Jim Donelson wrote:
No, it is not the erase block size. Yes, the _erase_ blocks are much
larger, and there lies the problem. If you don't do multiple block
writes for consecutive sectors, you will end up causing an erase for
each block you write on the erase sized block.
It will also be very slow.
.... and when the FAT file system writes updates to the FAT with every
512by of data these FAT entries are all done to the same erase block,
killing a non-wear-leveling device very quickly and causing a more
intelligent device do long lasting housekeeping.
-Michael
_______________________________________________
uClinux-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by [email protected]
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
