Thanks for your fast reply. ----- "Michael Tautschnig" <[email protected]> schrieb:
> Hi! > > > > > Hi, > > > > I just do my first steps with fai and had some problems. After a few > debugging steps - not many since I am new to fai - it seems to me that > there is a bug in the partitioning by the "setup-storage" program. > Maybe you can help me to figure out if it is really a bug or just a > mistake of mine. > > > > At the end of my post I am pasting the debug code of setup-storage. > > > > As you can see, my system has three Harddrives. One of them is > almost 3 TB and therefore partitioned using gpt. The problem is with > that (sdc). I set this up with one partition using 100% of the space. > This does not work for sdc. > > As you can see almost at the bottom of the debug code, there is an > error thrown in the middle of the output. It sais that sdc is too > small. I looked around a little and could not find any clue about > where the program get that exact number. So I hope you can make more > out of it. > > > > The problem is that setup-storage will first take your 100% and > convert it to > bytes; then it adds space needed for partition tables, extended > partitions, etc. > This results in that "strange" number. > > > I solved the problem by setting the size in the config file to 99%. > > > > Since I am still working on my configuration I can provide you more > information, if needed --- at least for a little while. > > > > I think things should be exactly the way you want them to be if you > use "0-" > instead of "100%". Could you give that a try. This worked. But you suggestion is different to the % value. The meaning of "0-" is: Create a partition which is at least of the size 0. "100%" on the other hand means: Use 100% of the disk size of the partition. As I would think of the setup-storage program, it should exit with an error on 100% if it is not possible to create such a partition, because there are already others or what ever. "0-" instead would run through, even there is not 100% of the disk size available. In my opinion the implementation you use should be considered a bug since it is not what a user expects and additionally seems to brake under certain conditions (like mine). > > I'm not sure whether I'd call this a bug or just a problem of > interpreting > values. Maybe we should first sum up overhead costs, subtract that > from the disk > size and then evalute relative values such as "100%". Not sure, > though. > > Hope this helps, > Michael
