From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JapY6-0008UK-FM for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:53:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D55AE0458; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:53:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (fk-out-0910.google.com [209.85.128.188]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9AEE0458 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:52:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 18so5456612fkq.2 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:52:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=EE7Kvtym3DfblII5W+Fj0skrHdgvgZhsFl8kXZluvSc=; b=Py71v/2mYoGDgMHPrx9/LTNZKpL7b89bFh47rp/Kdb6xOBHPtBNXeJ38yxs3e/xVgb3HeH8XB74UoDkXIxKm7zUi+QhoxyX/NojpEu2sbWG1uQUa+TYs9xvxPa8MAzvwf6nM+Ptj2wmEfMkOA+n1LDVqlB6sBxp70JWJxt0LxEE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=dzTpiRh5lvQJPae5AGQDsOFPjkqk983Hv+T9MjmhezkIEndfIrnuaj3ZfUuGJGCLtR4qhCz65Vc6IfKw2E+SNWAFLqs/rvce2HA8uXu5iG2oBk2ierHS2rZ+yqRGOQ6xLm80odlpVsxHko6E7E6hV1x2IYXV8g6Kfe3Q+PKdXBI= Received: by 10.78.140.17 with SMTP id n17mr37479227hud.43.1205661179037; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.0.3? ( [41.243.253.153]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j10sm23798573mue.14.2008.03.16.02.52.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:52:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: jffs2 on gentoo Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:46:27 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <21D3AB88-C36A-4BF1-8FB2-C2F40C3992B5@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> <20080316083804.GA12745@venus> In-Reply-To: <20080316083804.GA12745@venus> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803161146.28094.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 175f8cdc-5b6b-4109-8705-29b5ff85d6ef X-Archives-Hash: 050a853f566b6065175ce5b654afba57 On Sunday 16 March 2008, Jan Seeger wrote: > Yeah, it's the same here. I read an article in the german computer > magazine c't, and they said that they have tried to break USB sticks > with repeated writes, but have never succeeded (I think they ran > 10000 writes, but I could be wrong). That test is probably insufficient. Somebody actually did this test on lkml some time ago, and found that the better devices were rated to 100,000 writes to the same cell and the el-cheapo jobs were somewhere around 10,000. IOW, the manufacturer of a cheapie says it should cope with 10,000 writes *at least*, so in practice you could expect more. I'd start to believe a test that does >1,000,000 writes to the same cell before drawing any conclusions. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list