As a photographer of many many years - the SD cards on the market for us exceed 
the life span of CF. 

HOWEVER CF has a much larger potential capacity.

If you spend $10 on a card that has a higher end build for $50 you should know 
your data will fail sooner rather than later. 


> On Aug 28, 2014, at 9:12, Jim Thompson <j...@netgate.com> wrote:
> 
> And I'm saying that you have to evaluate these things as systems, not the 
> base level tech. 
> 
>> On Aug 28, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Espen Johansen <pfse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All I'm saying is that a normal SLC cell can handle about 10 times more 
>> writes then a MLC if everything else is the same. And as far as I ca tell, 
>> the ability to handle writes is the OPs main concern. A SLC based SDHC card 
>> will have about 10 times longer life span in that regard.
>> If you want it perfect then sure there are better options and technologies. 
>> I'm just trying to make the choice a easy one based on what the OP asked. 
>> There is allways better cheaper and faster tech just around the corner.
>> 
>> 27. aug. 2014 21:26 skrev "Jim Thompson" <j...@smallworks.com> følgende:
>>> SD cards are storage, but not “disks” nor “drives”.
>>> 
>>> Beyond m-SATA, eMMC is your best option.  Not only are they faster than SD 
>>> cards (speeds of the larger devices rival those of traditional SSDs, as 
>>> well as supporting a “TRIM”-like operation, priority interruptible READ and 
>>> ERASE operations, background operations, and riding the cost-curve of 
>>> cellular handsets (growing) .vs consumer point-and-shoot cameras 
>>> (shrinking), etc.)
>>> 
>>> (This, by the way, is a huge, huge ‘hint’.)
>>> (You may wish read between the lines.)
>>> 
>>> A lot of the SLC / MLC mythos is from before the days of JEDEC standards 
>>> for endurance, advanced wear-leveling algorithms, and before a lof of the 
>>> firmware engineers understood concepts such as “read disturbance”, “write 
>>> disturbance”, and “ECC correction thresholds”.  It’s certainly not as 
>>> simple as you’re making it out to be.
>>> 
>>> (This, again, is the big reason that Netgate stayed out of the early fracas 
>>> around SSDs.)
>>> 
>>> I’m not going to depend on what someone said in the forum over 3 years ago, 
>>> since it’s unlikely to apply today.
>>> 
>>> Jim
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Espen Johansen <pfse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> For completeness sake.
>>>> Just to clarify. You can get SDHC cards that are SLC based. Pretty much 
>>>> everything called industrial grade SD/SDHC will be a SLC SSD in SD format.
>>>> 
>>>> Understood. Thank you for the clarification. 
>>>> 
>>>> Would it be possible to have the description updated on the sales page? It 
>>>> only says you can boot via SD through USB. 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Ryan Coleman
>>>> ryanjc...@me.com
>>>> m. 651.373.5015
>>>> o. 612.568.2749
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 9:24, Jim Thompson <j...@netgate.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, the system can be booted from an SD (or SDHC) card.  Or from USB, or 
>>>>> from the m-SATA.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All of these require proper preparation of the requisite ‘disk’ (-like 
>>>>> device).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jim
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 9:21 AM, Ryan Coleman <ryanjc...@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I understand *that* however it doesn't say on the features page it can 
>>>>>> be booted off the SD slot - is that true? If so I have to change a few 
>>>>>> quotes I have in play as they will need to get mSATA SSDs instead. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 9:20, Jim Thompson <j...@smallworks.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The SD (SDHC describes some cards which work in the slot) card slot is 
>>>>>>> a “base feature”.   If people choose to fit a m-SATA drive,
>>>>>>> then they can.  Or they can use the SD card socket.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It’s not like we’re going to de-solder the SD card socket if it’s not 
>>>>>>> going to be used.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Neither are we going to carry two different SKUs (one with, one 
>>>>>>> without).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 7:57 AM, Ryan Coleman <ryanjc...@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Why not answer the question?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 7:56, Jim Thompson <j...@netgate.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ryan,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Don't troll. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 7:33 AM, Ryan Coleman <ryanjc...@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Wait, so the SDHC slot on this board is simply for show?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 26, 2014, at 13:56, Sergii Cherkashyn 
>>>>>>>>>>> <ser...@accurategroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Espen,
>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>> Squid is for filtering purpose only, not to save bandwidth.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Netgate they have only this SSD as an option. But I’ll keep your 
>>>>>>>>>>> advice in mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Sergii Cherkashyn
>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:45:46 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Espen Johansen <pfse...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> To: pfSense support and discussion <list@lists.pfsense.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [pfSense] Netgate APU2 SSD module question
>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>>>>> <caadq7-adzhlsv1p6rl7kwaaomaws1uqcet6fxa5ngdn8sl5...@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>> I personally don't think you will have an issue with too many 
>>>>>>>>>>> writes in a normal environment. Why squid tho? if its for filtering 
>>>>>>>>>>> fine. For acceleration and 3-6 persons it will most likely not do 
>>>>>>>>>>> you much good.
>>>>>>>>>>> Also check MLC vs SLC. SLC based SSD will last longer. 
>>>>>>>>>>> Approximately 10 times longer. And even more with the right write 
>>>>>>>>>>> leveling tech.
>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> List mailing list
>>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> List mailing list
>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> List mailing list
>>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List mailing list
>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>> _______________________________________________
>> List mailing list
>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> _______________________________________________
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Reply via email to