SUMMARY: Cannot copy more than 32GB of files to a 128GB memory stick formatted under FAT32 or exFAT despite the fact that I can format the stick and ChkDsk is showing the correct results after formatting (and also when less than 32GB of files are on the stick). I cannot use NTFS because this stick is designed to transfer files to an iPhone and the app will not handle NTFS. See below for details.
DETAILS:
I have a 128GB memory stick which is designed to quickly transfer files between a computer and an iPhone. One end is a USB and the other plugs into the iPhone's lightning port. This particular type is extremely common and looks like a "T" when you unfold it (Amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07SB12JHG ).
While this stick is not especially fast when I copy Windows data to it, the transfer rate to my iPhone is much better than the wireless alternatives.
Normally I'd format a large memory stick or USB drive in NTFS, but the app used to transfer files to my iPhone ("CooDisk") will only handle exFAT and FAT32. I've tried both. For exFAT formatting, I've tried both Windows 7 and 10, and for FAT32 I used a free product from RidgeCrop consulting (I can give you the link if you want).
As with all USB storage devices, my stick is formatted as a single active partition.
I do not have a problem formatting. After formatting, ChkDsk seems happy with both FAT32 and exFAT. The CooDisk app works fine with either. After formatting, all the space is ostensibly available for files.
My problem arises when populating the stick with files.
Whenever I get beyond 32GB in total space, I have various problems. Either the copy will fail, or ChkDsk will fail. (After running ChkDsk in 'fix' mode, every file created beyond the 32GB limit will be clobbered.) Interestingly, when I use the DOS copy command with "/v" (verify) it will flag an error for files beyond the 32GB limit, although DOS XCopy with "/v" keeps on going. GUI methods also die at 32GB.
Out of sheer desperation, I wrote a script that uses GNU's cp for Windows. Now I can copy more than 32GB of files and ChkDsk flags no errors. However files beyond the 32GB limit end up being filled with binary zeros despite the fact that they appear as they should in a directory or Windows file explorer listing. (Weird, isn't it?)
I have also tried various allocation unit sizes from 4K all the way up to 64K and attempted this with three different Windows OSs (XP, Win7, and Win10).
Let me emphasize: there is no problem with the first 32GB of files copied to the stick regardless of: whether I use exFAT or FAT32; my method of copying; and my choice of AU size.
Finally, there is nothing in these directories that would bother a FAT32 or exFAT system: (a) file and directory names are short (well under 100 characters); (b) directory nesting is minimal (no more than 5 levels); (c) files are small (nothing close to a GB); and directories have relatively few files (nowhere close to 200, for those of you who recall the old FAT limit of 512 files per directory :)
The only platform I haven't yet tried is using an aging MacBook that someone gave to me. I'm not terribly good with Macs, but I would rather not be dependent on it (it's 13 years old, although MacBooks are built like tanks).
Also, is it possible that FAT32 and exFAT don't allow more than 32GB on an active partition (I can find no such limitation documented anywhere, in fact in my experience USB storage devices are always bootable - as was the original version of my stick)?
Any ideas??
A week ago my computer start freezing every couple of seconds to 30sec-2minutes.
So i open my proccess explorer to monitor it to see if i get some CPU spikes and if so, which application is causing it.. after some freezes i noticed non of my programs/services is causing the freezes.
so i tried to check if any of my fans aren't working.. but all fans are working great.
adventually i ran the chkdsk scan (in the way i had tons of crashes/ startup problems/ i even couldnt run the windows installation disk due to a memory diagnostic problems.. I HAD Really lots of lots of problems)
adventually i found the problem, it's appear my DW hard drive is faulty and here the hard drive results:
http://pastie.org/2949300
now i'm searching the web for a tool that could fix all it's problems because i really need the drive to work.
Windows 7 ultimate 64bit.
intel e6320
4gb ddr2
ati hd5450.
Please help me if you can guide me what can i do to fix it.. (my os is on it)
Buy a new hard drive, install windows on that and see what you can read of the old disk. You're getting read and write errors in chkdsk, crashes etc, the disk is on the way out.
First of all, try to get a backup of your harddrive / your data. All actions you´re performing right now can lead to a data loss.
