How I Got Full Windows XP Installed Under 2GB!
in [Laptops]
|
From: the wharf rat on 15 Jan 2010 16:19 In article <hiqkid$9e7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >Not from what I understand. It isn't a hard failure, but a soft one. As Writing data to flash requires applying an electrical charge. The individual cells "trap" that charge and the gate (cell) resists the passage of the sensor current. The ability to store that charge degrades with each write cycle. Eventually the cell becomes unable to store enough charge to provide the required resistance and reads permanently high - always shows 1.
From: HeyBub on 15 Jan 2010 16:17 the wharf rat wrote: > In article <#AS47TYlKHA.4872(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, > HeyBub <heybub(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Sort of. It's the writing, not the reading, that wears them out. But >> the entries in the Program Files folder, no matter where it's >> located, are written only once. > > Not true. Many aplications regularly write state and initialization > data to their "home" directories in Program Files. Ah, yeah. I forgot. That's one reason Vista gets all huffy if you try to do so. Still, the OS itself is niggardly about writing to the PF folder.
From: BillW50 on 15 Jan 2010 16:24 In news:hiqm5g$23m$1(a)reader1.panix.com, the wharf rat typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:19:44 +0000 (UTC): > In article <hiqkid$9e7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >> >> Not from what I understand. It isn't a hard failure, but a soft one. >> As > > Writing data to flash requires applying an electrical charge. The > individual cells "trap" that charge and the gate (cell) resists the > passage of the sensor current. The ability to store that charge > degrades with each write cycle. Eventually the cell becomes unable > to store enough charge to provide the required resistance and reads > permanently high - always shows 1. True, but that takes 100,000 rewrites per cell to kill it. Writing 100MB per day on a 4GB would take 4,000 years to rewrite every cell 100,000 times. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2
From: BillW50 on 15 Jan 2010 16:44 In news:hiql6s$4ih$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, mike typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:02:35 -0800: > BillW50 wrote: >> In >> news:390281aa-76b6-41f9-88ba-4f7a50c32b00(a)h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, >> die.spam(a)hotmail.com typed on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:52:02 -0800 (PST): >>> flash drives are NOT made for this application. constant >>> read/writing to the drive will kill it very quickly as they are >>> limited to the number of re-write cycles and have a limited number >>> of years data retention. >>> >>> Flamer. >> >> First of all, the system drive is already a flash drive. It is >> called a solid state drive (SSD). So you would rather burn out the >> SSD soldered on the motherboard ($150 worth) than to replace a flash >> card ($8), eh? Second of all, SLC flash drives are good for 100,000 >> writes. MTBF is >> 227 years, or 7 times longer than hard drives. Writing about 100MB >> per day on a 4GB flash would take about 4,000 years to wear it out. > > This is a hot discussion topic that won't be settled here...but > Aren't most large flash drives MLC now? > Consider the case where your flash drive is full except for one block. > > You have a continually updated log file that writes OFTEN. > With no wear leveling, you've got big trouble. Only those cheap no-name flash has no wear leveling. And what happens is like any other drive. The area is marked as bad and the capacity gets less and less. All of the information still stays save though. > With excellent wear leveling, it may not matter at all. > And wear leveling is probably not in the spec or discoverable by > legal means. I'd expect a usb flash to have little and a SSD to > have a LOT of wear leveling. YMMV. I know a guy who claims that those cheap no-name flash drives only lasts him 2 months on average. He runs VMs on them with tons of writing. Shall I say constant writing on them. I on the other hand, have never worn out a single flash yet. And in the beginning, I used to worry about writing to them a lot. But after no failures in all of these years, I have dropped my guard. And in the newsgroups, I don't hear of anybody complaining of flash drive failures except the cheap ones. Adata for example, I haven't heard one reported case yet. > I just don't buy into 4000 years life. > I've seen anecdotal reports on wearing out a flash drive in a month > with windows without taking any precautions to limit writes. > People who used the embedded windows tools to limit writes fared much > better. I have three 16GB adata flash drives for two years now and no problems with them yet. And writing to them on average 100MB per day, it would take thousands of years to write each cell 100,000 times. >> And if you are really worried, just get an ADATA flash which is >> guaranteed for life. Or you get a free replacement. Although that >> won't happen for another 4,000 years. > > In my experience, the life of the guarantor is the weak link in that > strategy. My SSD are not failing and my flash drives are not either. Let's see, I have 5 SSD and 12 flash drives. And I decided not to worry about them until one or two of them had failed. So far (knock on wood), no problems to report. ;-) -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2
From: the wharf rat on 15 Jan 2010 16:50
In article <hiqmeq$mc1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >True, but that takes 100,000 rewrites per cell to kill it. Writing 100MB Not really. Given a sufficiently large population of cells one cell will fail for every certain number of writes. The chances of any particular cell failing on any particular write are about 1 in 100000, but the chances of any one of the cells in the array failing are much larger. And they're still dependent on the number of writes, so SOME cells will INEVITABLY fail. |