+- PINE64 (https://forum.pine64.org)
+-- Forum: PINE A64(+) (https://forum.pine64.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: General Discussion on PINE A64(+) (https://forum.pine64.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: micro SD cards -- actual size vs. claims (/showthread.php?tid=1403)
Pages:
1
2
micro SD cards -- actual size vs. claims - NexusDude - 06-16-2016
Please share your actual free space results, on microSD cards without any known defects, with only 1 partition.
SanDisk Ultra UHC-I class 10, red/grey, "32GB" has only 28.7GB of actual space. Partitioning software cannot increase it.
SanDisk says that they define 1 GB as 1000MB, not 1024MB. That would only be 2.3% off, but this card is missing 10.3%. As a result, 16GB images are the largest images that I can use.
RE: micro SD cards -- actual size vs. claims - benpope81 - 06-16-2016
Try 32*(1000*1000*1000)/(1024*1024*1024) = 32*10^9/2^30 = 29.8GB. Then take off partition table and file system overhead...
RE: micro SD cards -- actual size vs. claims - tllim - 06-16-2016
(06-16-2016, 12:27 PM)benpope81 Wrote: Try 32*(1000*1000*1000)/(1024*1024*1024) = 32*10^9/2^30 = 29.8GB. Then take off partition table and file system overhead...
Over pass few months try out varies microSD card, I also surprise that capacity stated in all microSD card can be different from one manufacturer to the others. Using 8GB miocroSD card as example, the brand "S" one actually has 8GB, the brand "T" one only has 7.2GB.
I always need to collect the smallest capacity of microSD card in each 8GB, 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB category, so that I can create the DD image that can fit for all.
RE: micro SD cards -- actual size vs. claims - Luke - 06-17-2016
The one brand that I experienced no issues with is Samsung
RE: micro SD cards -- actual size vs. claims - tllim - 06-17-2016
(06-17-2016, 03:30 AM)Luke Wrote: The one brand that I experienced no issues with is Samsung
I may not like all Samsung product, especially their so called LED TV. However, they produce very good quality SD card. I have dozen of Samsung microSD card constantly using and testing, and none failed. However, several of my SanDisk microSD already broken (appear OK but behave very slow).
RE: micro SD cards -- actual size vs. claims - NexusDude - 06-17-2016
(06-16-2016, 12:27 PM)benpope81 Wrote: Try 32*(1000*1000*1000)/(1024*1024*1024) = 32*10^9/2^30 = 29.8GB. Then take off partition table and file system overhead...
Of course! Despite my embarrassment, I appreciate your pointing that out.
(06-16-2016, 12:40 PM)tllim Wrote: Over pass few months try out varies microSD card, I also surprise that capacity stated in all microSD card can be different from one manufacturer to the others. Using 8GB miocroSD card as example, the brand "S" one actually has 8GB, the brand "T" one only has 7.2GB.Oh, yes, that would be awesome of you
I always need to collect the smallest capacity of microSD card in each 8GB, 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB category, so that I can create the DD image that can fit for all.
. I look forward to that.
RE: micro SD cards -- actual size vs. claims - mwharvey - 06-20-2016
Just a reminder, most of these images have a resize script in /usr/local/bin. so you can put a 16G image on a 64G card and resize to use the rest of the space.
RE: micro SD cards -- actual size vs. claims - Luke - 06-20-2016
(06-17-2016, 10:39 AM)tllim Wrote:(06-17-2016, 03:30 AM)Luke Wrote: The one brand that I experienced no issues with is Samsung
I may not like all Samsung product, especially their so called LED TV. However, they produce very good quality SD card. I have dozen of Samsung microSD card constantly using and testing, and none failed. However, several of my SanDisk microSD already broken (appear OK but behave very slow).
This is my experience to. I equally have no real sympathy for Samsung or their devices, but their SD cards are not only solid they are also e.g. 32Gb and not 29.8 Gb in.
RE: micro SD cards -- actual size vs. claims - NexusDude - 06-21-2016
(06-20-2016, 01:17 PM)mwharvey Wrote: Just a reminder, most of these images have a resize script in /usr/local/bin. so you can put a 16G image on a 64G card and resize to use the rest of the space.
I'd assumed that the larger images had more software packages.
You're suggesting that the only difference between 8 / 16 / 32 / 64GB images is the amount of partitioned, unused space. The software is identical. So, on a 32GB card, installing an 8GB image would leave ~24GB of unallocated space.
In that case, why even bother having multiple image sizes? Just install a small image, and run the script (or use GParted, etc.).
RE: micro SD cards -- actual size vs. claims - Ghost - 06-21-2016
Not everyone is equipped to run a script, some people don't want to mess around with stuff like that. Also, not everyone can use a separate computer to expand the partition that way. Many people only have a Windows-based computer, which does not natively recognise the ext4 filesystem used by Linux builds.
I know Android is based in Linux, but does the catch-all of 'most of these images' include Android and RemixOS? Is resizing a partition easy to do from within Android and / or RemixOS?
If so, I agree that there need only be images corresponding to the smallest possible size of microSD upon which the operating system will fit. Certainly having less image options would create less confusion about which image to choose and would help to de-clutter the wiki page. And it would largely eliminate the issues some are having getting their chosen image to fit on their microSD card.