16GB Boot Flash Reported as 2GB on the MAIN page


18 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

This is an issue I first raised in the Dynamix plug-in topic but I'm pretty sure it was the wrong place for it.

 

I have 16GB SanDisk Cruzer Fit as my (so far very satisfactory) boot flash drive. However, I noticed recently that it's being reported on the MAIN page as having a capacity of only 2GB.

 

My first thought was that it must be a fake and I ordered a second 16GB Cruzer as a replacement. However, it occurs to me that if the controller had been programmed to report 16GB while there was only 2GB of storage really available there's no way that I know of that an operating system like UnRAID could know any different without actually flooding the device with writes and checking the reads. And it's very dubious (isn't it?) that UnRAID's MAIN page reporting would be doing this. If UnRAID were to do this (not such a bad idea) the place to do it would be the USB Creator Tool.

 

I'm currently running UnRAID 6.9.0.rc2. But, referring back to earlier screenshots I see this issue was also present in the previous stable version.

 

I'll be happy to swap out the Cruzer if this one turns out to be fake. But before I do the necessary testing I'd appreciate hearing some thoughts on this from the community. Is the Cruzer likely to be a fake? Or is there a bug in UnRAID's reporting?

 

--

Chris

 

 

Cruzer Report.png

Edited by bidmead
grammar correction
Link to post
1 hour ago, bidmead said:

I have 16GB SanDisk Cruzer Fit as my (so far very satisfactory) boot flash drive. However, I noticed recently that it's being reported on the MAIN page as having a capacity of only 2GB.

I have a 16GB Cruzer Fit for my main Unraid boot drive and its size is reported correctly by Unraid.

Link to post

@squid Good thought. But I can probably do this in situ with Linux. I'll report back.

 

Yes, @jonathanm, that occurred to me. But why would the UnRAID USB Creator Tool do this?

 

-- 

Chris

Link to post

Report as promised, @squid. Linux seems to think this is kosher.

 

But, of course, Linux (and Windows) would only be reporting what the USB controller announces. Does UnRAID have a more thorough way of probing the NAND?

 

-- 

Chris

1610358074-picsay.jpg

Link to post

What does the 'lsblk' command under Unraid show?   Note that 'sda' is the whole drive and so it is still passible for there to be a partition (sda1) present that is not the whole drive.

Link to post

By golly, @jonathanm and @itimpi, you guys are right. So, many thanks.

 

But why would the UnRAID USB Creator do this to a 16GB drive? Doesn't it begin with a FAT32 format? Or does it use the existing FAT32 format (in which case, probable user error).

 

Perhaps more to the point, what's the best way home from here?

 

1. Spin down the array

2. Backup the boot USB 

3. Reformat the boot USB as FAT32 

4. Unzip the backup and copy its files and directories across to the reformatted USB 

5. Run the make bootable utility 

6. Powercycle the NAS.

 

Any thoughts? I assume I can do all this from inside UnRAID.

 

-- 

Chris

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot_2021-01-11-11-33-39-42.jpg

Link to post
21 minutes ago, bidmead said:

Perhaps more to the point, what's the best way home from here?

Leave it alone? I don't see any benefit, and plenty of ways to screw it up.

 

Granted, it wouldn't be that hard to fix, but what would you gain? You are currently only using a little over 1/4 of the allocated space. If the USB firmware is intelligent, it will use the remaining capacity behind the scenes for wear leveling anyway. Think of it as a little aggressive over-provisioning that should extend the life of your device.

 

If you do start to run close, address it then.

Link to post

A very smart and prompt response, @jonathanm. Much appreciated. Yes, I'll take your advice. 

 

BTW, the community has me labelled, entirely incorrectly, as an "Advanced Member". How do I become an "unAdvanced Member" like you?

 

-- 

Chris

 

Link to post
26 minutes ago, bidmead said:

Sadly, @jonathanm, Rank doesn't seem to be editable for the likes of me. The only other option would be to work hard to deserve my Advanced title. Oh, God...

 

-- 

Chris

rank isn't edited, it's replaced by member title.

Link to post
17 minutes ago, jonathanm said:

rank isn't edited, it's replaced by member title.

I can't find a field called "member title" on the edit profile page. (Shows how completely I'm not an Advanced Member...).

 

-- 

Chris

 

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.