Re: Trouble copying files to SanDisk m230

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 04:23:34 +0000, Robert M. Riches Jr. wrote:

On 2006-04-23, Beef <beef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is a 512MB MP3/WMA player recently bought at Radio Shack.

I have been ripping my CDs at 48kbps, and copying the MP3 files to the
device.

Linux reports that there is still space on the device, yet complains
"device full" when I try to copy another file:

df -h /mnt/TELECHIPS/
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdb1 493M 350M 144M 71% /mnt/TELECHIPS

cp ./01_Assassine_album.mp3 /mnt/TELECHIPS/

cp: cannot create regular file `/mnt/TELECHIPS/01_Assassine_album.mp3': No
space left on device

Any ideas whqat I can do to find out why, and rememdy this?

I'm tempted to state that the root cause of the problem is
most likely because it was bought at Radio Shack. Aren't
you glad I resisted the temptation to say that? :-) :-)

What kind of filesystem is on the device? Does that kind of
filesystem have a limitation on the number of files, like
the inode limit on Unix-based filesystems? Unfortunately,
that's the extent of what I'm likely to be able to help
with, because I don't know much more detail about filesystem
internals.

I wondered if that might be the case.

It is a FAT filesystem, and with encoding at 48kbps, I have put 166 songs
on there. According to the device itself they occupy 492MB, leaving 133MB
still free.

I seem to remember that the File Allocation Table (FAT) is a fixed size,
determined when the filesystem is created; the size partition divided by a
block size (called a cluster?) determines the number of entries in the
FAT. Have I got that right?

So if the designers intended the 512MB to be used to hold files of around
1.8MB each, they might have set up the filesystem to have a FAT with
around 284 entries. If my 166 songs have filed the FAT, that means the
block size is set around the 3MB mark. That seems too high.


Beef.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Windows and Maildir
    ... Windows NT with NTFS has both file streams and extended ... > NT whose performance with large directories is better than that of FAT. ... And there won't be much of a difference between FAT and NTFS. ... because the problem is in the filesystem format and not in the ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)
  • Re: crash
    ... connected to my Ubuntu notebook through the USB port. ... But mounting it or running fsck on it as ext3 doesn't ... behind a FAT translation service. ... filesystem, ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: fsck.vfat malloc trouble
    ... The data on that disk is safely backed up and rather useless anyway, ... Top shows it does indeed allocate all remaining memory. ... The filesystem is 153G. ... such a large FAT partition would be -- is there any reason that you can't ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: XFS-Partition trashed?
    ... I don't know how bad you have broken your filesystem. ... It has been quite a while since I studied the FAT filesystem. ... written after the BPB depends on the size of the disk. ... then recovery could be very difficult. ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)
  • Re: fsck.vfat malloc trouble
    ... Top shows it does indeed allocate all remaining memory. ... The filesystem is 153G. ... There are differences between boot sector and its backup. ... First FAT starts at byte 16384 ...
    (alt.os.linux)