"Error splicing file: File too large"

[Dave Stevens]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 06:44:19 +0900
Joel Rees <joel.rees at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Oliver Grawert <ogra at ubuntu.com>
> wrote:
> > hi,
> > On So, 2016-09-18 at 12:51 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:  
> >>
> >> And how should we know what somebody means when using GB for both?
> >> Was
> >> the OP talking about 2 ^ 30 or talking about 10 ^ 9 and how do we
> >> know
> >> that? If we would distinguish, call one always GB and the other
> >> always
> >> GiB, there would be no doubts. IMO 10 ^ 9 anyway is grotesque and
> >> never should be used as a scale related to bits and bytes.
> >>  
> > how does it matter, the OP has a 14 gig (see what i did
> > here ? ;) ... ) file and uses a fat32 filesystem that can not
> > handle file sizes above 4.
> >
> > which causes the error he is seeing ...
> >
> > the difference of 1000 vs 1074 bytes in the measurement units is not
> > relevant at all for this ...  
> 
> I assume that you mean, uhm, megabytes and mebibytes, or maybebytes or
> something. At any rate, I assume you do not mean bytes.
> 
> (What power of 2 is 1074? ;-)
> 
> > also the original post only uses GB i dont see where you see a prob
> > with this. before you claimed he should use GiB instead there was no
> > confusion or mix-up of any units (even karl talked aboout GB in his
> > answer)
> >
> > ciao
> >         oli
> > --  
> 
> Well, it required some interpretation (as in JEDEC vs IEC vs IRM), and
> fat32 is no longer fat32.
> 
> And you still find manufacturers depending on the idea that flash is
> the new floppy, and most people don't need even half of the capacity
> they buy, as someone mentioned.
> 
> (And, apparently, the OP's device was formatted in a variant of FAT32
> that does handle greater than 4GB files, since it errored out at the
> 99% mark. Or something.)

perhaps I can clarify. The display didn't say 99%. Instead it was a
file copy operation counting down from 67K files. It had got to 500-odd
to go before crapping out. I don't necessarily think this meant it had
actually finished copying that many files and in fact when I looked at
the transferred file size after the crash it was about 4GB.

Dave

> 
> Basically, with the state of the market, if you want to store 14.1 *
> 2^30 bytes (heh), you want storage media advertised to be at least
> 32GB, whether what you want to store is a single file or not.
> 
> Storage is a mess right now, and the purveyors of the 80% solution
> (which was never even a 20% solution) are to blame.
> 



-- 
Reporter to Mahatma Ghandi after his tour of east London
"What do you think of western civilization, Mr. Ghandi?"
Ghandi - "I think it would be an excellent idea!"