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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #5708 > unrolled thread

Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive)

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Ignoramus22200 <ignoramus22200@NOSPAM.22200.invalid> - 2012-07-21 20:40 -0500
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2012-07-22 02:07 +0000
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-07-22 00:37 -0400
      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Ignoramus2844 <ignoramus2844@NOSPAM.2844.invalid> - 2012-07-22 08:51 -0500
        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-22 19:33 +0200
        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-23 14:38 +0000
      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-23 14:36 +0000
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Vic RR Garcia <VicGar007@at-gmail.dot.com> - 2012-07-22 06:35 -0400
      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-22 05:17 -0700
      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Ignoramus2844 <ignoramus2844@NOSPAM.2844.invalid> - 2012-07-22 08:53 -0500
        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-07-22 21:26 +0200
        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Roy Strachan-12 <rdstrac@shaw.ca> - 2012-07-23 15:32 +0000
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) TheGlimmerMan <justaglimmer@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> - 2012-07-22 04:37 -0700
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2012-07-23 11:03 -0700
      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) ray <ray@zianet.com> - 2012-07-23 20:28 +0000
        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-23 23:40 +0100
          Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Christoph Schmees <cjws@nurfuerspam.de> - 2012-07-24 13:01 +0200
            Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-24 05:45 -0700
              Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-07-24 09:34 -0400
                Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-07-24 18:13 -0400
                Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-24 17:55 -0700
                  Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-25 07:40 +0100
                    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-25 01:21 -0700
                      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-25 10:20 +0100
                        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-25 05:05 -0700
                        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@wizardstower> - 2012-07-25 07:24 -0500
                          Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-25 18:37 +0100
              Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-24 16:20 +0100
                Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Vic RR Garcia <VicGar007@at-gmail.dot.com> - 2012-07-24 20:45 -0400
                  Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-24 18:08 -0700
                Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-24 18:00 -0700
                  Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-25 07:43 +0100
                    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-25 01:34 -0700
                  Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Chick Tower <c.tower@deadspam.com> - 2012-07-25 18:24 +0000
            Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) ray <ray@zianet.com> - 2012-07-25 15:14 +0000
              Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-25 18:38 +0100
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-07-24 12:53 +0000
      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-24 16:20 +0100
        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-07-24 15:31 +0000
          Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-07-24 12:27 -0400
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> - 2012-07-31 09:47 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#5708 — Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive)

I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
its SDHC drives. 

I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
about 60 times per day.

The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
crap out and need to be replaced. 

I suspect that this is so, because certain Flash memory cells are
repeatedly overwritten. These could be, for example, directory
entries, inodes etc. 

What I want is to come up with something that would prevent this from
occurring. For example, perhaps, I should periodically rename the
directory holding photos, so that the camera would create a new
directory with new inodes. 

Any suggestions for "poor man's wear leveling"?


i

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#5709

On 2012-07-22, Ignoramus22200 <ignoramus22200@NOSPAM.22200.invalid> wrote:
> I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
> its SDHC drives. 
>
> I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
> connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
> about 60 times per day.
>
> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
> crap out and need to be replaced. 
>
> I suspect that this is so, because certain Flash memory cells are
> repeatedly overwritten. These could be, for example, directory
> entries, inodes etc. 
>
> What I want is to come up with something that would prevent this from
> occurring. For example, perhaps, I should periodically rename the
> directory holding photos, so that the camera would create a new
> directory with new inodes. 
>
> Any suggestions for "poor man's wear leveling"?
>
>
> i

Last I had heard, flash-based devices like SD cards and such did
wear leveling internally so the external software doesn't have to
worry about it.  However, I'm not entirely certain that is true
of any/many/most/all devices.  Google might help you find more
complete/accurate information.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

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

#5710

Ignoramus22200 wrote:
> I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
> its SDHC drives.
>
> I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
> connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
> about 60 times per day.
>
> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
> crap out and need to be replaced.
>
> I suspect that this is so, because certain Flash memory cells are
> repeatedly overwritten. These could be, for example, directory
> entries, inodes etc.
>
> What I want is to come up with something that would prevent this from
> occurring. For example, perhaps, I should periodically rename the
> directory holding photos, so that the camera would create a new
> directory with new inodes.
>
> Any suggestions for "poor man's wear leveling"?
>

Simple, don't delete the images when they are transferred until the card 
is almost full. And when he does transfer images only transfer the new 
ones, i.e., don't overwrite existing. Most s/w like Shotwell have a 
setting for that.


