[Voyage-linux] Max CF size for WRAPs/ALIX

[Piotr Mitoraj]

Hi,
I am using voyage 0.4 (build date 20070723) on alix.3c1 board with 1GB 
CF. It boots fast and fdisk -l |grep Disk shows:
Disk /dev/hda: 1014MB, 1014644736 bytes

I followed the README file and instructions found on wiki. On CF I have 
just one bootable partition.
fdisk /dev/sda1 -> mkfs.ext2 /dev/sda1 -> tune2fs –c 0 /dev/sda1 -> 
voyage.update
These ar ethe steps that led me to this result.

good luck
	--Piotr


Edwin Whitelaw wrote:
> As it becomes increasingly difficult to buy a CF smaller than 1GB, it 
> begs the question as to the maximum CF supported for use in the now 
> discontinued but still serviceable WRAP boards.  I've installed Voyage 
> for WRAP on a couple of 1GB SanDisk CFs  and while it did boot, there 
> were a number of errors that looked uncomfortably like those from a 
> failing hard disk (details can be provided) and the boot time was very 
> long.  I have been able to get some 512MB CFs but as of the last few 
> days, those products are no longer available.
> 
> Also, the same 1GB CFs loaded for ALIX boot in 30s and run without 
> error, but they only show up as 512MB.
> 
> /var/log/dmesg shows:
> 
> hda: SanDisk SDCFH-1024, CFA DISK drive
> ide0 at 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6 on irq 14
> Probing IDE interface ide1...
> hda: max request size: 128KiB
> hda: 2001888 sectors (1024 MB) w/1KiB Cache, CHS=1986/16/63, DMA
> hda: hda1
> 
> but df returns:
> 
> buffalo1:~# df
> Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
> rootfs                  485106    133520    326539  30% /
> udev                     10240        20     10220   1% /dev
> /dev/hda1               485106    133520    326539  30% /
> /dev/hda1               485106    133520    326539  30% /dev/.static/dev
> tmpfs                   128572         0    128572   0% /lib/init/rw
> tmpfs                   128572         0    128572   0% /dev/shm
> tmpfs                     8192       360      7832   5% /rw
> 
> I preformatted the CF before running voyage.update.  Did I do something 
> wrong here?  Is the update script re-running fdisk, mke2fs, etc?
> 
> Granted, I can't see any immediate need for more than 512MB but it does 
> seem strange to have what could best be described as an artificial 
> limitation.
> 
> Comments?  Enlightenment?
> 
> Thx,
> 
> Edwin
>