Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #33496 > unrolled thread

Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it?

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2016-08-17 23:15 +0100
    Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-08-17 15:53 -0700
      Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? crankypuss <undisclosedUserid@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 08:56 -0600
        Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 19:01 +0200
    Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? AL <noemail@none.com> - 2016-08-17 16:14 -0700
      Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? AL <noemail@none.com> - 2016-08-17 16:31 -0700
    Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-17 22:21 -0400
      Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 07:38 +0200
        Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 07:22 +0000
    Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? crankypuss <undisclosedUserid@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 08:55 -0600
    Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-08-19 15:20 +0100
      Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? musika <mUs1Ka@NOSPAMexcite.com> - 2016-08-19 15:36 +0100
        Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-08-20 15:52 +0100
          Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Dave Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2016-08-20 19:15 +0100
            Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-08-27 17:49 +0100
              Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Dave Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2016-08-27 20:40 +0100
                Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-08-28 14:54 +0100
      Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? AL <noemail@none.com> - 2016-08-19 08:11 -0700
      Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-08-20 23:32 +0100
        Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2016-08-21 10:28 +0100
    Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 07:02 -0400
      Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 07:12 -0400
      Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Nigel Wade <nmw@local.domain> - 2016-08-22 09:55 +0100
        Re: Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it? Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 11:15 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#33496 — Maximum SD card capacity, what happens if you exceed it?

Just about all of our Android devices seem to say that the maximum SD
card capacity is 32Gb.  Is this a hard limit or is it just that 32Gb
is the maximum size tested?

-- 
Chris Green
·

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#33497

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:15:01 +0100, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:

>Just about all of our Android devices seem to say that the maximum SD
>card capacity is 32Gb.  Is this a hard limit or is it just that 32Gb
>is the maximum size tested?



I don't know about a limit for Android devices, but SD cards are
available in sizes up to at least 1TB.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33512

On 08/17/2016 04:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:15:01 +0100, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>
>> Just about all of our Android devices seem to say that the maximum SD
>> card capacity is 32Gb.  Is this a hard limit or is it just that 32Gb
>> is the maximum size tested?
>
>
>
> I don't know about a limit for Android devices, but SD cards are
> available in sizes up to at least 1TB.
>

No kidding?  Maximums they do grow quickly these days.

-- 
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
   [Sat Mar 26: "Documentation and Portability"]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33516

On 08/18/2016 04:56 PM, crankypuss wrote:
> On 08/17/2016 04:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:15:01 +0100, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Just about all of our Android devices seem to say that the maximum SD
>>> card capacity is 32Gb.  Is this a hard limit or is it just that 32Gb
>>> is the maximum size tested?
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know about a limit for Android devices, but SD cards are
>> available in sizes up to at least 1TB.
>>
>
> No kidding?  Maximums they do grow quickly these days.
>
They still can be limited to SDHC, not supporting SDXC.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33498

Chris Green wrote:
> Just about all of our Android devices seem to say that the maximum SD
> card capacity is 32Gb.  Is this a hard limit or is it just that 32Gb
> is the maximum size tested?

My Samsung tablet (Galaxy Tab S2)specs says up to 256 GB.

http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_tab_s2_8_0-7439.php

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33501

AL wrote:
> Chris Green wrote:
>> Just about all of our Android devices seem to say that the
>> maximum SD
>> card capacity is 32Gb.  Is this a hard limit or is it just
>> that 32Gb
>> is the maximum size tested?
>
> My Samsung tablet (Galaxy Tab S2)specs says up to 256 GB.
>
> http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_tab_s2_8_0-7439.php

And my phone is apparently 256 GB also. Not sure what I'd do 
with all that space, I hardly fill up the 32 GB card in 
there now.

http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_droid_turbo_2-7713.php

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33504

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:15:01 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

> Just about all of our Android devices seem to say that the maximum SD
> card capacity is 32Gb.  Is this a hard limit or is it just that 32Gb
> is the maximum size tested?

Device-dependent, surely. One of mine copes just fine with a 32 GB microSD
card, but won't even recognize a 64 GB one. May be an SDHC/SDXC difference.

