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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #36869 > unrolled thread

Android 6

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

Contents

  Android 6 Bill <Billaboard@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 17:21 +0000
    Re: Android 6 The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 10:00 -0800
      Re: Android 6 Bill <Billaboard@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 00:23 +0000
        Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-22 19:30 -0500
          Re: Android 6 Bill <Billaboard@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 12:42 +0000
            Re: Android 6 tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-23 11:58 -0500
              Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-12-29 13:43 +0100
                Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-12-30 15:34 +0000
                  Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-12-30 22:33 +0100
                    Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-12-31 13:27 +0000
                      Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-04 08:59 +0100
                        Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2017-01-04 13:40 +0000
                          Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-11 09:00 +0100
                            Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2017-01-15 18:23 +0000
                              Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-15 21:20 +0100
                        Re: Android 6 AL <45364747@invalid.com> - 2017-01-04 10:06 -0700
                          Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-11 09:00 +0100
                        Re: Android 6 tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2017-01-05 01:34 -0500
                          Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2017-01-07 14:14 +0000
                            Re: Android 6 tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2017-01-07 13:09 -0500
                              Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2017-01-08 18:18 +0000
                                Re: Android 6 tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2017-01-08 15:42 -0500
                                  Re: Android 6 The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 17:11 -0800
                                    Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-08 20:19 -0500
                                  Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2017-01-09 23:55 +0000
                                  Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-11 18:07 +0100
                                Re: Android 6 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2017-01-08 21:34 +0000
                                  Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2017-01-09 23:55 +0000
            Re: Android 6 Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2016-12-24 10:49 +0100
    Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-12-22 23:55 +0100
      Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-22 19:15 -0500
        Re: Android 6 Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2016-12-23 05:46 +0100
          Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-23 00:15 -0500
        Re: Android 6 Dave Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2016-12-23 17:11 +0000
          Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-23 12:43 -0500
            Re: Android 6 Dave Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2016-12-23 21:22 +0000
              Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-24 14:29 -0500
                Re: Android 6 Dave Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2016-12-25 11:10 +0000
                  Re: Android 6 Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2016-12-25 12:37 +0100
                  Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-25 11:18 -0500
                    Re: Android 6 Dave Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2016-12-25 20:28 +0000
            Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-29 12:02 -0500
              Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-12-29 23:45 +0100
                Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-29 18:02 -0500
                  Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-12-30 22:24 +0100
                    Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-31 11:55 -0500
                      Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-04 09:04 +0100
                        Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-04 10:14 -0500
                          Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-11 18:11 +0100
                            Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-11 13:05 -0500
                              Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-13 17:23 +0100
                                Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-16 15:35 -0500
                                  Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-17 05:39 +0100
                Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-12-30 15:34 +0000
                  Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-12-30 22:26 +0100
                    Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-12-31 13:27 +0000
                      Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-31 11:55 -0500
                      Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-04 09:11 +0100
                        Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2017-01-04 13:40 +0000
                        Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-04 10:14 -0500
                          Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-11 18:12 +0100
                            Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-11 13:05 -0500
                              Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-13 17:24 +0100
                                Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2017-01-15 18:23 +0000
                                  Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-15 21:30 +0100
                                    Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2017-01-16 15:42 +0000
                                Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-16 15:35 -0500
                                  Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-17 05:44 +0100
                                  Re: Android 6 Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2017-01-17 17:47 +0000
                  Re: Android 6 Bill <Billaboard@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 01:05 +0000
                    Re: Android 6 tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2017-01-02 02:08 -0500
                      Re: Android 6 David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2017-01-02 08:01 +0000
                      Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-02 08:51 -0500
                      Re: Android 6 Bill <Billaboard@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 20:41 +0000
                      Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-04 09:18 +0100
                    Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2017-01-04 09:14 +0100
            Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-12-29 14:05 +0100
        Re: Android 6 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-29 12:02 -0500
          Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-12-29 23:46 +0100
            Re: Android 6 Dave Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2016-12-31 20:18 +0000
        Re: Android 6 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-12-29 13:47 +0100

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#37557

In article <mr4zd5mxmp3h.ahf7ak1yyimc$.dlg@40tude.net>, Tlvp wrote:
>> As the two types of cards don't even use the same partitioning
>> scheme, I  don't see how a card could be set up to offer a
>> partition of each type!
> 
> Hmm ... no way to do that using something like parted? ... worth
> trying?

There is one thing I didn't try, and that's a scheme using a hybrid MBR.

I doubt that it is worth trying, though, as Android's attitude to 
"internal" storage seems to be "if the whole card is formatted with just 
these two GUID partitions laid out just the way I like them then I'll 
use it as internal storage, otherwise I'll offer to format it".

