4 Operator

 • 

11.1K Posts

October 14th, 2008 12:00


@bdthompson wrote:

I hope Dell is reading this forum.

 

While I understand systems shipped with Ubuntu are not really supported by Dell, the Mini 9 with 8 or 16 GB SSD is configured with a 4 GB file system. 

 

Dell should either configure the file structure correctly out of the box or include a script to do the job.

 

Could a soon to be named hero post instructions on how to add the missing space.

 

 


What exactly do you mean by a 4GB file system? Are you saying that only 4GB is formatted for ext3 and everything else is unused?

19 Posts

October 14th, 2008 13:00

I don't have a mini 9, but if the previous response is correct and you just have a bunch of unused disk space after the first 4GB, then I'd think you could just install gparted from the repos and use it to expand the main partition into the empty space.

4 Operator

 • 

11.1K Posts

October 14th, 2008 13:00

Me thinks  bdthompson knows not of what he speaks. A file system is NTFS, FAT32, FAT16, ext2, ext3, reiserfs, etc. Usually Ubuntu uses ext3 file system which is capable of a smallest maximum file size of 16GB.

4 Operator

 • 

11.1K Posts

October 14th, 2008 14:00


@dwasifar wrote:

Out of curiosity, and off the topic, why do you dual-boot Ubuntu and Kubuntu on one of your machines?  Wouldn't it be easier to just install kubuntu-desktop over an Ubuntu installation and switch sessions between Gnome and KDE?  Just curious.


 

For the heck of it. :manwink:   I had them on 120GB drive, so there was no reason to conserve diskspace. I should change my signature because the Ubuntu and Kubuntu was installed on a secondary hard drive which I had to commandeer to be the primary drive since the primary drive started acting up. Initially I didn't like Gnome much, but now I find that I like it more than KDE. I'm still not too keen on the earthy colors of Ubuntu. I like the slick PCLinuxOS colors, but there isn't a 2008 version.

19 Posts

October 14th, 2008 14:00

That does seem odd, now that you put it that way.

 

Out of curiosity, and off the topic, why do you dual-boot Ubuntu and Kubuntu on one of your machines?  Wouldn't it be easier to just install kubuntu-desktop over an Ubuntu installation and switch sessions between Gnome and KDE?  Just curious.

19 Posts

October 14th, 2008 15:00


@ieee488 wrote:

@dwasifar wrote:

Out of curiosity, and off the topic, why do you dual-boot Ubuntu and Kubuntu on one of your machines?  Wouldn't it be easier to just install kubuntu-desktop over an Ubuntu installation and switch sessions between Gnome and KDE?  Just curious.


 

For the heck of it. :manwink:   I had them on 120GB drive, so there was no reason to conserve diskspace. I should change my signature because the Ubuntu and Kubuntu was installed on a secondary hard drive which I had to commandeer to be the primary drive since the primary drive started acting up. Initially I didn't like Gnome much, but now I find that I like it more than KDE. I'm still not too keen on the earthy colors of Ubuntu. I like the slick PCLinuxOS colors, but there isn't a 2008 version.


I agree that the default Ubuntu theme is terrible.  The Hardy Heron wallpaper looks like someone puked a stork.  But you can always change it.  There's lots of interesting stuff over at gnome-look.org.  

 

Here's a link to my current Ubuntu desktop:  http://www.dwasifar.com/Screenshot.png

 

I tried posting it directly but it messed up the thread.

 

 

Message Edited by dwasifar on 10-14-2008 11:10 AM

26 Posts

October 14th, 2008 16:00

Correct.  However, the Ubuntu Dell forum has an excellent tutorial that gives step by step instructions to fix it.  Look at the Mini 9 thread. 

 

Apparently Dell created an image for a 4 GB drive.  While Linux whizzes can fix it with no problem, noobs or

grandma who was convinced by her grandson to get the Ubuntu version may well never know she has 12 GB of missing file space.

 

19 Posts

October 14th, 2008 16:00


@bdthompson wrote:

I'm sorry you are an unbeliver, but in any unix system the file system can be much smaller than the physical drive.


What filesystem is used for that 4GB partition?

26 Posts

October 14th, 2008 16:00

I'm sorry you are an unbeliver, but in any unix system the file system can be much smaller than the physical drive.

 

Don't tell Ubuntu that the a file system cannot be created of less than 16 GB.  There are tons of new Mini 9 owners out there who clearly have/had only 4 GB of mounted file space available.  Until adjusted the balance of the physical space is unavailable.

19 Posts

October 14th, 2008 18:00


@ieee488 wrote:

@bdthompson wrote:

I'm sorry you are an unbeliver, but in any unix system the file system can be much smaller than the physical drive.

