Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262684AbVENCns (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2005 22:43:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262685AbVENCns (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2005 22:43:48 -0400 Received: from science.horizon.com ([192.35.100.1]:7722 "HELO science.horizon.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262684AbVENCnq (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2005 22:43:46 -0400 Date: 14 May 2005 02:43:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20050514024346.18045.qmail@science.horizon.com> From: linux@horizon.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Sync option destroys flash! Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1208 Lines: 24 Alan the Hirsute spake unto the masses: > All non-shite quality flash keys have an on media log structured file > system and will take 100,000+ writes per sector or so. They decent ones > also map out bad blocks and have spares. The "wear out the same sector" > stuff is a myth except on ultra-crap devices. I would have though so, but I can say from personal experience that SanDisk brand CF cards respond to losing power during a write by producing a bad sector. I had assumed that a sensible implementation would take advantage of the out-of-place writing by doing a two-phase commit at write time, so writes would be atomic. Does anyone know of a CF manufacturer that *does* guarantee atomic writes? Obviously, if power is lost during a write, it's not clear whether I'll get the old or the new contents, but I want one or ther other and not -EIO. Given that SanDisk first developed the CompactFlash card, you'd think they'd be a fairly reputable brand... - 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/