Now I want a phone with TWO micro-SD card slots, so I can use one as 
internal storage and one as portable storage. <smile>

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

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

#37562

On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 18:18:56 -0000, Daniel James wrote:

> Now I want a phone with TWO micro-SD card slots, so I can use one as 
> internal storage and one as portable storage. <smile>

There ya go: 2 microSD slots, 2 SIM slots, accessible/removable battery,
and a world-wide set of cellular frequencies for all types, from GSM
through EDGE, GPRS, and HS*PA, to LTE . My wish-list in a nutshell :-) .

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

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

#37580

On 01/08/2017 12:42 PM, tlvp wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 18:18:56 -0000, Daniel James wrote:
>
>> Now I want a phone with TWO micro-SD card slots, so I can use one as
>> internal storage and one as portable storage. <smile>
>
> There ya go: 2 microSD slots, 2 SIM slots, accessible/removable battery,
> and a world-wide set of cellular frequencies for all types, from GSM
> through EDGE, GPRS, and HS*PA, to LTE . My wish-list in a nutshell :-) .

Plus HUGE (and replaceable with larger) internal memory and free 
cell/data service.  I'd be happy to have a cell tower in my back yard if 
I could have that for my entire family+friends for life, and that would 
be way cheaper for them than actually paying for the tower.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
   "We need to cut more slack for the stupid;  after all, somebody has
    to populate the lower part of the bell curve."    -- Dennis (evil)

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

#37581

In article <o4untm$orc$2@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>  I'd be happy to have a cell tower in my back yard if 
> I could have that for my entire family+friends for life, and that would 
> be way cheaper for them than actually paying for the tower.

get a femtocell.

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

#37603

In article <1fz62acl2bres$.xzlpwf68727z$.dlg@40tude.net>, Tlvp wrote:
> There ya go: 2 microSD slots, 2 SIM slots, accessible/removable battery,
> and a world-wide set of cellular frequencies for all types, from GSM
> through EDGE, GPRS, and HS*PA, to LTE . My wish-list in a nutshell :-) .

Lovely. Make it waterproof, too ...

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.

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

#37666

tlvp wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 18:18:56 -0000, Daniel James wrote:
> 
>> Now I want a phone with TWO micro-SD card slots, so I can use one as 
>> internal storage and one as portable storage. <smile>
> 
> There ya go: 2 microSD slots, 2 SIM slots, accessible/removable battery,
> and a world-wide set of cellular frequencies for all types, from GSM
> through EDGE, GPRS, and HS*PA, to LTE . My wish-list in a nutshell :-) .

And a keyboard slider and battery runtime of at least a weak ;-)


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
https://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

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

#37570

Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> Now I want a phone with TWO micro-SD card slots, so I can use one as 
> internal storage and one as portable storage. <smile>

  If the second MicroSD card is only/mainly for copying stuff from the
phone to another device and vice versa, then have you considered using
one of those USB memory-sticks which have both a micro-USB connector and
a normal USB connector? They're quite small and handy to use.

  OTOH, if the second MicroSD needs to be 'online/available on the
phone much/most of the time, you can do that if you don't mind sticking
a (very) small USB OTG memory-card reader to the back of your phone!
<half_a_smiley>

  I have this device:

"Maxxter ACT-UHB-OTG-01 OTG mobile USB hub and memory card reader-writer"
<http://www.maxxter.biz/default.aspx?ref=ACT-UHB-OTG-01&op=products&op2=item&id=8413>

  AFAIR, it was only a few dollars.

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

#37602

In article <edfpk1Fjd4bU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Now I want a phone with TWO micro-SD card slots, so I can use one
>> as internal storage and one as portable storage. <smile>
> 
> If the second MicroSD card is only/mainly for copying stuff from the
> phone to another device and vice versa, then have you considered
> using one of those USB memory-sticks which have both a micro-USB
> connector and a normal USB connector?

In *my* usage case, the desire for an SD card in "portable" format is 
mostly so that if the device fails I can still get to any data that 
hasn't yet been backed up.

Yes, I have thought of USB-OTG as a means of transferring data, and I 
have done that, but WiFi usually does the trick well enough.

You suggest an interesting question, though: Why can't I install an app 
onto a USB flash drive and be able to run it when I connect that drive 
using an OTG adaptor? It seems a useful sort of thing to be able to do. 
Maybe a future version of Android will allow me to format a USB stick as 
"internal" storage ...

> OTOH, if the second MicroSD needs to be 'online/available on the
> phone much/most of the time, you can do that if you don't mind
> sticking a (very) small USB OTG memory-card reader to the back of
> your phone!
> <half_a_smiley>

I've thought of that, too ... but all the readers I've seen are a bit 
bulky and the danger of catching them on something and damaging the USB 
port is rather off-putting!

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

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

#36912

Am 23.12.16 um 13:42 schrieb Bill:
> The question still remains - is it an "Android policy" that data
> generated by apps on the machine cannot be stored on an unencrypted sd
> card or is it just that I haven't found how to do it on Android 6?

