changing filesystem from ext4 to FAT32
 

NEED TO DO THIS

I have a gparted disc. Can I make a fat32 filesystem with it (from an ext4) ?

If you don't care about the data, reformat it.

If you do care about the data, how full is the filesystem? If less than half full, you can shrink ext4, resize the partition, make a new partition and format that as vfat, move your files, delete the ext4 partition, and finally resize the vfat partition.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;459786]If you don't care about the data, reformat it.

If you do care about the data, how full is the filesystem? If less than half full, you can shrink ext4, resize the partition, make a new partition and format that as vfat, move your files, delete the ext4 partition, and finally resize the vfat partition.[/QUOTE]If you can attach another "disk" (may be a USB stick for example) which is large enough you could copy all the files to that, re-format the original and copy the files back again.

Dropbox or the like should also work.

[QUOTE=xilman;459813]If you can attach another "disk" (may be a USB stick for example) which is large enough you could copy all the files to that, re-format the original and copy the files back again.

Dropbox or the like should also work.[/QUOTE]

Certainly easier.

I convert my ext4 drives to ntfs since fat32 max file size is 4 gig.

[QUOTE=WMHalsdorf;459858]I convert my ext4 drives to ntfs since fat32 max file size is 4 gig.[/QUOTE]

LOL... Just to share, many of the elders around here were working with machines with only a few kilobytes of RAM way back in the late 1900s.

Now-a-days an icon on a desktop is larger than the RAM we had to work with.

[QUOTE=chalsall;459868]LOL... Just to share, many of the elders around here were working with machines with only a few kilobytes of RAM way back in the late 1900s.

Now-a-days an icon on a desktop is larger than the RAM we had to work with.[/QUOTE]

My first had 128K back in 1987. Most I used back at the college had 640K at that time. None had HD's. Back then, so little seemed like so much.

[QUOTE=WMHalsdorf;459858]I convert my ext4 drives to ntfs since fat32 max file size is 4 gig.[/QUOTE]EXT4 ? Are you sure ?

EXT4 supports file system volumes with sizes up to 1 ExbiByte (EiB 2^60) and files with sizes up to 16 TebiBytes (TiB 2^40). However, Red Hat recommends using XFS instead of ext4 for volumes larger than 100 TB

Also the OP speaks about a gparted disk ? Gparted is just a program to access and modify the partition table : not the characteristic of a partition table or a file system format.

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;459872]Also the OP speaks about a gparted disk ? Gparted is just a program to access and modify the partition table : not the characteristic of a partition table or a file system format.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the OP wants to access the file system from a Winblows instance.

[QUOTE=storm5510;459871]My first had 128K back in 1987. Most I used back at the college had 640K at that time. None had HD's. Back then, so little seemed like so much.[/QUOTE]

My first had 2K. And off-line storage was cassette tapes at 110 baud.

I once spent CDN $1,600 for 8 MB of RAM. And CDN $1,500 for a 20 MB harddrive.

The times they are a'changing.

[QUOTE]Perhaps the OP wants to access the file system from a Winblows instance.[/QUOTE]
There are free programs for this. Also, exfat is recognized by both OS (winxp needs a update for it), and have a bigger size limit.

[QUOTE=thyw;459884]There are free programs for this. Also, exfat is recognized by both OS (winxp needs a update for it), and have a bigger size limit.[/QUOTE]

Please forgive me for this, but I don't know of a file system known as exfat.

I spend a lot of my time telling my clients that their consultants don't know what they are talking about. It is rather tiring.

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT"]exFAT[/URL]

Our first computer was a 486DX 33 with 8 megs of RAM, up from the default 4 megs at my insistence. It had a [B][U]120 MB drive[/U][/B]. It came with DOS 5 and Windows 3.1, which was brand new, then.

Our second machine had [B][U]256 MB of RAM[/U][/B]. I went SCSI on that one, and regretted that the most I thought we could afford was a 2 GB drive. However, drives and RAM were vastly more expensive back then, and the money was worth more, too.

[QUOTE=chalsall;459876]My first had 2K. And off-line storage was cassette tapes at 110 baud.

I once spent CDN $1,600 for 8 MB of RAM. And CDN $1,500 for a 20 MB harddrive.

