first, thank you l.capriotti for all your hard work on XBMC and XBMCLive. i've been using Atlantis since november and love it.
now that i'm using the aeon skin and moving to babylon i've upgraded my thumb drive to an 8GB model. during the install, i wasn't given the option to specify the persistent storage file size, which is no big deal, but the file it created is limited to 4GB by the FAT filesystem in which it resides.
given the 4GB file size limitation of the FAT filesystem, why use it? do you know of a simple workaround?
Does XBMC Live format the drive on which it places that file? If that's not the case, then try to make a different filesystem on the drive and attempt to install XBMC on the drive again and see if it sees the filesystem and just places the file appropriately.
Most likely the files system that's on the USB drive is left untouched for reasons of integrity.
Or maybe it just hasn't come up yet?
the installer formats the USB drive as vfat. from the XBMCLive.log file:
[08:48:45] Running: mkfs.vfat -I -F 32 -n XBMCLive_82 /dev/sdb1
i'm sure there must be some reason luigi chose it. i'd love to figure out an alternative...
IMHO A 4 GB permanent storage file should offer plenty of space for system related updates, given the fact that all skins, plugins, etc are going to the directory dotXBMC by default, hence they are not included in the 4 GB storage file.
Benefits with FAT
- The filesystem is readable on every OS, which we want dotXBMC to be
- It's not a journaling filesystem, so it keeps tear down on the USB drive
l.capriotti Wrote:IMHO A 4 GB permanent storage file should offer plenty of space for system related updates, given the fact that all skins, plugins, etc are going to the directory dotXBMC by default, hence they are not included in the 4 GB storage file.
hrm... i thought i had read a post by you saying that thumbnails, etc... were stored in the persistent file. if that is not the case, then i think i will shrink the persistent file, not increase it. i'm most worried about the userdata/thumbnails directory, which is in dotXBMC, right?
and why not ext2 instead of fat? fat just seems so "un-linux".
Topfs2 Wrote:Benefits with FAT
- The filesystem is readable on every OS, which we want dotXBMC to be
ah! answers my question above.
miked2024 Wrote:i'm most worried about the userdata/thumbnails directory, which is in dotXBMC, right?.
yes indeed