 

Don't tell Ubuntu that the a file system cannot be created of less than 16 GB.  There are tons of new Mini 9 owners out there who clearly have/had only 4 GB of mounted file space available.  Until adjusted the balance of the physical space is unavailable.


 

You are using the term  file system INCORRECTLY. What you are describing is that Dell created a partition only 4GB large on a hard drive that is capable of more. The  file system has NOTHING to do with it. If you want to rant and rave, at least try to understand and use terms that are accurate.

 

Part of this disagreement seems to be coming from the distinction between "file system," meaning the sum of the disks and devices available to a *nix system, and "filesystem," meaning the format of a partition (ext3, ntfs, reiserfs, etc.).

 

When bdthompson writes that he has a 4GB "file system," he probably means that if he chooses File System from within Nautilus on his machine, he is shown only 4GB, because unformatted space is not available to the OS.  

 

To avoid this misunderstanding I would have put it differently; I would have said that the installation has only 4GB of partitions. 

 

To say you have a 4GB "file system" is misleading, because the size of the file system is not fixed, but varies according to what devices are available to the system at the time.  If you plug a 2GB thumb drive into the machine, the file system now has 6GB available; if you connect to a network share with 1TB of storage, the file system has 1004GB available.  But the term itself, "File System" as bdthompson is using it, is not incorrect, just a little confusing.

Message Edited by dwasifar on 10-14-2008 02:29 PM

4 Operator

 • 

11.1K Posts

October 14th, 2008 18:00


@bdthompson wrote:

I'm sorry you are an unbeliver, but in any unix system the file system can be much smaller than the physical drive.

 

Don't tell Ubuntu that the a file system cannot be created of less than 16 GB.  There are tons of new Mini 9 owners out there who clearly have/had only 4 GB of mounted file space available.  Until adjusted the balance of the physical space is unavailable.


 

You are using the term  file system INCORRECTLY. What you are describing is that Dell created a partition only 4GB large on a hard drive that is capable of more. The  file system has NOTHING to do with it. If you want to rant and rave, at least try to understand and use terms that are accurate.

19 Posts

October 14th, 2008 18:00


@ieee488 wrote:

@dwasifar wrote:

But the term itself, "File System" as bdthompson is using it, is not incorrect, just a little confusing.

I certainly was confused. :robotwink:    The generally accepted description of file system - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_system#Disk_file_systems 


That link does little to clear up the confusion.  :)  It addresses both meanings of the term, and makes matters worse by using the two spellings interchangeably.  I think bdthompson's meaning of the term can be found in that article under the heading "File systems under Unix-like operating systems" where it discusses the virtual file system: "Unix-like operating systems create a virtual file system, which makes all the files on all the devices appear to exist in a single hierarchy."

 

I really wish the two terms were more distinct.  As it is, you can open any Nautilus window and one of the navigation options on the left is "File System," meaning the *nix virtual file system described above, which has no specific "filesystem" in the sense of partition format. 

Message Edited by dwasifar on 10-14-2008 03:00 PM

4 Operator

 • 

11.1K Posts

October 14th, 2008 18:00


@dwasifar wrote:

But the term itself, "File System" as bdthompson is using it, is not incorrect, just a little confusing.

I certainly was confused. :robotwink:    The generally accepted description of file system - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_system#Disk_file_systems 
 
Message Edited by ieee488 on 10-14-2008 03:44 PM
Message Edited by ieee488 on 10-14-2008 03:44 PM

October 14th, 2008 21:00

I've just now found a solution on the Ubuntu forums.  I thought I'd link to it here for others with this problem.

 

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=910487&page=26

 

Scroll down to the post by Trebonius.  It worked like a charm for me, with my Mini 9 out of the box.

 

The great solutions and support from ubuntu forums far, far surpasses any I've received from Dell, HP, etc... 

 

E.M.

October 14th, 2008 21:00

Sorry to interrupt, but I haven't seen anyone offer any solutions yet.  Could someone please explain to a noob how exactly to resize the boot partition?   I have a Mini 9 with Ubuntu 8.04.  I've added GParted.  When I open the partition editor, I see thsi:

 

/dev/sda1 (fat16) 23.5 MB

/dev/sda2 3.5 GB

unallocated 10.82 GB

 

The program will not let me resize the /dev/sda2.  The option is grayed out.  And  I can't unmount it, obviously, since I'm working within it. 

 

Any help?  How do I get that unallocated 10 GB into my main partition?  I know I could set up a separate partition for that space, but I don't want that.  If necessary, I'll go out and buy a external optical drive and reinstall the whole OS properly myself.

 

Ya know, I'm glad that Dell's shipping Ubuntu pre-installed, but come on, Dell!

 

So, anyone, please help!

No Events found!

Top