When using MO disks, where partitions aren't always required, modifies
> >>    mkfs.fat's default behavior, allowing it to write the filesystem across the
> >>    entire, unpartitioned device (called 'superfloppy' format under some
> >>    other OSes).
> >
> >Much better.
> 
> I disagree. It misleads the reader into believing that the option
> applies only to magneto-optical disks, while it also applies to
> fixed disks and, I guess, any other storage device type.

Actually most of my USB sticks have no partition table, just one
filesystem on them. Scares the hell out of MACs and Windows boxes :-)

Cheers
-- tomás

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204079

On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 10:20:51 +0100
<tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 08:05:48PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > Le 04/01/2019 à 17:25, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :  
> > >On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:36:59PM +0000, Curt wrote:  
> > >>But how about:
> > >>
> > >> -I When using MO disks, where partitions aren't always required,
> > >>modifies mkfs.fat's default behavior, allowing it to write the
> > >>filesystem across the entire, unpartitioned device (called
> > >>'superfloppy' format under some other OSes).  
> > >
> > >Much better.  
> > 
> > I disagree. It misleads the reader into believing that the option
> > applies only to magneto-optical disks, while it also applies to
> > fixed disks and, I guess, any other storage device type.  
> 
> Actually most of my USB sticks have no partition table, just one
> filesystem on them. Scares the hell out of MACs and Windows boxes :-)
> 

The problem with those is that they *nearly* work on an OS which doesn't
understand them. Just well enough to cause trouble...

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204084

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 09:30:34AM +0000, Joe wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 10:20:51 +0100
> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

[...]

> > Actually most of my USB sticks have no partition table, just one
> > filesystem on them. Scares the hell out of MACs and Windows boxes :-)
> > 
> 
> The problem with those is that they *nearly* work on an OS which doesn't
> understand them. Just well enough to cause trouble...

My experience is that the OS considers them as "unformatted" and offers
to "format" them. Perhaps an advanced Windows or Mac user can push their
OSes beyond that, but I haven't met many advanced users for those systems.

Just don't hand out anything with data on it you can't recover...

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204166

On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 08:05:48PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>I disagree. It misleads the reader into believing that the option 
>applies only to magneto-optical disks, while it also applies to fixed 
>disks and, I guess, any other storage device type.

That's good to know: I don't think the original text made this point
clear either.

>IMO, the default behaviour does not make sense and the -I option 
>should not even exist ; mkfs.fat should accept to create a filesystem 
>on an entire unpartitioned device of any type by default, just like 
>other mkfs.* do.

Actually I agree with you, this would be a smart change to make. Here's
where an interested party should file the request and/or patch for the
change, fwiw: https://github.com/dosfstools/dosfstools

(I looked this up because I might do it myself)

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204063 — typos (was: Re: Formatting a 32G or 16G SD card?)

On Friday, January 04, 2019 10:13:07 PM rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 04, 2019 08:36:59 AM Curt wrote:
> > On 2019-01-04, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 08:59:50PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > >>Le 03/01/2019 à 11:35, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> > >>>You then write a MBR-type filesystem
> > >>
> > >>Nonsense. You mean a partition table or disk label.
> > >>
> > > Thank you yes, that was a typo ("Nonsense" is a bit harsh)
> > 
> > Neither does "typo" appear to be the proper term for it. Rather it seems
> > your statement falls somewhere between nonsense and typographical error
> > into that vast, catch-all category sometimes referred to as "I misspoke."
> 
> I add grammos and thinkos to typos as errors that I sometimes make (or see
> others make).

Oh, and I should come up with some more, like:

   * nothinkos

   * an "o" to describe using the wrong word from among words that sound 
alike, e.g., to, too, two and such.  (There is a word for those kind of words 
-- oh, is it homophones?  (and then homophonos?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204064

On Friday, January 04, 2019 08:36:59 AM Curt wrote:
> On 2019-01-04, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 08:59:50PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> >>Le 03/01/2019 à 11:35, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> >>>You then write a MBR-type filesystem
> >>
> >>Nonsense. You mean a partition table or disk label.
> >>
> > Thank you yes, that was a typo ("Nonsense" is a bit harsh)
> 
> Neither does "typo" appear to be the proper term for it. Rather it seems
> your statement falls somewhere between nonsense and typographical error
> into that vast, catch-all category sometimes referred to as "I misspoke."

I add grammos and thinkos to typos as errors that I sometimes make (or see 
others make).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204065

On Friday, January 04, 2019 08:36:59 AM Curt wrote:
> On 2019-01-04, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:

> > Perhaps you could consider writing a patch for the man page.
> 
>  -I  It is typical for fixed disk devices to be partitioned so, by default,
> you are not permitted to  create  a filesystem across the entire device. 
> mkfs.fat will complain and tell you that it refuses to work.  This is
> different when using MO disks.  One doesn't always need  parti‐ tions on
> MO disks.  The filesystem can go directly to the whole disk.  Under other
> OSes this is known as the 'superfloppy' format.  This switch will force
> mkfs.fat to work properly.
> 
> I think PH's inference not too arduous from the above, frankly.
> 
> But how about:
> 
>   -I When using MO disks, where partitions aren't always required, modifies
>      mkfs.fat's default behavior, allowing it to write the filesystem
> across the entire, unpartitioned device (called 'superfloppy' format under
> some other OSes).

From the peanut gallery, that (the second) looks good to me, but I missed 
something in the thread -- does MO refer to magneto-optical disks?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204074

On 2019-01-05, rhkramer@gmail.com <rhkramer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 04, 2019 08:36:59 AM Curt wrote:
>> On 2019-01-04, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> > Perhaps you could consider writing a patch for the man page.
>> 
>>  -I  It is typical for fixed disk devices to be partitioned so, by default,
>> you are not permitted to  create  a filesystem across the entire device. 
>> mkfs.fat will complain and tell you that it refuses to work.  This is
>> different when using MO disks.  One doesn't always need  parti‐ tions on
>> MO disks.  The filesystem can go directly to the whole disk.  Under other
>> OSes this is known as the 'superfloppy' format.  This switch will force
>> mkfs.fat to work properly.
>> 
>> I think PH's inference not too arduous from the above, frankly.
>> 
>> But how about:
>> 
>>   -I When using MO disks, where partitions aren't always required, modifies
>>      mkfs.fat's default behavior, allowing it to write the filesystem
>> across the entire, unpartitioned device (called 'superfloppy' format under
>> some other OSes).
>
> From the peanut gallery, that (the second) looks good to me, but I missed 
> something in the thread -- does MO refer to magneto-optical disks?
>

Right. Unfortunately, now we've been informed by PH that not only is the
previous, more verbose version less clear but that it is also wrong,
which makes the newer version merely more clearly and succinctly wrong,
I guess.

Back to the drawing board (I was working simply to improve clarity
without the knowledge to correct inaccuracy)!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web