HTH. YMMV. Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33505

Dne 18/08/2016 v 04:21 tlvp napsal(a):
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:15:01 +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> 
>> Just about all of our Android devices seem to say that the maximum SD
>> card capacity is 32Gb.  Is this a hard limit or is it just that 32Gb
>> is the maximum size tested?
> 
> Device-dependent, surely. One of mine copes just fine with a 32 GB microSD
> card, but won't even recognize a 64 GB one. May be an SDHC/SDXC difference.
> 
> HTH. YMMV. Cheers, -- tlvp
> 
AFAIK, 64 GBis a point of switching of used flash chip technology
from SDHC to SDXC.

Both my older camera Canon Powershot 590 IS
and phone Sony XPeria M Dual
have in specificatons they support SDHC and not SDXC,
with maximum supported capacity 32 GB.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33506

Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dne 18/08/2016 v 04:21 tlvp napsal(a):
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:15:01 +0100, Chris Green wrote:
>> 
>>> Just about all of our Android devices seem to say that the maximum SD
>>> card capacity is 32Gb.  Is this a hard limit or is it just that 32Gb
>>> is the maximum size tested?
>> 
>> Device-dependent, surely. One of mine copes just fine with a 32 GB microSD
>> card, but won't even recognize a 64 GB one. May be an SDHC/SDXC difference.
>> 
>> HTH. YMMV. Cheers, -- tlvp
>> 
> AFAIK, 64 GBis a point of switching of used flash chip technology
> from SDHC to SDXC.
> 
> Both my older camera Canon Powershot 590 IS
> and phone Sony XPeria M Dual
> have in specificatons they support SDHC and not SDXC,
> with maximum supported capacity 32 GB.
> 

Yup. Even with supposed compatibility with SDXC there are lots of reports
of problems with the higher capacity cards. If you really need it and your
device supports it try >32GB otherwise stick with 32GB for fewest hassles.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33511

On 08/17/2016 04:15 PM, Chris Green wrote:
> Just about all of our Android devices seem to say that the maximum SD
> card capacity is 32Gb.  Is this a hard limit or is it just that 32Gb
> is the maximum size tested?
>

That's usually something that's poorly documented in the maker's product 
description.  Mostly, I suspect, because the specs are older than the 
latest generation of sdcards.  To learn the answer you can ask about a 
*specific* device and someone may know, or you can stick in a 128-G 
sdcard and see what it does.  I've not run across an Android device that 
was limited in terms of card-capacity (though specs often advertise less 
than the largest available cards), but there are lots of devices out there.

-- 
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
   [Sat Mar 26: "Documentation and Portability"]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33544

In article <584f8d-oo6.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green wrote:
> Just about all of our Android devices seem to say that the maximum SD
> card capacity is 32Gb.  Is this a hard limit or is it just that 32Gb
> is the maximum size tested?

Yes.

You've had most of the answer in dribs and drabs from others, but the 
to set it all out together in one place:

There are three SD card standards:

SD cards can be up to 2GB in size.
SDHC cards can be up to 32GB in size.
SDXC cards can be up to 2TB in size.

[ Lots more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital ]

However, I have seen devices that say that they support SDXC cards up 
to 32GB. When I've tried a 64GB card this has worked, so I assume that 
in that case the 32GB claim was made, as you guessed, because no larger 
card had been available for testing.

I note that many devices today claim to support SDXC cards "up to 
200GB". I doubt that anyone will ever make a 200GB card, so I guess 
this should be taken as meaning that the manufacturer has tested 128GB 
cards but didn't have any 256GB card to try ... and claiming 200GB 
sounds better than claiming only 128GB, but doesn't promise 
compatibility with any future 256GB card.

Final point: the SDXC spec specifies that cards should be formatted 
with the exFAT file system (which has to be licensed from Microsoft), 
and cards of 64GB and greater tend to be supplied preformatted as 
exFAT. 

This means that if you want to use a 64GB card to transfer data between 
an Android device and a PC, the PC must include support for exFAT. 
Current Windows and Mac systems support exFAT out of the box, a Linux 
system will need the Fuse exFAT driver (which should be in most 
repositories).