That is not correct. You can easily store unencrypted fotos and music on 
a sd-card. I have done so on a Galaxy Tablet running on Android 6. Data 
stored on the internal memory was encrypted, data on the sd was not.

-- 
http://www.albasani.net/index.html.de
Ein freier und kostenloser Server fuer Usenet/NetNews (NNTP)

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

#36876

Bill wrote:

[...]
> Both, of course, immediately asked if I want to use the SD card for 
> storage or for internal memory. Googling brought up loads of 
> contradictions, and scares about internal, so both phones are using the 
> cards as storage for photo and video. Is there a definitive, clear guide 
> to this decision anywhere?

If you really want to get as much "internal" memory as possible and do
backups regularly, then use the SD card as "internal". But since SD
cards are prone to errors as more you write on them and they are also
sometimes way slower than the flash memory in the phone itself, this
*may* not be a good idea if you don't have high quality SD cards.

On the other hand - you also don't want to loos any data on "external"
SD cards and backups should be done then as well.

So in the end the answer is: if you intend to use the SD card in other
devices too - for example to copy files to it to be used on the phone
later etc. then stay with "external". Otherwise it may not really matter.



-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
https://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

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

#36878

In article <502c7829-0031-8959-8b94-88c12ed8f7dd@arnowelzel.de>, Arno
Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:

> 
> If you really want to get as much "internal" memory as possible and do
> backups regularly, then use the SD card as "internal". But since SD
> cards are prone to errors as more you write on them

complete nonsense.

> and they are also
> sometimes way slower than the flash memory in the phone itself,

that part is likely true, but the difference probably won't make uch of
a difference because mobile devices are typically cpu-bound, not
i/o-bound.

> this
> *may* not be a good idea if you don't have high quality SD cards.

why would anyone buy a shit quality card? the good ones aren't that
much more.

> On the other hand - you also don't want to loos any data on "external"
> SD cards and backups should be done then as well.

backups should be done regardless.

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

#36883

Am 23.12.16 um 01:15 schrieb nospam:
> In article <502c7829-0031-8959-8b94-88c12ed8f7dd@arnowelzel.de>, Arno
> Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you really want to get as much "internal" memory as possible and do
>> backups regularly, then use the SD card as "internal". But since SD
>> cards are prone to errors as more you write on them
>
> complete nonsense.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>

you are absolutely right. If you want to be taken seriously come here 
with a valid e-mail-address and a name.

-- 
http://www.albasani.net/index.html.de
Ein freier und kostenloser Server fuer Usenet/NetNews (NNTP)

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

#36884

In article <o3ia80$i81$1@news.albasani.net>, Joerg Lorenz
<hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> >> If you really want to get as much "internal" memory as possible and do
> >> backups regularly, then use the SD card as "internal". But since SD
> >> cards are prone to errors as more you write on them
> >
> > complete nonsense.
> 
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> 
> you are absolutely right. If you want to be taken seriously come here 
> with a valid e-mail-address and a name.

resorting to insults guarantees you won't be taken seriously at all.

what he wrote is absolute rubbish. if you have credible evidence to the
contrary, provide it. otherwise fuck off.

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

#36898

In message <221220161915189668%nospam@nospam.invalid>
          nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <502c7829-0031-8959-8b94-88c12ed8f7dd@arnowelzel.de>, Arno
>Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>
>> 
>> If you really want to get as much "internal" memory as possible and do
>> backups regularly, then use the SD card as "internal". But since SD
>> cards are prone to errors as more you write on them
>
>complete nonsense.

Nonsense on your part.  It does happen, with some SD cards that
buyers believe to be perfectly respectable.  I've had it happen
with three Kingston cards.

>> this
>> *may* not be a good idea if you don't have high quality SD cards.
>
>why would anyone buy a shit quality card? the good ones aren't that
>much more.

The trouble /may/ be that there are fakes or substandard cards
out there, bought in good faith from an outlet that appears to
be respectable (my cards that I mentioned above were) - it would
not surprise me if respectable outlets are duped from time to
time and sell bad stuff in good faith.

The world is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

Dave

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

#36900

In article <efd310f355.DaveMeUK@my.inbox.com>, Dave Higton
<dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

> >> If you really want to get as much "internal" memory as possible and do
> >> backups regularly, then use the SD card as "internal". But since SD
> >> cards are prone to errors as more you write on them
> >
> >complete nonsense.
> 
> Nonsense on your part.  It does happen, with some SD cards that
> buyers believe to be perfectly respectable.  I've had it happen
> with three Kingston cards.

there is no reason whatsoever why writing to an sd card or any other
type of flash memory will cause it to slow down over time. that's
absolute nonsense.

whatever you think might have been happening was due to some other
reason.

one possibility is that volumes formatted as fat tend to be slower with
a large number of files. perhaps that's what you're seeing. a simple
reformat fixes that.

