On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:43:28 +0900, W.Kenworthy wrote: > I believe that writing a file to a single location is not the way to do > this: you need to write a byte to the usb key in the same location, but > need to ensure it continually changes: perhaps rotating 1's/0's. > Alternatively, the concern is that the FAT/inode table or the like is > where the most wear will occur - perhaps concentrate there? (i.e., do a > journelled FS like reiserfs with a fast update?
It used to be that writing a large file to a USB key mounted with the sync option would update the FAT for each block written, so writing a large file several times would soon kill it. I destroyed a 1GB key like this by continually writing modified KNOPPIX images to it. That was a couple of years ago, I've no idea if the kernel still writes FAT like this because I've mounted flash devices with nosync ever since. -- Neil Bothwick Madness takes its toll. Exact change, please.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
