linux.gentoo.user

--Sig_/0h/rAn7U3NM9xuJI3ptAYBX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:43:28 +0900, W.Kenworthy wrote:

> I believe that writing a file to a single location is not the way to do
> this: you need to write a byte to the usb key in the same location, but
> need to ensure it continually changes: perhaps rotating 1's/0's.
> Alternatively, the concern is that the FAT/inode table or the like is
> where the most wear will occur - perhaps concentrate there? (i.e., do a
> journelled FS like reiserfs with a fast update?

It used to be that writing a large file to a USB key mounted with the
sync option would update the FAT for each block written, so writing a
large file several times would soon kill it. I destroyed a 1GB key like
this by continually writing modified KNOPPIX images to it. That was a
couple of years ago, I've no idea if the kernel still writes FAT like
this because I've mounted flash devices with nosync ever since.


--=20
Neil Bothwick

Madness takes its toll. Exact change, please.

--Sig_/0h/rAn7U3NM9xuJI3ptAYBX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH3Za/um4al0N1GQMRAhiqAJwNps5XWzLYIh0VgE0WeO4YESwHpwCfVpAM
5d5egUk0Zjjl0vNdSI09hYM=
=I2W+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/0h/rAn7U3NM9xuJI3ptAYBX--
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list