Disk space error

[dunhill]

I have my libraries on an external 2tb disk, and when I switched to the main library I got this error. Here I leave detail for you to the disk still has space to spare.

calibre, version 5.2.0
ERROR: Excepción no considerada: <b>OSError</b>:[Errno 28] No queda espacio en el dispositivo: '/media/walter/ELEMENTS/Libros/calibre_test_case_sensitivity.txt'

calibre 5.2 embedded-python: True is64bit: True
Linux-5.4.0-48-generic-x86_64-with-glibc2.2.5 Linux ('64bit', 'ELF')
('Linux', '5.4.0-48-generic', '#52-Ubuntu SMP Thu Sep 10 10:58:49 UTC 2020')
Python 3.8.5
Interface language: es
Successfully initialized third party plugins: Gather KFX-ZIP (from KFX Input) (1, 34, 0) && DeDRM (7, 0, 0) && Package KFX (from KFX Input) (1, 34, 0) && Actualizador Biblioteca EPG (1, 6, 0) && Barnes & Noble (1, 2, 16) && BookFusion Plugin (0, 5, 3) && Comments Cleaner (1, 0, 0) && Count Pages (1, 10, 0) && EpubMerge (2, 11, 0) && Extract ISBN (1, 5, 0) && F_rating (3, 2, 0) && Find Duplicates (1, 7, 6) && Goodreads (1, 5, 1) && Goodreads Sync (1, 14, 3) && Goodreads_Rating (3, 1, 0) && Job Spy (1, 0, 185) && KFX metadata reader (from KFX Input) (1, 34, 0) && KFX Input (1, 34, 0) && KePub Input (3, 2, 10) && KePub Output (3, 4, 1) && LanguageTool (0, 1, 1) && Obok DeDRM (6, 7, 0) && Overdrive Link (2, 42, 0) && Quality Check (1, 10, 1) && Reading List (1, 6, 15) && Resize Cover (1, 1, 0) && Search The Internet (1, 8, 0) && Sum Column (0, 3, 0) && User Category (1, 5, 5) && View Manager (1, 5, 7) && Overdrive Link* (2, 42, 0)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "calibre/gui2/dialogs/choose_library.py", line 192, in accept
File "calibre/gui2/dialogs/choose_library.py", line 133, in perform_action
File "calibre/gui2/actions/choose_library.py", line 641, in choose_library_callback
File "calibre/gui2/ui.py", line 724, in library_moved
File "calibre/db/legacy.py", line 181, in __init__
File "calibre/db/legacy.py", line 45, in create_backend
File "calibre/db/backend.py", line 451, in __init__
File "calibre/utils/filenames.py", line 131, in is_case_sensitive
OSError: [Errno 28] No queda espacio en el dispositivo: '/media/walter/ELEMENTS/Libros/calibre_test_case_sensitivity.txt'

[pdurrant]

Your external disk has space to spare, but apparently not your system disk. Specifically, the directory /media/walter/ELEMENTS/Libros/

[dunhill]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Your external disk has space to spare, but apparently not your system disk. Specifically, the directory /media/walter/ELEMENTS/Libros/

I have the other libraries on the same device and read the others, I chose to reload the books from the library that gives the error to a new one and no problem. From what I can read in the error it is as if there was a lack of communication when loading new books.

[kovidgoyal]

The operating system is reporting ENOSPC when trying to write a file to that directory. Either the disk is actually full or you are using a filesystem with a liit on the number of files you can create in a directory, like the FAT filesystem.

[dunhill]

I have it formatted in Fat32, will I have to pass it to exfat? I use it in both Windows and Linux thanks for the information

[kovidgoyal]

Sorry it's been a long time since I used FAT for anything, I dont recall the details of its limits. You can try exfat and see if it helps. Or these days linux has a perfectly serviceable NTFS filesystem driver.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Sorry it's been a long time since I used FAT for anything, I dont recall the details of its limits.

For FAT32 in specific:

4 GB file size
8 TB maximum partition size
4194304 files on volume

255 characters in file paths, but I think NTFS has this limitation too

It also doesn't like power interruptions (NTFS and I think ext3 uses journaling/transactions, which provides some protection against the filesystem getting scrambled).

