1 |
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:03:35 -0400 |
2 |
Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> > But what is your actual query? About the write speed? |
5 |
> |
6 |
> No, not really. TBH, I wasn't expecting to be able to consistently |
7 |
> write quickly to the beginning of the card, but slowly at the end; I |
8 |
> wanted to make sure the card wasn't going bad given the abruptness of |
9 |
> the change. Actually, the more I think about it, I think it happened |
10 |
> at the 2GB boundary, where some funky pin logic changes. (And where SD |
11 |
> becomes SDHC). So I think that's where the performance shifted. Maybe |
12 |
> I'll invest in a bunch of fast 2G cards, if it means the performance |
13 |
> is consistent, and I'd still fit just under 200 shots. |
14 |
|
15 |
I'm finding that SD and SDHC cards are not exactly reliable[1] when you |
16 |
start write hammering them like they were spinning disks :-) |
17 |
|
18 |
Remember early memory sticks and how 1000 writes was all you'd get from |
19 |
some? Sort of like that. What prompted my response was I had just been |
20 |
doing lots of writes and rewrites to my test cards for the Raspberry |
21 |
Pi, and the latest one failed. Similar sort of nonsense message to what |
22 |
you got, just from the mmc subsystem (I have a built-in card slot that |
23 |
isn't USB). And that also happened somewhere near the 2G boundary |
24 |
now that I figure the numbers back in my head. |
25 |
|
26 |
[1] I'm talking of the cards regular folk can buy at the corner 'puter |
27 |
shop, not the seriously high-quality ones that eg Dell ship with VMWare |
28 |
servers. Those I believe are vastly superior (at a price) |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Alan McKinnnon |
32 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |