On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:13:24PM -0800, UFS User wrote:
I have run a lot of different FreeBSD systems off (fileservers, firewalls,
routers, etc.) off of compact flash cards[1] and have never had a CF part
fail.
Most of these were read-only mode, but some of them were left mounted 'rw'
The same here - I use a Sandisk Compact Flash with 8GB on my Thinkpad.
The thing runs the whole day and I didnt notice any failure (using
NetBSD). With a simple adapter card it formats and works like an
ata-disk.
Reading is quite fast! A good combination for stationary computers might
be to
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:13 AM, UFS User ufs.u...@yahoo.com wrote:
I have run a lot of different FreeBSD systems off (fileservers, firewalls,
routers, etc.) off of compact flash cards[1] and have never had a CF part
fail.
Most of these were read-only mode, but some of them were left mounted
On 12/30/11 22:41, Roland Smith wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:13:24PM -0800, UFS User wrote:
I have run a lot of different FreeBSD systems off (fileservers, firewalls,
routers, etc.) off of compact flash cards[1] and have never had a CF part
fail.
Most of these were read-only mode, but
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:13:24 -0800 (PST)
UFS User wrote:
Most of these were read-only mode, but some of them were left mounted
'rw' for years (with no swapping, of course). The bottom line is,
they never failed, and some were (and are) in the field for over 8
years now.
So is this just
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:13 AM, UFS User ufs.u...@yahoo.com wrote:
But everyone I know (including me) has had an SSD fail, usually with no
explanation.
So is this just chance, or ... are CF cards really a lot more reliable than
SSD ?
The following pages , and references in them , may be
I have run a lot of different FreeBSD systems off (fileservers, firewalls,
routers, etc.) off of compact flash cards[1] and have never had a CF part fail.
Most of these were read-only mode, but some of them were left mounted 'rw' for
years (with no swapping, of course). The bottom line is,
