On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:09:37 +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote: >I don't know if this makes a lot of sense or any, but I was thinking that >flash memory doesn't like too many writes. So I was thinking of creating >one or two RAMdisks, for all those temporary reads and writes that I need, >and only store the final result on the flash. >The whole system will run from flash, true, but the directory with plenty >of writes and processing should run in RAM. So I'd like to create a drive >in RAM and then mount this drive as for the busy directory. > >Does this make sense? If yes, how to do it?
Not really. The legend of CF wearing out should also be worn out by now for all practical purposes. When I first worked with the earliest nvram the life was very short (in write cycles) now I cannot deliberately wear out CF in any reasonable time. Running an OpenBSD firewall on a Soekris using Apacer 256MB CF I used the most verbose logging I could set up including for spamd handling 2 domains. After an install and two version installs (well over a year) I moved spamd onto the mailserver it protects but I'm still using the same old CF. If you want to be really really conservative buy a good brand, much larger than you need (= more spare cells) and replace it annually. Send your cast offs to any developer who would like to have them and he will get years of service out of most of them. Fiddle-arsing around doing fancy installs and using up limited RAM to be pretend disks ain't worth the effort. Generic installs Just Work (TM) and I've never lost a CF on client machines either and some of those are really busy little firewalls handling roadwarrior VPNs for a financial services company of considerable repute. The CF wearout meme needs to die. On-list replies will suffice. Private replies only to the reply-to: thanks. > >Uwe > Rod/ /earth: write failed, file system is full cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device