> >> this
> >> *may* not be a good idea if you don't have high quality SD cards.
> >
> >why would anyone buy a shit quality card? the good ones aren't that
> >much more.
> 
> The trouble /may/ be that there are fakes or substandard cards
> out there, bought in good faith from an outlet that appears to
> be respectable (my cards that I mentioned above were) - it would
> not surprise me if respectable outlets are duped from time to
> time and sell bad stuff in good faith.

that isn't at all common and you know it, in the unlikely event it does
happen, the respectable outlet will take it back and give you a
legitimate one.

> The world is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

i never said it was.

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

#36902

In message <231220161243453968%nospam@nospam.invalid>
          nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <efd310f355.DaveMeUK@my.inbox.com>, Dave Higton
><dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> If you really want to get as much "internal" memory as possible and do
>> >> backups regularly, then use the SD card as "internal". But since SD
>> >> cards are prone to errors as more you write on them
>> >
>> >complete nonsense.
>> 
>> Nonsense on your part.  It does happen, with some SD cards that
>> buyers believe to be perfectly respectable.  I've had it happen
>> with three Kingston cards.
>
>there is no reason whatsoever why writing to an sd card or any other
>type of flash memory will cause it to slow down over time. that's
>absolute nonsense.
>
>whatever you think might have been happening was due to some other
>reason.

Absolutely not - I was addressing the cards at sector level.

>one possibility is that volumes formatted as fat tend to be slower with
>a large number of files. perhaps that's what you're seeing. a simple
>reformat fixes that.

Impossible explanation, as you will see from the above.

Dave

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

#36928

In article <49d427f355.DaveMeUK@my.inbox.com>, Dave Higton
<dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

> >> >> If you really want to get as much "internal" memory as possible and do
> >> >> backups regularly, then use the SD card as "internal". But since SD
> >> >> cards are prone to errors as more you write on them
> >> >
> >> >complete nonsense.
> >> 
> >> Nonsense on your part.  It does happen, with some SD cards that
> >> buyers believe to be perfectly respectable.  I've had it happen
> >> with three Kingston cards.
> >
> >there is no reason whatsoever why writing to an sd card or any other
> >type of flash memory will cause it to slow down over time. that's
> >absolute nonsense.
> >
> >whatever you think might have been happening was due to some other
> >reason.
> 
> Absolutely not - I was addressing the cards at sector level.

that's not a normal use case.

when using the card as intended, there is no slowdown. i have over ten
year old sd cards and they work just as well now as they did when they
were new.

> >one possibility is that volumes formatted as fat tend to be slower with
> >a large number of files. perhaps that's what you're seeing. a simple
> >reformat fixes that.
> 
> Impossible explanation, as you will see from the above.

i said it's one possibility, not the only possibility.

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

#36947

In message <241220161429509971%nospam@nospam.invalid>
          nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <49d427f355.DaveMeUK@my.inbox.com>, Dave Higton
><dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Absolutely not - I was addressing the cards at sector level.
>
>that's not a normal use case.
>
>when using the card as intended, there is no slowdown. i have over ten
>year old sd cards and they work just as well now as they did when they
>were new.

Of course it's not a normal use case.  It gives incontrovertible
evidence that writing the sectors slowed down, in the case of the
three Kingston cards I had, after a period of use.  And it was
most, but not all, of the sectors that slowed down - some, at
lower addresses, remained fast.

If writing the sectors slows down, it is inevitable that writing
within a filing system ("using the card as intended") must slow
down.

Dave

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

#36948

Dave Higton wrote:
> Of course it's not a normal use case.  It gives incontrovertible
> evidence that writing the sectors slowed down, in the case of the
> three Kingston cards I had, after a period of use.  And it was
> most, but not all, of the sectors that slowed down - some, at
> lower addresses, remained fast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling

-p

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

#36949

In article <0d78f7f355.DaveMeUK@my.inbox.com>, Dave Higton
<dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

> >> Absolutely not - I was addressing the cards at sector level.
> >
> >that's not a normal use case.
> >
> >when using the card as intended, there is no slowdown. i have over ten
> >year old sd cards and they work just as well now as they did when they
> >were new.
> 
> Of course it's not a normal use case.  

then it can be ignored.

> It gives incontrovertible
> evidence that writing the sectors slowed down, in the case of the
> three Kingston cards I had, after a period of use.  And it was
> most, but not all, of the sectors that slowed down - some, at
> lower addresses, remained fast.

there's this thing called wear leveling.

some sectors will ultimately slow down so much to not even be used
anymore.

> If writing the sectors slows down, it is inevitable that writing
> within a filing system ("using the card as intended") must slow
> down.

except it doesn't. millions of people don't notice any slowdown at all.

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

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web