| 1 |
antlists wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 22/06/2020 11:56, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:28:17AM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> The SD standard says >33G should use exFAT, this is why many devices |
| 6 |
>>> state they only support cards up to 32G. The really mean they only |
| 7 |
>>> support FAT. My Dashcam is like this but it happily works with a 128G |
| 8 |
>>> card, once I reformatted it with FAT. |
| 9 |
>> Warning; that still does not change the fact that each individual file |
| 10 |
>> cannot exceed 4G in size on regular FAT. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> Warning 2: I did exactly that, and it LOOKED like it was working |
| 13 |
> happily, until it overflowed some internal limit and my 1G card turned |
| 14 |
> into a 128M card or whatever it was. Have you actually TESTED that |
| 15 |
> card IN THE DASHCAM and made sure it can actually use that 128G? Or |
| 16 |
> will it only be able to use 4G of that card? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Oh - and 32GB cards are physically different from 128GB cards because |
| 19 |
> they work to different standards. That's why so many of the old "real |
| 20 |
> SD" card devices only ever use up to 2GB. You CAN (or could) get 4GB |
| 21 |
> SD cards, but they were rare, so most people couldn't find them. The |
| 22 |
> SD standard was replaced by SDHC, which is why your fileformat changes |
| 23 |
> at 32GB, which is the maximum capacity of an SDHC card. Above 32GB |
| 24 |
> it's SDXC, which is another reason why sticking a larger card into a |
| 25 |
> device which says "up to 32GB" is a bad idea - it may not be able to |
| 26 |
> handle SDXC. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Cheers, |
| 29 |
> Wol |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I recall them being called something different. I'm in no hurry to buy |
| 32 |
a card just to test tho. I'll have to find a good excuse to buy one. lol |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Dale |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
:-) :-) |
Archives