I don´t know if there are a web tool for fixing these problems - normally, a extended chkdsk (/r /p) should´ve fix the problems. Your log shows insufficient space on the partition. Can you move some files on another disk and try to run chkdsk again?
I was wondering if anyone had any performance options that might work for me. I am using Netbeans 6.1 and Glassfish V2 on my work laptop and the memory requirements are getting a little tiresome. I have 3 gb of ram and I frequently have to kill everything and restart it due to PermGen Space errors.
I've played with the mem sizes as well but nothing seems to really help.
Is there a way for you to monitor glassfish through JConsole? JConsole will show you how much PermGen space (as well as other spaces) is being used. Using this information can help you tweak your startup parameters.
This page http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/hotspot/vmoptions.jsp lists a few and I know I've seen more, esp. when it comes to setting permgen sizes.
You might also want to look at how your webapp(s) are allocating things that go into permgen space. Maybe the problem is there rather than in NB/GF combo.
Finally, is it possible for you to upgrade to NB 6.7? I know it's difficult to change your app server for development, esp. if you deploy to that version of the app server in production (I've experience problems there too). But changing the IDE could help too.
I know this is not an "answer", but I hope it helps.
I am looking for a way to determine how much free disk space there is available to my application.
I have tried using NSFileManager's fileSystemAttributesAtPath with NSFileSystemFreeSize, but this is giving me the total free space on the iPhone and not what is available to my application by the Sandbox.
I believe applications are limited to using 2 Gig of space, and need to show how much of the 2G is still available.
You can use statfs(2) and check the f_bavail field. This is the amount of space available at the moment to an unprivileged application, so it should give you the modified space that your application is permitted to use.
You can see the iPhone version of the man page here.
I've got a machine I'm going to be using for development, and it has two 7200 RPM 160 GB SATA HDs in it.
The information I've found on the net so far seems to be a bit conflicted about which things (OS, Swap files, Programs, Solution/Source code/Other data) I should be installing on how many partitions on which drives to get the most benefit from this situation.
Some people suggest having a separate partition for the OS and/or Swap, some don't bother. Some people say the programs should be on the same physical drive as the OS with the data on the other, some the other way around. Same with the Swap and the OS.
I'm going to be installing Vista 64 bit as my OS and regularly using Visual Studio 2008, VMWare Workstation, SQL Server management studio, etc (pretty standard dev tools).
So I'm asking you--how would you do it?
If the drives support RAID configurations in your BIOS, you should do one of the following:
RAID 1 (Mirror) - Since this is a dev machine this will give you the fault tolerance and peace of mind that your code is safe (and the environment since they are such a pain to put together). You get better performance on reads because it can read from both/either drive. You don't get any performance boost on writes though.
RAID 0 - No fault tolerance here, but this is the fastest configuration because you read and write off both drives. Great if you just want as fast as possible performance and you know your code is safe elsewhere (source control) anyway.
Don't worry about mutiple partitions or OS/Data configs because on a dev machine you sort of need it all anyway and you shouldn't be running heavy multi-user databases or anything anyway (like a server).
If your BIOS doesn't support RAID configurations, however, then you might consider doing the OS/Data split over the two drives just to balance out their use (but as you mentioned, keep the programs on the system drive because it will help with caching). Up to you where to put the swap file (OS will give you dump files, but the data drive is probably less utilized).
If they're both going through the same disk controller, there's not going to be much difference performance-wise no matter which way you do it; if you're going to be doing lots of VM's, I would split one drive for OS and swap / Programs and Data, then keep all the VM's on the other drive.
Having all the VM's on an independant drive would let you move that drive to another machine seamlessly if the host fails, or if you upgrade.
Mark one drive as being your warehouse, put all of your source code, data, assets, etc. on there and back it up regularly. You'll want this to be stable and easy to recover. You can even switch My Documents to live here if wanted.
The other drive should contain the OS, drivers, and all applications. This makes it easy and secure to wipe the drive and reinstall the OS every 18-24 months as you tend to have to do with Windows.
If you want to improve performance, some say put the swap on the warehouse drive. This will increase OS performance, but will decrease the life of the drive.
In reality it all depends on your goals. If you need more performance then you even out the activity level. If you need more security then you use RAID and mirror it. My mix provides for easy maintenance with a reasonable level of data security and minimal bit rot problems.
Your most active files will be the registry, page file, and running applications. If you're doing lots of data crunching then those files will be very active as well.
I would suggest if 160gb total capacity will cover your needs (plenty of space for OS, Applications and source code, just depends on what else you plan to put on it), then you should mirror the drives in a RAID 1 unless you will have a server that data is backed up to, an external hard drive, an online backup solution, or some other means of keeping a copy of data on more then one physical drive.
If you need to use all of the drive capacity, I would suggest using the first drive for OS and Applications and second drive for data. Purely for the fact of, if you change computers at some point, the OS on the first drive doesn't do you much good and most Applications would have to be reinstalled, but you could take the entire data drive with you.
As for dividing off the OS, a big downfall of this is not giving the partition enough space and eventually you may need to use partitioning software to steal some space from the other partition on the drive. It never seems to fail that you allocate a certain amount of space for the OS partition, right after install you have several gigs free space so you think you are fine, but as time goes by, things build up on that partition and you run out of space.
With that in mind, I still typically do use an OS partition as it is useful when reloading a system, you can format that partition blowing away the OS but keep the rest of your data. Ways to keep the space build up from happening too fast is change the location of your my documents folder, change environment variables for items such as temp and tmp. However, there are some things that just refuse to put their data anywhere besides on the system partition. I used to use 10gb, these days I go for 20gb.
Dividing your swap space can be useful for keeping drive fragmentation down when letting your swap file grow and shrink as needed. Again this is an issue though of guessing how much swap you need. This will depend a lot on the amount of memory you have and how much stuff you will be running at one time.
For the posters suggesting RAID - it's probably OK at 160GB, but I'd hesitate for anything larger. Soft errors in the drives reduce the overall reliability of the RAID. See these articles for the details:
http://alumnit.ca/~apenwarr/log/?m=200809#08
http://permabit.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/are-fibre-channel-and-scsi-drives-more-reliable/
You can't believe everything you read on the internet, but the reasoning makes sense to me.
Sorry I wasn't actually able to answer your question.
I usually run a box with two drives. One for the OS, swap, typical programs and applications, and one for VMs, "big" apps (e.g., Adobe CS suite, anything that hits the disk a lot on startup, basically).
But I also run a cheap fileserver (just an old machine with a coupla hundred gigs of disk space in RAID1), that I use to store anything related to my various projects. I find this is a much nicer solution than storing everything on my main dev box, doesn't cost much, gives me somewhere to run a webserver, my personal version control, etc.
Although I admit, it really isn't doing much I couldn't do on my machine. I find it's a nice solution as it helps prevent me from spreading stuff around my workstation's filesystem at random by forcing me to keep all my work in one place where it can be easily backed up, copied elsewhere, etc. I can leave it on all night without huge power bills (it uses <50W under load) so it can back itself up to a remote site with a little script, I can connect to it from outside via SSH (so I can always SCP anything I need).
But really the most important benefit is that I store nothing of any value on my workstation box (at least nothing that isn't also on the server). That means if it breaks, or if I want to use my laptop, etc. everything is always accessible.
I would put the OS and all the applications on the first disk (1 partition). Then, put the data from the SQL server (and any other overflow data) on the second disk (1 partition). This is how I'd set up a machine without any other details about what you're building. Also make sure you have a backup so you don't lose work. It might even be worth it to mirror the two drives (if you have RAID capability) so you don't lose any progress if/when one of them fails. Also, backup to an external disk daily. The RAID won't save you when you accidentally delete the wrong thing.
In general I'd try to split up things that are going to be doing a lot of I/O (such as if you have autosave on VS going off fairly frequently) Think of it as sort of I/O multithreading
I've observed significant speedups by putting my virtual machines on a separate disk. Whenever Windows is doing something stupid in the VM (e.g., indexing yet again), it doesn't thrash my Mac's disk quite so badly.
Another issue is that many tools (Visual Studio comes to mind) break in frustrating ways when bits of them are on the non-primary disk.
Use your second disk for big random things.