possible small issue in 4.9f?

[ZebraWetter]

Hi there,

I just installed a clean v4.9f on a DC01 (I will report later )
The system information says: v4.9f (build1038) installed.
When meteohub is told to look for a new update, it wants to download v4.9e
E stands before f in the alphabet, doesn't it?

Happy easter!
Andre

[HWTest]

I quote from the 4.9f readme:
"Free selectable temperature sensor to use for wind chill and sealevel pressure computation. This feature is still experimental and has potential to produce some new bugs. Cyclic up/downgrade between versions 4.9e and 4.9f allow you to go back if you experience trouble with that."

PS: I envy you for your DC01, I'm still waiting for mine to be delivered

[ZebraWetter]

Hm, I didn't test it...
You say, it means, that meteohub recognizes v4.9f and serves now a downgrade to 4.9e and otherwise, if 4.9e is installed, it allows upgrading to 4.9f?
Ok, in this case the "small issue" is not in meteohub, it's in my brain.

Well, my DC01 has a fresh installation of meteohub since yesterday. Today I want to transfer my meteohub license from my Alix to the DC01. The data and config from the Alix should be moved at the same time. I decided to install a Kingston 16GB SSD, there is enough free capacitiy for the next few years.

[HWTest]

That's how I understand it.

I'm planning an ADATA S396S 30GB SSD.
Can you please check, if the partitions are properly aligned?

[admin]

I did take care on alligning partitions to full MBs (multiples of 2048 x 512 byte blocks on DC01 platform). But you can check anyway.

[HWTest]

I think aligning to 4k sectors is sufficient, but aligning to erase block size should be better.
I will check it, when my DC01 finally arrives ...
And if I'm not satisfied, I'll realign it as I did with my SD card in the Sheva

[ZebraWetter]

The installed drive is a Kingston SS050S2/16G.

Code: Select all

Disk /dev/sda: 16.0 GB, 16013942784 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 1946 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00008000

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1               1           2       10240   ff  BBT
Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/sda2               2         192     1524736   83  Linux
Partition 2 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/sda3             192         217      204800   82  Linux swap / Solaris
Partition 3 does not end on cylinder boundary.
/dev/sda4             217        1947    13897816   83  Linux

[HWTest]

Thank you, it is looking good (4k alignment).

But:

dev/sda2 block size is divisible only by 1024, but the erase block size of most SSDs is 512k, so it is OK
I would shrink /dev/sda4 to 13897728 blocks, so it is divisible by 2048.

[admin]

Partition 4 simply fills up until end of SSD. So I don't think this gives any penalty, regardless if it is on a 512KB border or not.

[HWTest]

I didn't say it's wrong, only what I would do.
I don't think it makes any measurable difference but I would have a better feeling from it