-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

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

#5714

On 2012-07-22, Jonathan N. Little <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>> I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
>> its SDHC drives.
>>
>> I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
>> connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
>> about 60 times per day.
>>
>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>
>> I suspect that this is so, because certain Flash memory cells are
>> repeatedly overwritten. These could be, for example, directory
>> entries, inodes etc.
>>
>> What I want is to come up with something that would prevent this from
>> occurring. For example, perhaps, I should periodically rename the
>> directory holding photos, so that the camera would create a new
>> directory with new inodes.
>>
>> Any suggestions for "poor man's wear leveling"?
>>
>
> Simple, don't delete the images when they are transferred until the card 
> is almost full. And when he does transfer images only transfer the new 
> ones, i.e., don't overwrite existing. Most s/w like Shotwell have a 
> setting for that.
>
>

I like that and it is easy to do: instead of deleting images, just
"mv" them to a subdirectory "junk" or some such. 

That said, I have my reservations about this, I suspect that this does
not cover updates that occur in directory inodes. 

i

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

#5717

Op 22-07-12 15:51 schreef Ignoramus2844:
> On 2012-07-22, Jonathan N. Little <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>> I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
>>> its SDHC drives.
>>>
>>> I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
>>> connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
>>> about 60 times per day.
>>>
>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>
>>> I suspect that this is so, because certain Flash memory cells are
>>> repeatedly overwritten. These could be, for example, directory
>>> entries, inodes etc.
>>>
>>> What I want is to come up with something that would prevent this from
>>> occurring. For example, perhaps, I should periodically rename the
>>> directory holding photos, so that the camera would create a new
>>> directory with new inodes.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions for "poor man's wear leveling"?
>>>
>>
>> Simple, don't delete the images when they are transferred until the card
>> is almost full. And when he does transfer images only transfer the new
>> ones, i.e., don't overwrite existing. Most s/w like Shotwell have a
>> setting for that.
>>
>>
>
> I like that and it is easy to do: instead of deleting images, just
> "mv" them to a subdirectory "junk" or some such.
>
> That said, I have my reservations about this, I suspect that this does
> not cover updates that occur in directory inodes.
>
> i
>
Leave them where they are, forget about the 'utility' that came with the 
camera instead just open it in the file manager and only copy the last 
batch of photo's taken.
Camera's hate accessing drives that have been modified by other 
applications so don't move them on the card.
I had a D80 with a 2GB card and took ~10.000 pictures without it failing 
but yours takes near 2000 per week so I can't really compare.

Except for the 'don't delete until full' the other advice is to get the 
biggest card the D80 will hold.

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

#5720

On 2012-07-22, Ignoramus2844 <ignoramus2844@NOSPAM.2844.invalid> wrote:

>> Simple, don't delete the images when they are transferred until the card 
>> is almost full. And when he does transfer images only transfer the new 
>> ones, i.e., don't overwrite existing. Most s/w like Shotwell have a 
>> setting for that.
>
> I like that and it is easy to do: instead of deleting images, just
> "mv" them to a subdirectory "junk" or some such. 

You shouldn't even have to "mv" them.  Any decent download program or
photographic workflow software (even the ones that ship with Windows
and OS-X) will ignore previously downloaded files and only download
the new ones.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! When this load is
                                  at               DONE I think I'll wash it
                              gmail.com            AGAIN ...

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

#5719

On 2012-07-22, Jonathan N. Little <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>> I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
>> its SDHC drives.
[...]
>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>> crap out and need to be replaced.

