Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > One weird thing. It told me the minimum size was 3.2 gb, but if I typed
> > in exactly that, it said "too small size". I changed it to 3.3 and it
> > was ok. Rounding error? The actual minimum, according to ntfsresize, is
> > 3231584256 bytes.
>
> 3.2G = 32 bytes
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 04:41:19PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> Still?
>
> busybox-cvs (20040623-1) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * New CVS version.
> - Support 64 bit arithmetic. (closes: #251302)
>
> -- Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:53:52 +0200
Wow! :-)
Anton Z
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 06:26:14PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 06:07:30PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > 3.2G = 32 bytes and is less than 3232584256 bytes
>
> Partman rounds long numbers by truncating them because the busybox
> arithmetic is limited (on i386) t
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 06:07:30PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>
> 3.2G = 32 bytes and is less than 3232584256 bytes
Partman rounds long numbers by truncating them because the busybox
arithmetic is limited (on i386) to 32 bits so partman needs to use
string operations for its arithmetic.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 01:40:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Well it was grepping for "may resize" but the string is "might resize"[1].
> Fixed that, but the code to get the size also depended on the existence
> of $backupdev/$oldid, and backupdev was
> /var/lib/partman/backup/devices/=... -- th
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Joey Hess wrote:
> Of course since your current interface encourages grepping ntfsresize's
> output, it's unlikely that the user will see it at all. Especially if
> there's a GUI involved.
GUI's started to grep for things then I added the WARNING's to the code.
So, what woul
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Partman looks at the part of the ntfsresize output that gives a value in
> bytes. That value was, like I said, output as exactly 3231584256 bytes,
> correctly as far as I can tell. No matter what you call a k M or G, a
> byte is a byte.
If I understand y
Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> If I understand you right, you want to say that partman rounded down the
> value, so there is bug in partman. This is what you wrote:
>
> "It told me the minimum size was 3.2 gb"
>
> but you didn't explain who is "it". Partman or ntfsresize? Ntfsresize
> tells t
Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> man ntfsresize:
>
>ntfsresize conforms to the SI, ATA, IEEE standards and
>the disk manufacturers by using k=10^3, M=10^6 and G=10^9.
>
> fdisk, cfdisk, reiser_reiserfs use the same decimal units and parted was
> supposed to be converted too 2 years a
Joey Hess wrote,
> One weird thing. It told me the minimum size was 3.2 gb, but if I typed
> in exactly that, it said "too small size". I changed it to 3.3 and it
> was ok. Rounding error? The actual minimum, according to ntfsresize, is
> 3231584256 bytes.
man ntfsresize:
ntfsresize con
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Anton,
Just for comparison, here's what I get if I run that command on my laptop.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo ntfsresize -f -i /dev/hda1
ntfsresize v1.9.0
NTFS volume version: 3.1
Cluster size : 4096 bytes
Current volume size: 10001904128 b
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> Yes. There is a code that tries to parse the output of
>
> ntfsresize -f -i DEVICE_NAME
>
> but it didn't work and partman falls back on some very minimal size. If
> you still have this Win partition can you send me the output of this
> command. I want to be sure that
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:05:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I guess the minimum size is not properly detected, and no error is
> shown on failure.
Yes. There is a code that tries to parse the output of
ntfsresize -f -i DEVICE_NAME
but it didn't work and partman falls back on some very minima
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 08:22:13PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> Yesterday I made some changes in partman and partman-partitioning to
> allow resizing of NTFS partitions.
>
This is nothing short of bloody brilliant. Good stuff. This will make it
approach something close to as easy as falling off
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> One question is who will care to install ntfstools-udeb. I see three
> choices:
>
> 1. ntfstools-udeb receives standard priority
> 2. partman-partitioning depends on ntfstools-udeb
> 3. left things as they are now - the user will have to request the
>installation of nt
I installed windows 2003 server[1] and it made a 40 gb ntfs partition. If I
select the partiton and resize, it says the minimum size is 512 bytes. I
told it to resize it down to 1 gb, and it went back to the main menu
with no error message (or size change). I guess the minimum size is not
properly
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 30 September 2004 01:22
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: NTFS resize in partman
>
>
> At 29 Sep 04 19:51:20 GMT,
> Joey Hess wrote:
> > Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > > Yesterday I made some changes in partman and partman-pa
At 29 Sep 04 19:51:20 GMT,
Joey Hess wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > Yesterday I made some changes in partman and partman-partitioning to
> > allow resizing of NTFS partitions.
> >
> > There is no progress bar and in the file
> > partman-partitioning/active_partition/resize/choices we have to
>
|| On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:22:13 +0300
|| Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
az> Yesterday I made some changes in partman and partman-partitioning to
az> allow resizing of NTFS partitions.
Really Good :-)
az> One question is who will care to install ntfstools-udeb. I see three
az> choice
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> Yesterday I made some changes in partman and partman-partitioning to
> allow resizing of NTFS partitions.
>
> There is no progress bar and in the file
> partman-partitioning/active_partition/resize/choices we have to
> replace "/usr/sbin/ntfsresize" by "/usr/bin/ntfsresize"
20 matches
Mail list logo