The times they are a'changing.[/QUOTE]

My 128K 8088 computer cost US $850. I later updated it to 640K. The first HD I bought was a Seagate 30MB for US $350.

exFAT is still used today. I bought a 64GB Sandisk thumb-drive about a month ago which was formatted as exFAT. Me not being comfortable with that, and its intended use, I formatted it as NTFS.

[QUOTE=sdbardwick;459888][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT"]exFAT[/URL][/QUOTE]

Well slap me hard and put me away wet!

My only defence is I don't use anything proprietary.

2.2 k (Vic20) + 16K extension, and a Sinclair-Timex ZX81 with 1k.

With the first I POKEd the high memory locations to store the decimal digits of PI I was calculating, while the ZX81 was my showcase to learn how to produce faster and smaller BASIC one-line programs.

[QUOTE=ET_;459910]2.2 k (Vic20) + 16K extension[/QUOTE]

Yeah. I remember the Commodore Vic 20s.

A young girl brought in a strong speaker magnate, and placed it on the front of the colour monitor (really a TV) because it amused her. Mr. Beck was seriously pissed off.

He was happy when I was able to reverse the effect by turning the magnate the opposite way, and carefully degassing the monitor.

Meanwhile, six very serious young people were working on Commodore PETs, with up to 32K of RAM, sharing a dual floppy drive via a IEEE 488 cable.

[QUOTE=chalsall;460014]... strong speaker magnate ...[/QUOTE]I think you might mean something else.

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnate[/url]

[QUOTE=retina;460015]I think you might mean something else. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnate[/url][/QUOTE]

Ah, man... I can't win. What part of magnetic isn't clear? :wink:

[QUOTE=chalsall;460014]A young girl brought in a strong speaker magnate, and placed it on the front of the colour monitor (really a TV) because it amused her. Mr. Beck was seriously pissed off.

He was happy when I was able to reverse the effect by turning the magnate the opposite way, and carefully degassing the monitor.[/QUOTE]

Strong speaker magnates are observed to emit a lot of hot air during their speeches, but there is no evidence that they are able to degass nearby objects.

The best way to degass old CRT monitors is to use a steamroller to produce a flatscreen, releasing magic smoke gass in the process. This results in a lot of stuck pixels, however.

[QUOTE=GP2;460023]The best way to degass old CRT monitors is to use a steamroller to produce a flatscreen, releasing magic smoke gass in the process.[/QUOTE]Hmm, degassing a vacuum. An interesting idea.

Those old CRTs are kind of sucky when they spring a leak.

[QUOTE=retina;460026]Hmm, degassing a vacuum. An interesting idea.[/QUOTE]

But of course. Vacuums suck. In fact, they suck in so much air in that they would float away like balloons unless you degass them periodically.

That's why strong speaker magnates hate them: their one weird trick is that they suck up all the hot air the magnates emit. As they say, power abhors a vacuum.

[QUOTE=GP2;460028]But of course. Vacuums suck. In fact, they suck in so much air in that they would float away like balloons unless you degass them periodically.[/QUOTE]Curious. I would have thought vacuums were already in the lightest possible state. Show how much I know.

[QUOTE=GP2;460028]But of course. Vacuums suck. In fact, they suck in so much air in that they would float away like balloons unless you degass them periodically.[/QUOTE]

I very much appreciate the humour. But technically vacuums don't suck, they produce a pressure differential. They produce a low-pressure space which the ambient pressure fills.

It's much like a refrigerator or a freezer. It is impossible to create cold; all you can do is move heat.

[QUOTE=chalsall;460076]It is impossible to create cold ...[/QUOTE]Mr [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law]Boyle[/url] might want to have a word with you.

[QUOTE=retina;460077]Mr [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law]Boyle[/url] might want to have a word with you.[/QUOTE]

And the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics"]Second law of thermodynamics[/URL] might want to have a word with you. :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;460078]And the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics"]Second law of thermodynamics[/URL] might want to have a word with you. :smile:[/QUOTE]

TBH, it is easy to create cold (just thik to your fridge). What's really hard is to do it efficiently.

[QUOTE=retina;460029]Curious. I would have thought [strike]vacuums[/strike] [b]vacua[/b] were already in the lightest possible state. Show how much I know.[/QUOTE]FTFY. HTH. HAND.

