TL3/626 Can't write on internal memory

[rkomar]

Expert command (m for help): p

Disk 840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd: 29.31 GiB, 31474057216 bytes, 61472768 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x00000000

Device                   Boot   Start      End  Sectors Id Type           Start-C/H/S End-C/H/S Attrs
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd1       1009664 61472768 60463105  b W95 FAT32            0/0/0     0/0/0 
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd2  *      73728   139263    65536  6 FAT16                0/0/0     0/0/0    80
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd3             1  1009664  1009664 85 Linux extended       0/0/0     0/0/0 
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd5        139264   172031    32768 83 Linux                0/0/0     0/0/0 
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd6        172032   204799    32768 83 Linux                0/0/0     0/0/0 
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd7        204800   275455    70656 83 Linux                0/0/0     0/0/0 
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd8        275456   776191   500736 83 Linux                0/0/0     0/0/0 
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd9        776192   976895   200704 83 Linux                0/0/0     0/0/0 
840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd10       976896  1009663    32768 83 Linux                0/0/0     0/0/0 

Partition table entries are not in disk order.

I don't have testdisk on my systems (slackware or ubuntu 18.04), so I cannot run that comparison. The point I was making is that the partition table is supposed to look messed up on the pocketbook devices. I would not be surprised if they do that as some kind of anti-cloning measure. The only difference I see between our partition tables is that my first partition starts at block 1009664 (the next block after the end of the last partition), while yours leaves a gap and starts at block 1011712. I doubt that is a significant difference. I would say that your partition table looks as expected and that you should leave it alone and not mess it up by trying to 'fix' it.

[Ebosder]

Very interesting. Thank you.

Originally Posted by rkomar

The only difference I see between our partition tables is that my first partition starts at block 1009664 (the next block after the end of the last partition), while yours leaves a gap and starts at block 1011712.

I actually wanted to select 10009665 as the start on the partition 1. But I wasn't paying enough attention and assumed that it would select this as the default anyway, so I just pressed Enter in "fdisk". Which then led to 1011712 as the start.
As I have taken this instructions (https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...8&postcount=89) to do the extension, I had the same result like the creater of this instructions as you can see in this link.

Originally Posted by rkomar

The only difference I see

There is another difference at the right side in Partition 1:

You:

  Start-C/H/S  End-C/H/S Attrs
     0/0/0        0/0/0

I:

  Start-C/H/S    Ende-C/H/S Attr.
           494/0/1      1023/63/32

But no Idea, what this is and how relevant it is.

Originally Posted by rkomar

The point I was making is that the partition table is supposed to look messed up on the pocketbook devices. I would say that your partition table looks as expected and that you should leave it alone and not mess it up by trying to 'fix' it.

Maybe you are right.
Maybe all errors from testdisk are normal for a Pocketbook. Too bad you can't run Testdisk.
But maybe I have all the errors from testdisk, because my original sd card was corrupted when I made the image of it. Actually this is what I want to know. Are this testdisk errors normal for PacketBook or do I have them, because my original sd was corrupted before I made the image.
Maybe there is anybody else who could run testdisk?




Please allow me some questions:

1. What is your "840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd"?
Is this an image? Is this the new sd you have created from your old corrupted original sd?

2.

You should also use the ereader to format the new larger partition.

As already said: I have made this in Linux with the instructions I have linked.
Have you done this in your EBook itself? Maybe this is why our two extension look different in the column "Start-C/H/S End-C/H/S" ?
If you have made this in your EBook itself:
In which slot was the sd card with the partition you wanted expand? In the internal slot or in the external slot?
How were you able to use the commands for the expand in the EBook?
Is there something like a terminal in the EBook? If yes, how can I start it?

3. What happens if you take your new internal sd card out of your EBook and plug it directly into a Windows PC via USB. How long does it take to recognize the sd card until you see it in the Windows Explorer?

Thank you.

[rkomar]

I took the original SD card out of my inkpad and did most of the manipulations on the new card using my linux desktop. 840-c39e5f65-fw5.15.dd is the image of my new card extracted using dd. I am saving it in case I have to go through the process again with another new card. After rebooting with the new card, I went to the system menu and reformatted the new larger partition. This erased all of the old contents, so I had to copy over ebooks and applications again. I did that almost five years ago, so the details are hazy in my memory. It is possible that I tried to fix the original filesystem to save the contents and then expand it, but I vaguely recall not trusting the results and reformatting to start fresh.

My Inkpad is a bit of a pain to open, so I don't really want to take the card out and test it elsewhere. I still have another SD card with a previous attempt on it, so I tried that instead on my eeepc with Windows 7. It detected the card within a few seconds and asked me if I wanted to repair some problems it found. I said no, dismissed the popup for dealing with the contents, and was able to browse the contents of the VFAT filesystem using file explorer. I did not notice any unusually long pauses during any of that (although, to be fair, the eeepc is a painfully slow computer, so I'm used to waiting around for it to do stuff).

You can get a terminal on the device if you install pbterm on it (search this forum for that). Personally, I prefer using utelnetd instead to get a terminal session over telnet. I can use my desktop keyboard instead of the software keyboard in pbterm, and I can run vi in the telnet session.