| 1 |
On 18 Mar 2008, at 10:33, Florian Philipp wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 01:47 +0000, Stroller wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 17 Mar 2008, at 18:10, James wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> ... |
| 5 |
>>> Wear leveling is *probably* built into the IDE to CF converter |
| 6 |
>>> carrier board? |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Almost certainly not, I'd have thought. Aren't those boards just dumb |
| 9 |
>> pin-convertors? CF cards "talk" IDE. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Yes they are. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Another thought crossed my mind today: Does wear leveling work if I |
| 14 |
> create loopback devices (ext2-formatted) on FAT32? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Surely so. In this case you would be writing to the flash device's |
| 17 |
FAT32 filessystem. It doesn't matter if you're writing a .RAW picture |
| 18 |
file, an .iso or your loopback fs. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> By the way: Why is wear leveling filesystem-dependent anyway? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
No idea. Please note that in this thread I have stated that I |
| 23 |
_understand_ wear-levelling to be filesystem-dependent - it is others |
| 24 |
who have made replies stating this more confidently. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> I would |
| 27 |
> have thought it were working on blocks (like device mapper, |
| 28 |
> cryptsetup, |
| 29 |
> lvm and so on) and not on files. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Ah! But here we come back to the problem of recording how many times |
| 32 |
a given block has been written upon, in order not to kill that block. |
| 33 |
Most filesystems don't have to do that. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Stroller. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives