Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:54:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:54:48 -0500 Received: from jaguar.mkp.net ([66.11.169.42]:3762 "EHLO jaguar.mkp.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 20:54:47 -0500 To: Daniel Egger Cc: Pavel Machek , kernel list Subject: Re: Compactflash cards dying? From: "Martin K. Petersen" Organization: mkp.net References: <20030202223009.GA344@elf.ucw.cz> <1044232591.545.8.camel@sonja> Date: 02 Feb 2003 21:04:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1044232591.545.8.camel@sonja> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1148 Lines: 26 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Egger writes: Daniel> CF has limited write cycles. A few hundred if you're lucky. Aah, that's a bit pessimistic. Even for a regular flash. It is true that the number of write cycles varies between cards. Some vendors have both consumer and industrial grade cards, and the industrial grade ones use better parts inside. However, I have yet to see a CF card which didn't survive beyond a million writes. Note that CF cards do transparent wear averaging inside. So it's obviously not a million writes to the same physical spot. Also, most vendors claim they have spare blocks for relocating areas that are completely worn out. So while a Compact Flash isn't a hard disk, it is at least a couple of orders of magnitude better than "hundreds of writes". -- Martin K. Petersen Wild Open Source, Inc. mkp@wildopensource.com http://www.wildopensource.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/