[bookport] Re: POSSIBLE FILESYSTEM HANDLING BUG IN BOOKPORT F IRMWARE 2.X?
- From: Chris Hill <hillco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:41:56 -0500
Yes, there is an expected number of writes on flash. As far as what
that is, nobody knows who is willing to tell. I suspect the
manufacturers have a good idea. I'd be surprised if nls didn't use a
type of flash that can only be written once.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:02:06 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm shocked. I thought, after reading the Library of Congress's endorsement
>of flashcard technology, that their usefulness and durability was virtually
>limitless. Can someone clue me in? Is there an expected life expectancy
>for flashcards? Is there an expected number of times one may be re-written
>before it fails? Do you know how many times that is--roughly, of course?
>
>Louis Gosselin
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: buhrow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:buhrow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 3:17 PM
>To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [bookport] Re: POSSIBLE FILESYSTEM HANDLING BUG IN BOOKPORT
>FIRMWARE 2.X?
>
>
> That's a good point, but in my case, the flash card is less than a
>month old, so I hardly think I've used the cycle count up. -Brian On Sep 13,
>3:03pm, Chris Hill wrote: } Subject: [bookport] Re: POSSIBLE FILESYSTEM
>HANDLING BUG IN BOOKPORT FIRMW } Could be a bug with bookport. It could
>also be that since flash } doesn't last forever and the directory area is
>going to get used the } hardest, that's where the errors will show up. I
>have one card that } won't just error out constantly, it'll just do it now
>and then. }
>}
>}
>>-- End of excerpt from Chris Hill
>
>
Other related posts:
