Hi Fubar/RW,
A while ago, I wrote: """ CF is about a year old, brand "Kingston Technology". """ I lied: I just opened up both my soekris boxes and saw that soekris2 (from which I get the errors) actually has a 512 MB Apacer installed. So it doesn't seem to be a brand issue. The other box, aptly named soekris1, has a PEAK CF, but I haven't had any trouble with that one. I also didn't mention that I have / mounted ro with an mfs mounted on /var. For a moment I feared that these were RAM errors from the MFS partition, but on both error messages that I saved, the sectors were clearly marked as wd0 sectors. I consider soekris2, a net4801, my primary Soekris box, that's why I gave it the Apacer CF. I try to keep it as "clean" as possible. soekris1 is a net4521, which serves as a backup for soekris2, and which I occasionally access for testing. The only writing that has taken place on the Apacer CF on soekris2 were two OpenBSD installations (3.9 and 4.0), and the occasional remote update, where an update script mounts / rw, copies a few files, and mounts / ro again. You're right about the speed: compared to other brands, the Apacer CF cards are incredibly fast. But I'm still not convinced about the card's stability. Bill On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 22:44 +1000, RW wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:53:56 +0200, Bill Maas wrote: > > >Unusual System Events > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > >Apr 15 01:00:39 soekris2 /bsd: wd0a: id not found reading fsbn 367868 > >of 367868-367871 (wd0 bn 367932; cn 365 tn 0 sn 12), retrying > >Apr 15 01:00:40 soekris2 /bsd: wd0: soft error (corrected) > > > >I'm not sure what this is about, but it might be the first hint at a > >wearing out CF. Apparently something to do with corrupted disk blocks > >(according to various *BSD lists). I've been having these warnings quite > >regularly for a couple of weeks now. CF is about a year old, brand > >"Kingston Technology". The "soft error" indicates that it's nothing to > >worry about anyway, so I won't, for now. > > Y'know, Kingston is a brand I trust very much - for RAM. It is also the > only brand CF that I've had trouble with. Qualify that: I don't buy > Bamboo Charlie components for anything critical, so the only CFs I've > used have been Sandisk (rugged, zero failures, but slow in bench access > speed and write speed testing), Apacer (zero failures, rugged in my > year long "log it to death" test, faster than Sandisk) and Kingston. > The Kingston was trouble very early in testing. I don't have all the > details to hand but I now think we may have had a bad batch because all > of the samples had a common problem and it's not like Kingston to do > lousy QA. > > We chose Apacer because they're fast, have had zero failures in service > or torture and the price was attractive as well. > > BTW unless you need atime time stamps you would be well advised to > mount your CF partitions noatime if you care about avoidable wear. > Otherwise every time you access a file in almost any way the timestamp > is deleted and rewritten. > > Go well, > Rod/ > > "Write a wise saying and your name will live on forever." - Anonymous > > > > _______________________________________________ > Soekris-tech mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech > -- "Fix bugs first, add features later" _______________________________________________ Soekris-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech
