Thanks, interesting questions.
No, ext4 is not a slow journaled filesystem, and no, there are no
obvious problems on SD when using ext4 given your use case. But it
isn't operating system portable, and as your content is static no need
for a journal. Other features of ext4 make mounting or
James,
Would it help to mark the content partition(s) as read only?
Sameer
On Aug 16, 2015 5:13 PM, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org wrote:
Thanks, interesting questions.
No, ext4 is not a slow journaled filesystem, and no, there are no
obvious problems on SD when using ext4 given your use
No, it won't help.
1. reading data an SD card (or eMMC, or USB flash drives) does cause
writes internal to the card, and does reduce life,
2. there's no such flag to set in an MBR partition table,
Perhaps you mean a write protect switch on the card? This is a
plastic slide, sensed by a
A Custom_Content folder is eventually demanded by almost every IIAB-like
deployment.
The reason is that every local school / librarian quite naturally wants a
Non-Bureaucratic process, to add their own language/videos/curriculum,
copying their own file-tree onto the SD card, using their own
A Custom_Content folder is eventually demanded by almost every IIAB-like
deployment.
The reason is that every local school / librarian quite naturally wants a
Non-Bureaucratic process, to add their own language/videos/curriculum,
copying their own file-tree onto the SD card, using their own
Great points all around.
To give a genuine voice to innovative but non-technical grassroots
teachers, I'd very much advocate for a 1GB exFAT/NTFS/FAT32 partition (or
whatever, let's say 1% of the 64GB or 128GB or 256GB SD card) to give
streets-is-talkin local educators authentic voice, alongside
Great points all around.
To give a genuine voice to innovative but non-technical grassroots
teachers, I'd very much advocate for a 1GB exFAT/NTFS/FAT32 partition (or
whatever, let's say 1% of the 64GB or 128GB or 256GB SD card) to give
streets-is-talkin local educators authentic voice, alongside
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 09:12:34PM -0400, Adam Holt wrote:
Towards this quite universal demand, an exFAT partition seems much
better than FAT32, as exFAT works with most all recent Windows and
Mac machines, without filename limitations. (Not unrelated to exFAT
being the modern SD Card
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 09:12:34PM -0400, Adam Holt wrote:
Towards this quite universal demand, an exFAT partition seems much
better than FAT32, as exFAT works with most all recent Windows and
Mac machines, without filename limitations. (Not unrelated to exFAT
being the modern SD Card
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 11:24:23PM -0400, Adam Holt wrote:
On balance, SD Card industry standard exFAT seems (to me) more
future-proof for a hassle-free grassroots content partition over
coming years,
[...]
If you're able to control the desktops and laptops that will be used
to add or remove
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 11:24:23PM -0400, Adam Holt wrote:
On balance, SD Card industry standard exFAT seems (to me) more
future-proof for a hassle-free grassroots content partition over
coming years,
[...]
If you're able to control the desktops and laptops that will be used
to add or remove
Just to chime in, as has been already noted the max file size on a FAT32
system is 4GB. Some of the files we deal with are much larger than that.
Ex. the Zim files for TED talks etc. are 8GB+ in size. Now we could always
break them into smaller chunks, but that is another step.
--
Anish
On Mon,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 10:57 PM, James Cameron qu...@laptop.org wrote:
LFN (long filename) support is present in all the operating systems
you've mentioned, and works fine with FAT32.
Thanks for the correction. FAT32 is indeed about as universal/tolerable of
a standard as possible in 2015.
13 matches
Mail list logo