As the wikipedia article points out: it's possible that there are 
devices that will assume that any card of 64GB or greater will use 
exFAT, and so will fail to read them if they are FAT32. It's also 
possible that there are devices that claim SDXC support but don't 
support exFAT, and that are therefore not capable of reading 64GB cards 
unless they're reformatted as FAT32. I've never come across either 
problem in practice.

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33546

On 19/08/2016 15:20, Daniel James wrote:
> I note that many devices today claim to support SDXC cards "up to
> 200GB". I doubt that anyone will ever make a 200GB card,

Sandisk did in 2015.
-- 
Ray
UK

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33577

In article <NPEtz.548489$OB.115866@fx36.am4>, Musika wrote:
> [I wrote]
>> I doubt that anyone will ever make a 200GB card,
> 
> Sandisk did in 2015.

Goodness, I see that you are right. I've never noticed those on sale at 
any of my usual suppliers.

I can't imagine why anyone would make a flash chip with a capacity 
that's not a power of 2 ... but perhaps in this case the chip is made 
to 256GB and some space is reserved/mapped out?

Thanks for setting the record straight.

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33580

In message <VA.00000bbf.2f09a1dc@me.invalid>
          Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote:

>In article <NPEtz.548489$OB.115866@fx36.am4>, Musika wrote:
>> [I wrote]
>>> I doubt that anyone will ever make a 200GB card,
>> 
>> Sandisk did in 2015.
>
>Goodness, I see that you are right. I've never noticed those on sale at 
>any of my usual suppliers.
>
>I can't imagine why anyone would make a flash chip with a capacity 
>that's not a power of 2 ... but perhaps in this case the chip is made 
>to 256GB and some space is reserved/mapped out?

No flash drive or flash card is made with an integral power of 2
capacity.  They all have some space reserved/mapped out.

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33684

In article <3335b7b255.DaveMeUK@my.inbox.com>, Dave Higton wrote:
> No flash drive or flash card is made with an integral power of 2
> capacity.

Well ... yes and no. Almost every flash memory card (the 200GB SanDisk 
one being the only exception of which I am aware) is sold as having a 
power-of-two capacity -- just look at the 16GB, 32GB, 64GB, etc., cards 
on the market. As you say, a little of the capacity is reserved for the 
controller's wear-levelling activities, but the makers don't draw 
attention to that by calling the cards 15GB, 30GB, etc.

PC SSDs with intelligent controllers do generally reserve space to 
assist with their wear-levelling functions, so a 256GB flash chip might 
be used in a nominally 240GB SSD -- SanDisk make one of those, for 
example -- but that's not a 200GB SSD. You don't need to reserve 20% of 
the chip's capacity for wear levelling.

Recently, I've been seeing more SSDs sold with 256GB, 512GB, etc., 
capacities and fewer with 240GB, 48GB, etc., and the newer cards really 
do have larger capacities. I'm not sure whether that's because the wear 
levelling has become cleverer and needs less reserved space to work 
well, or because the makers have started using over-sized flash chips 
so that they can sell the SSDs as having "standard" sizes.

The controllers in SD cards aren't as smart as the controllers in hard 
disk replacement SSDs. They still do wear levelling, but it's not as 
aggressive and doesn't need as much reserved space. About 3% would be 
normal.

So, why do SanDisk sell a 200GB SD card, and what is the actual 
capacity of the flash chips in it? I don't know ...

As far as I can see, though, the 200GB card is an oddity. The *only* 
SanDisk flash memory card available in 200GB (or any non power-of-two) 
capacity is their "Ultra UHS-I" micro-SD card, and that card is also 
available in 256GB capacity. I wonder whether that card is a 4-chip 
design and the 200GB card is actually a 192GB card in which one of the 
chips is faulty? That could be the case if the card is particularly 
hard or expensive to make and SanDisk want to salvage as many of the 
reject cards as possible.

Weird.

