On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 04:46:34PM +0200, Michael Schnell wrote: > Jim Donelson wrote: >> No, it is not the erase block size. Yes, the _erase_ blocks are much >> larger, and there lies the problem. If you don't do multiple block >> writes for consecutive sectors, you will end up causing an erase for >> each block you write on the erase sized block. >> It will also be very slow. > .... and when the FAT file system writes updates to the FAT with every > 512by of data these FAT entries are all done to the same erase block, > killing a non-wear-leveling device very quickly and causing a more > intelligent device do long lasting housekeeping.
Which is why mounting flash cards with the sync option is a very bad idea. So don't do that. The fat filesystem doesn't require updating the fat right away. Certainly on linux the fat filesystem driver doesn't do it, unless you enable sync as well. -- Len Sorensen _______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