> Simple, don't delete the images when they are transferred until the card 
> is almost full. And when he does transfer images only transfer the new 
> ones, i.e., don't overwrite existing. Most s/w like Shotwell have a 
> setting for that.

My guess is that won't help.  If there's no wear-levelling, it's
probably the allocation table blocks and the meta-data tables that are
wearing out.  Those blocks get erased and overwritten each time you
add a file.  Couldn't hurt to try, though...

I would expect a quality flash card (SD, CF, whatever) would do
internal wear levelling and bad-block replacement.  But, back when I
was working on a product that included a CF card, we couldn't gey a
single vendor to specify any sort of failure rate, reliability, or
wear-levelling.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I'm having BEAUTIFUL
                                  at               THOUGHTS about the INSIPID
                              gmail.com            WIVES of smug and wealthy
                                                   CORPORATE LAWYERS ...

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

#5711

On 07/21/12 21:40, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
> I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
> its SDHC drives.

FAT 32

> I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
> connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
> about 60 times per day.

That is around 360 pic/day, at 5MBy each, 2GBy/day

> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
> crap out and need to be replaced.
>
> I suspect that this is so, because certain Flash memory cells are
> repeatedly overwritten. These could be, for example, directory
> entries, inodes etc.

Assuming you use a 8GBy card, at 2GBy/day, you'll fill the card every 4 
days, so in 2 months it will be about 12 full cycles (fill - format).
Let's round it to 100 write cycles per 2 month period ...
The estimate life of the SDHC card is 1,000,000 cycles ...

So, NO, that's not your problem.

>
> What I want is to come up with something that would prevent this from
> occurring. For example, perhaps, I should periodically rename the
> directory holding photos, so that the camera would create a new
> directory with new inodes.
>
> Any suggestions for "poor man's wear leveling"?

No need for, all the modern SDHC cards firmware already do that.

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

#5713

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 06:35:18 -0400, Vic RR Garcia
<VicGar007@at-gmail.dot.com> wrote:

>On 07/21/12 21:40, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>> I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
>> its SDHC drives.
>
>FAT 32
>
>> I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
>> connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
>> about 60 times per day.
>
>That is around 360 pic/day, at 5MBy each, 2GBy/day

 Dude! There is no such thing as a By.  It is UPPER CASE for BYTES and
Lower case for bits.  You do not need to add some further aid simply
because YOU were unable to get the standard to start with.
>
>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>
>> I suspect that this is so, because certain Flash memory cells are
>> repeatedly overwritten. These could be, for example, directory
>> entries, inodes etc.
>
>Assuming you use a 8GBy card, at 2GBy/day, you'll fill the card every 4 
>days, so in 2 months it will be about 12 full cycles (fill - format).
>Let's round it to 100 write cycles per 2 month period ...
>The estimate life of the SDHC card is 1,000,000 cycles ...
>
>So, NO, that's not your problem.

 It very likely is.  Or the camera is old and uses some non-standard
circuitry.

Or he is buying some lame brand

>>
>> What I want is to come up with something that would prevent this from
>> occurring. For example, perhaps, I should periodically rename the
>> directory holding photos, so that the camera would create a new
>> directory with new inodes.
>>
>> Any suggestions for "poor man's wear leveling"?
>
>No need for, all the modern SDHC cards firmware already do that.

 Even the first ones did.

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

#5715

On 2012-07-22, Vic RR Garcia <VicGar007@at-gmail.dot.com> wrote:
> On 07/21/12 21:40, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>> I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
>> its SDHC drives.
>
> FAT 32
>
>> I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
>> connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
>> about 60 times per day.
>
> That is around 360 pic/day, at 5MBy each, 2GBy/day
>
>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>
>> I suspect that this is so, because certain Flash memory cells are
>> repeatedly overwritten. These could be, for example, directory
>> entries, inodes etc.
>
> Assuming you use a 8GBy card, at 2GBy/day, you'll fill the card every 4 
> days, so in 2 months it will be about 12 full cycles (fill - format).
> Let's round it to 100 write cycles per 2 month period ...
> The estimate life of the SDHC card is 1,000,000 cycles ...
>
> So, NO, that's not your problem.

The card has no wear leveling. I am assuming that in my process,
some blocks get overwritten very often and some, never get written
to. 

i

>>
>> What I want is to come up with something that would prevent this from
>> occurring. For example, perhaps, I should periodically rename the
>> directory holding photos, so that the camera would create a new
>> directory with new inodes.
>>
>> Any suggestions for "poor man's wear leveling"?
>
> No need for, all the modern SDHC cards firmware already do that.

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

#5718

On 22/07/12 15:53, Ignoramus2844 wrote:
> On 2012-07-22, Vic RR Garcia<VicGar007@at-gmail.dot.com>  wrote:
>> On 07/21/12 21:40, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>> I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
>>> its SDHC drives.
>>
>> FAT 32
>>
>>> I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
>>> connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
>>> about 60 times per day.
>>
>> That is around 360 pic/day, at 5MBy each, 2GBy/day
>>
>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>
>>> I suspect that this is so, because certain Flash memory cells are
>>> repeatedly overwritten. These could be, for example, directory
>>> entries, inodes etc.
>>
>> Assuming you use a 8GBy card, at 2GBy/day, you'll fill the card every 4
>> days, so in 2 months it will be about 12 full cycles (fill - format).
>> Let's round it to 100 write cycles per 2 month period ...
>> The estimate life of the SDHC card is 1,000,000 cycles ...
>>
>> So, NO, that's not your problem.
>
> The card has no wear leveling. I am assuming that in my process,
> some blocks get overwritten very often and some, never get written
> to.
>
> i
>
>>>
>>> What I want is to come up with something that would prevent this from
>>> occurring. For example, perhaps, I should periodically rename the
>>> directory holding photos, so that the camera would create a new
>>> directory with new inodes.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions for "poor man's wear leveling"?
>>
>> No need for, all the modern SDHC cards firmware already do that.

"SD" cards have had wear leveling from long before "SDHC" was even 
thought of.  Unless you are buying the cheapest possible cards from 
no-name manufacturers (who might skimp on the wear-leveling or flash 
quality to save costs), you /will/ have wear-leveling, and you will not 
be able to do much to improve on it.

But if you are already employing someone to take 300+ pictures a day 
professionally, then the cost of buying a new card every two months must 
be a drop in the ocean in the total costs of this photography job.  I 
can understand that you would like to avoid the inconvenience and the 
expense - but unless your professional time is worthless then it is 
never going to be economically viable to mess around with any sort of 
additional "poor man's wear leveling".

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

#5721

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:53:03 -0500, Ignoramus2844 wrote:

> On 2012-07-22, Vic RR Garcia <VicGar007@at-gmail.dot.com> wrote:
>> On 07/21/12 21:40, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>> I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
>>> its SDHC drives.
>>
>> FAT 32
>>
>>> I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
>>> connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
>>> about 60 times per day.
>>
>> That is around 360 pic/day, at 5MBy each, 2GBy/day
>>
>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>
>>> I suspect that this is so, because certain Flash memory cells are
>>> repeatedly overwritten. These could be, for example, directory
>>> entries, inodes etc.
>>
>> Assuming you use a 8GBy card, at 2GBy/day, you'll fill the card every 4
>> days, so in 2 months it will be about 12 full cycles (fill - format).
>> Let's round it to 100 write cycles per 2 month period ... The estimate
>> life of the SDHC card is 1,000,000 cycles ...
>>
>> So, NO, that's not your problem.
> 
> The card has no wear leveling. I am assuming that in my process, some
> blocks get overwritten very often and some, never get written to.
> 
> i

That's how the FAT system works.  The first available space in the table 
gets used.  As soon as you delete files, that space becomes the first 
available.  Not deleting files until the card is nearly full is probably 
the best answer.