The main advantage of FAT32 is that it's pretty much compatible with everything.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

For FAT32 in specific:

4 GB file size
8 TB maximum partition size
4194304 files on volume

255 characters in file paths, but I think NTFS has this limitation too

It also doesn't like power interruptions (NTFS and I think ext3 uses journaling/transactions, which provides some protection against the filesystem getting scrambled).

The main advantage of FAT32 is that it's pretty much compatible with everything.

May I ask where you got those numbers from?

The numbers I have kicking around in some older Microsoft documentation (Windows 98SE era) were:

Max disk size: 2 terabytes
Max file size: 4 gigabytes (2^32-1)
Max number of files on disk: 268435437 (2^28-19)
Max number of files in a single folder: 65534 (2^16-1)

There's is some vague memory of being able to use a FAT32 partition from 4 -16 terabyte but that required using 1024-4096 byte sectors which was not Microsoft supported out of the box.

Also note the file numbers drop when long file names are using since FAT32 LFNs use multiple directory entries -- a maximum 255 character LFN would use 20 directory entries plus 1 for the short file name. Then you use two for the . and .. directory entries other than the root directory.

I got bitten by this a couple of decades back where a backup solution used very long filenames for the backup indexes and crashed when the number of backup index entries was about 7500 though that volume was less than 50% full.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by DNSB

May I ask where you got those numbers from?

The numbers I have kicking around in some older Microsoft documentation (Windows 98SE era) were:

Max disk size: 2 terabytes
Max file size: 4 gigabytes (2^32-1)
Max number of files on disk: 268435437 (2^28-19)
Max number of files in a single folder: 65534 (2^16-1)

Some of it is from what I remember and some of the exact numbers are from google.


Actually according to more google searches there's some weirdness about how big a FAT32 partition could be. I think Windows only lets you do 32GB and making it bigger requires third-party tools. Some say it's up to 2TB, others the 8TB (which is what I remembered).

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I got bitten by this a couple of decades back where a backup solution used very long filenames for the backup indexes and crashed when the number of backup index entries was about 7500 though that volume was less than 50% full.

I got burned by the power interruption once or twice. If the power goes out while something's being modified it can leave it in a half-modified state and scramble up the file system itself. Most modern filesystems use journaling and transaction processing to prevent this, so usually you only lose whatever data was being written.

I think there's a "transaction-safe FAT" somewhere about but I'm not sure if it's actually used anywhere.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

Some of it is from what I remember and some of the exact numbers are from google.


Actually according to more google searches there's some weirdness about how big a FAT32 partition could be. I think Windows only lets you do 32GB and making it bigger requires third-party tools.

The 32GB limit depends on the variety of Windows (Windows 95 and Windows 98 use the 2TB limit while Windows 2000 was limited to 32GB). Generally for USB drives over 32GB, I go with exFAT to allow files larger than 4GB.

See Description of the FAT32 File System and Microsoft FAT32 Specification. The second link downloads a Word document that is a pretty much a guaranteed cure for insomnia.

[ownedbycats]

What's also fun is different filename limitations on different OSes. I once managed (due to a piece of buggy software) to rename a file with an invalid character in Windows and I had to use a Linux boot disk to fix the damn thing.

[NiLuJe]

TL;DR: FAT32 is terrible, burn it with fire? ^^

Snark aside, as Kovid said, NTFS has been fairly usable on Linux for years (via ntfs3g), and there are efforts being made currently to merge a proper, in-kernel module with all the bells and whistles.

If you're *really* allergic to FUSE, or if you do need more cross-platform friendliness, exFAT would be a decent choice, unless you need to use the drive on truly horrendously old or weird hardware. Do note that it's *still* not journalled, though.

[ownedbycats]

FAT32 is still useful for backwards compatibility, but if you have access to NTFS or Ext3 I'd prefer that just because of how easily FAT and ExFAT corrupt.

[Quoth]

SD cards and USB sticks use FAT, FAT32 and exFAT, or even ext2 BECAUSE they are not journaled.
2G and less can use FAT
4G to 32 G needs FAT32
larger than 32 G cards/sticks ought to be using exFAT.

NTFS originally wasn't meant for removable storage at all. On NT4.0 you could not eject an NTFS removable disk without unmounting in Disk Administrator, or a shutdown! It can even be a problem on USB HDDs for some Apples as well as Linux if there isn't an additional driver for NTFS.

The ext2 or ext4 should only be used with gadgets that natively support it or on Linux. I have got an ext2 driver on my old XP laptop I stopped using in 2016.