On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Peter Barada wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 04:46 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 01/26/2012 11:34 AM, Peter Barada wrote:
>>> On 01/26/2012 12:27 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Why are two copies insufficient for that?
>>> Two copies are sufficient, if none of the blocks ever go
On 01/27/2012 04:46 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/26/2012 11:34 AM, Peter Barada wrote:
>> On 01/26/2012 12:27 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> Why are two copies insufficient for that?
>> Two copies are sufficient, if none of the blocks ever go bad.
>>
>> To simplify things, suppose the environment is th
On 01/26/2012 11:34 AM, Peter Barada wrote:
> On 01/26/2012 12:27 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> Why are two copies insufficient for that?
> Two copies are sufficient, if none of the blocks ever go bad.
>
> To simplify things, suppose the environment is the same size as a block
> and you have only two b
On 01/26/2012 12:27 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/26/2012 11:05 AM, Peter Barada wrote:
>> I'm trying to have a robust environment stored in NAND, and three blocks
>> of space available to store it in.
>>
>> Looking at the REDUND code, I see it only keeps two copies of the
>> environment regardless
On 01/26/2012 11:05 AM, Peter Barada wrote:
> I'm trying to have a robust environment stored in NAND, and three blocks
> of space available to store it in.
>
> Looking at the REDUND code, I see it only keeps two copies of the
> environment regardless of the amount of space available. Instead I'm
I'm trying to have a robust environment stored in NAND, and three blocks
of space available to store it in.
Looking at the REDUND code, I see it only keeps two copies of the
environment regardless of the amount of space available. Instead I'm
looking to use CONFIG_ENV_RANGE to handle the extra bl
6 matches
Mail list logo