> 
> 
>>> What I want is to come up with something that would prevent this from
>>> occurring. For example, perhaps, I should periodically rename the
>>> directory holding photos, so that the camera would create a new
>>> directory with new inodes.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions for "poor man's wear leveling"?
>>
>> No need for, all the modern SDHC cards firmware already do that.

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

#5712

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 20:40:18 -0500, Ignoramus22200
<ignoramus22200@NOSPAM.22200.invalid> wrote:

>I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
>its SDHC drives. 
>
>I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
>connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
>about 60 times per day.
>
>The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>crap out and need to be replaced. 
>
>I suspect that this is so, because certain Flash memory cells are
>repeatedly overwritten. These could be, for example, directory
>entries, inodes etc. 
>
>What I want is to come up with something that would prevent this from
>occurring. For example, perhaps, I should periodically rename the
>directory holding photos, so that the camera would create a new
>directory with new inodes. 
>
>Any suggestions for "poor man's wear leveling"?
>
>
>i


 Well, duh.  Get several memory sticks, and cycle through them, and fully
fill them before you go deleting existing data.

 I think you are a bit delete happy and want to get by on a single stick.
The sticks perform internal "wear leveling" operations, regardless of the
file system AIUI.

  I have a cheap camera, and not a photographer per se, and I have about
4 4G, 4 8G, and about 6 16G sticks.  My camera bag has sticks in waiting
and an extra battery.  The16 is so big I doubt I will fill it soon and I
take 15MB raw shots on a 14Mpixel sensor.

 Anyway... mores sticks, dude!  And bigger!

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

#5722

On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
> 
> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
> crap out and need to be replaced. 
> 
  What does "crap out" mean?
  Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?

-- 
James Moe
jmm-list at sohnen-moe dot com

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

#5723

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:

> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>> 
>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>> 
>   What does "crap out" mean?
>   Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?

Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.

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

#5724

ray wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
> 
>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>
>>   What does "crap out" mean?
>>   Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
> 
> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.

Or even on the camera

-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

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

#5726

Am 24.07.2012 00:40, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
> ray wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash
>>>> drives
>>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>>
>>> What does "crap out" mean?
>>> Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
>>
>> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.
>
> Or even on the camera
>

*better* on the camera!

Christoph

-- 
email:
nurfuerspam -> gmx
de -> net

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

#5727

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:01:57 +0200, Christoph Schmees
<cjws@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:

>Am 24.07.2012 00:40, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash
>>>>> drives
>>>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>>>
>>>> What does "crap out" mean?
>>>> Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
>>>
>>> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.
>>
>> Or even on the camera
>>
>
>*better* on the camera!
>
>Christoph

  I do not waste the camera's battery on anything but photos.

 There are plenty of powered devices out there (computers) that can do
the job.

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

#5729

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, MrTallyman wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:01:57 +0200, Christoph Schmees
> <cjws@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 24.07.2012 00:40, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>>>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash
>>>>>> drives
>>>>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What does "crap out" mean?
>>>>> Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
>>>>
>>>> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.
>>>
>>> Or even on the camera
>>>
>>
>> *better* on the camera!
>>
>> Christoph
>
>  I do not waste the camera's battery on anything but photos.
>
> There are plenty of powered devices out there (computers) that can do
> the job.
>
And yet, in the digital photography newsgroup, many seem to swear that 
formattig in the camera is the only way to go. I don't know whether it's 
folk myth or some reality, but they sure believe it.

    Michael

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

#5737

Michael Black wrote:

> And yet, in the digital photography newsgroup, many seem to swear that
> formattig in the camera is the only way to go. I don't know whether it's
> folk myth or some reality, but they sure believe it.

With my old Sony DCS-S85 it is the only way. If you format the *Sony* 
memory stick via the computer the camera will refuse to recognize it. 
Now with new cameras that use SD, I have not noticed a problem.


-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web