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33688

In message <VA.00000bc3.0610cc03@me.invalid>
          Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote:

>In article <3335b7b255.DaveMeUK@my.inbox.com>, Dave Higton wrote:
>> No flash drive or flash card is made with an integral power of 2
>> capacity.
>
>Well ... yes and no. Almost every flash memory card (the 200GB SanDisk 
>one being the only exception of which I am aware) is sold as having a 
>power-of-two capacity -- just look at the 16GB, 32GB, 64GB, etc., cards 
>on the market.

Yes, and my point is that your first example is 16 GB and not 16 GiB.

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33696

In article <b9e359b655.DaveMeUK@my.inbox.com>, Dave Higton wrote:
> Yes, and my point is that your first example is 16 GB and not 16 GiB.

OK, I missed that ... but IEEE 1541 prefixes are not commonly used by 
manufacturers, especially manufacturers of storage devices, so I don't 
think that's particularly telling.

I do take your point, though, that basing a card around an NGiB chip 
and calling it an NGB card would give some elbow room for wear 
levelling. 

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33547

On 8/19/2016 7:20 AM, Daniel James wrote:

> I note that many devices today claim to support SDXC cards "up to
> 200GB". I doubt that anyone will ever make a 200GB card,


http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sandisk-ultra-200gb-microsdxc-class-10-uhs-i-memory-card-black/6330207.p?skuId=6330207

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33583

Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote:
> You've had most of the answer in dribs and drabs from others, but the 
> to set it all out together in one place:
> 
> There are three SD card standards:
> 
> SD cards can be up to 2GB in size.
> SDHC cards can be up to 32GB in size.
> SDXC cards can be up to 2TB in size.

As I understand it:

The SD->SDHC transition is a protocol change: the initialisation sequence is
different.  If this sequence is implemented in hardware or inaccessible
firmware (such as in a USB-SD adaptor) then you can't upgrade a device to
speaking SDHC.  If the sequence is implemented in software (eg an on-SoC
SDHCI controller) then upgrading the OS might add support for SDHC.

The SDHC->SDXC transition is a disc format change: FAT32 goes to exFAT.
If you reformat your card you can probably use it in a device that doesn't
officially support SDXC.  FAT32 isn't even the limit: it's possible to
format up to 2TB, just not with the Windows format tool.  The
bigger problem with FAT32 is the 4GB file size, which is likely to be a
problem for long videos.  ext3 might be another option.

(SDXC also supports a newer Secure Digital spec, but that should be
backwards compatible with older readers)

TL;DR: try it and see, it may work.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33586

Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote:
> > You've had most of the answer in dribs and drabs from others, but the 
> > to set it all out together in one place:
> > 
> > There are three SD card standards:
> > 
> > SD cards can be up to 2GB in size.
> > SDHC cards can be up to 32GB in size.
> > SDXC cards can be up to 2TB in size.
> 
> As I understand it:
> 
> The SD->SDHC transition is a protocol change: the initialisation sequence is
> different.  If this sequence is implemented in hardware or inaccessible
> firmware (such as in a USB-SD adaptor) then you can't upgrade a device to
> speaking SDHC.  If the sequence is implemented in software (eg an on-SoC
> SDHCI controller) then upgrading the OS might add support for SDHC.
> 
> The SDHC->SDXC transition is a disc format change: FAT32 goes to exFAT.
> If you reformat your card you can probably use it in a device that doesn't
> officially support SDXC.  FAT32 isn't even the limit: it's possible to
> format up to 2TB, just not with the Windows format tool.  The
> bigger problem with FAT32 is the 4GB file size, which is likely to be a
> problem for long videos.  ext3 might be another option.
> 
> (SDXC also supports a newer Secure Digital spec, but that should be
> backwards compatible with older readers)
> 
> TL;DR: try it and see, it may work.
> 
Yes, OP here, my searches turned up the above too.  I.e. that one may
be able to make a larger (64Gb, 128Gb) SD card work by reformatting it
to FAT32.  When my 64Gb SDs arrive I'll try it if they don't work 'as
is'.  I have Linux boxes I can format with.

-- 
Chris Green
·

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web