[QUOTE=ET_;460079]TBH, it is easy to create cold (just thik to your fridge). What's really hard is to do it efficiently.[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, your fridge is not creating cold. It is moving heat from the inside of the compartment to the outside (most likely to the back or the bottom). The warm air then needs to be sent outside.

If you don't believe me, open your fridge door and let it run for 24 hours in an enclosed space. Trust me that not only will all your food be ruined, but your space will be warmer.

It saddens me a little bit how little most people understand basic physics.

[QUOTE=chalsall;460084]With all due respect, your fridge is not creating cold. It is moving heat from the inside of the compartment to the outside (most likely to the back or the bottom). The warm air then needs to be sent outside.

If you don't believe me, open your fridge door and let it run for 24 hours in an enclosed space. Trust me that not only will all your food be ruined, but your space will be warmer.

It saddens me a little bit how little most people understand basic physics.[/QUOTE]

Moving heat away is not creating cold, in your words.
Fine.
How do you call the action of temperature lowering, if not "creating cold"?
Maybe I have a linguistic issue here... :smile:

BTW, I am less than a nerd in Physics, but the second law of Thermodynamics talk about [I]isolated systems[/I], something we were not dealing about here.

[QUOTE=ET_;460085]How do you call the action of temperature lowering, if not "creating cold"? Maybe I have a linguistic issue here... :smile:.[/QUOTE]

It's known as "doing work". Yes, you can create temperatures lower than ambient, but it requires energy to do so. Edit: Said spent energy results in greater entropy, which must be sent somewhere.

[QUOTE=ET_;460085]BTW, I am less than a nerd in Physics, but the second law of Thermodynamics talk about [I]isolated systems[/I], something we were not dealing about here.[/QUOTE]

At the end of the day, we are. The Universe is a closed system.

Even the rotational momentum should equal zero.

[QUOTE=chalsall;460089][QUOTE=ET_;460085]BTW, I am less than a nerd in Physics, but the second law of Thermodynamics talk about [I]isolated systems[/I], something we were not dealing about here.[/QUOTE]

At the end of the day, we are. The Universe is a closed system.[/QUOTE]

I don't think so, at least not in the sense that energy is conserved,
[url]http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/[/url]
unless you take the point of view that the expansion of the universe does negative work
[url]https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/is-energy-conserved-in-a-universe-with-dark-energy-a26572cc6853[/url]

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;460092]I don't think so, at least not in the sense that energy is conserved[/QUOTE]

Hey, I'm very comfortable being shown I am incorrect.

Please bring it forward. I *like* learning new things.

Haha, I love you guys, and I love how the discussion became technical, following some typos and some fine humor. That is why I like this forum.

Now, to contribute, technically you can create cold. I mean create it, not move the heat away like in the fridge. You just have to slow or totally stop the motion of the particles there. It is not at the hand of ordinary people, but it can be done. In modern physics labs, "real" scientists use lasers to do so, i.e. to slow down particles and create temperatures close to zero Kelvin (edit: and below :razz:)

[QUOTE=chalsall;460089]At the end of the day, we are. The Universe is a closed system.Even the rotational momentum should equal zero.[/QUOTE]Why should it have zero angular momentum? It's far from obvious to me.

[QUOTE=LaurV;460114]That is why I like this forum. [/QUOTE]

Ditto. It is great having a place where people can contribute to and learn from many serious people who have wide ranging training and experience. And where being wrong is perfectly OK -- the scientific method. This is how we learn.

[QUOTE=LaurV;460114]Now, to contribute, technically you can create cold. I mean create it, not move the heat away like in the fridge. You just have to slow or totally stop the motion of the particles there. It is not at the hand of ordinary people, but it can be done. In modern physics labs, "real" scientists use lasers to do so, i.e. to slow down particles and create temperatures close to zero Kelvin (edit: and below :razz:)[/QUOTE]

But... You are comparing apples and oranges here. You are ignoring that the lasers being used to lower the temperature in an enclosed space are outside of said enclosed space, but consume energy to do the work.

Thus, again, you are not creating cold, but simply moving heat from one space to another.

[QUOTE=xilman;460126]Why should it have zero angular momentum? It's far from obvious to me.[/QUOTE]

You are correct; I'm incorrect. We don't know what happened at the "Beginning of Time" in our Universe, so assuming all energy values should equal zero is not a valid assumption.

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."