Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:03:40 -0700 From: "marty fouts" <mf.danger@gmail.com> To: "Jim Thompson" <jim@netgate.com> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, small@freebsd.org, Andrew Atrens <atrens@nortel.com> Subject: Re: FreeBSD's embedded agenda Message-ID: <9f7850090605292203k68fb8ff3k35601fd720efa6@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <EC7AB829-4349-45E5-8435-F175F9CF3BA2@netgate.com> References: <9f7850090605271000j524d6a35gfa3f6df1f0ed59f5@mail.gmail.com> <HCEPKPMCAJLDGJIBCLGHEEILFGAA.james@wgold.demon.co.uk> <9f7850090605291049j2d6c6e41wff1330e114fa91a7@mail.gmail.com> <EC7AB829-4349-45E5-8435-F175F9CF3BA2@netgate.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 5/29/06, Jim Thompson <jim@netgate.com> wrote: > > On May 29, 2006, at 7:49 AM, marty fouts wrote: > > Two reasons: First, NAND devices have a complicated wear behavior. The > > more frequently you hit the same block, the lower the life expectancy > > of the block. > > Uh... 'hit' is 'write', correct? Um, yes. sorry for the slang. > and I don't think its got anything to do with frequency, but hey, > I've been wrong before, feel free to correct me. The literature says you're right. Measurements made on test parts suggests you're wrong.help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9f7850090605292203k68fb8ff3k35601fd720efa6>