1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

How I Got Full Windows XP Installed Under 2GB!

Discussion in 'Laptops' started by BillW50, Jan 14, 2010.

  1. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    Well it is partly true. As I moved the Program Files folder to a flash
    drive. I believe this is a useful tip for those with small system
    drives. And unlike Hitachi microdrive filter, it doesn't slow down the
    computer and isn't a pain in the butt to install. I came up with this
    because my nephew's 4GB netbook was always running out of drive space.

    You can't normally just install new programs on a flash drive, because
    about 50% of them will refuse to install on a removable drive. Nor does
    it help for the programs already installed. This method fixes both
    problems.

    I used BartPE to move all of the folders and files found in the Program
    Files folders to a flash drive. I suppose any boot disc would work as
    long as you can move folders with it. I tried using Windows Safe Mode,
    but it wouldn't move everything. If someone gets it to work, let me
    know. I didn't try that hard.

    Now the system drive must be in NTFS format, the flash drive doesn't
    matter. Now boot Windows in Safe Mode. If you miss the opportunity,
    Windows will recreate some of the Program Files once again in Normal
    Mode. I haven't tested what to do in this case, so you are on your own
    here.

    Now with Windows in Safe Mode, I haven't seen Windows needing anything
    in the Program Files folder to function, so it appears to behave. Next
    you need to use diskmgmt.msc to mount the flash drive in the Program
    Files folder. And that is it. Now reboot normally.

    Now all of your programs lives on the flash drive. And any programs you
    add to Program Files, also gets saved to the flash drive. This frees up
    lots of space on the system drive. Also I found no program that
    complains running from a flash drive yet.

    I only found two side effects so far. And I like to hear from others who
    may have found more.

    1) Best to uninstall Avast if you are using it. Then reinstall it after
    the mounting is complete. It wasn't in the System Tray afterwords. So I
    don't know if it was running or not. But uninstalling before or after
    and reinstalling it again works great.

    2) MS Works v9 breaks if you move the folder and then put it back again.
    I don't know why, maybe this is some sort of copy protection.

    And like always, make backups before you do anything. <grin>

    --
    Bill
    Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 2 of 3 - Windows XP SP3
     
    BillW50, Jan 14, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. BillW50

    flamer Guest

    flash drives are NOT made for this application. constant read/writing
    to the drive will kill it very quickly as they are limited to the
    number of re-write cycles and have a limited number of years data
    retention.

    Flamer.
     
    flamer , Jan 14, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:52:02 -0800 (PST), "flamer
    " <> wrote:

    >flash drives are NOT made for this application. constant read/writing
    >to the drive will kill it very quickly as they are limited to the
    >number of re-write cycles and have a limited number of years data
    >retention.
    >
    >Flamer.


    How quickly is "quickly"? A check with wikipedia says modern flash
    drives are rated for 1 million write/erase cycles per cell. I don't
    know how he uses his drive, but that far exceeds my expected remaining
    lifetime (I'm 70). Now data retention is a limitation, with only 10
    years.... I do expect to be around for longer than that. But I doubt
    I'd still be using the same netbook for that long.
     
    Charlie Hoffpauir, Jan 14, 2010
    #3
  4. BillW50

    mike Guest

    Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:52:02 -0800 (PST), "flamer
    > " <> wrote:
    >
    >> flash drives are NOT made for this application. constant read/writing
    >> to the drive will kill it very quickly as they are limited to the
    >> number of re-write cycles and have a limited number of years data
    >> retention.
    >>
    >> Flamer.

    >
    > How quickly is "quickly"? A check with wikipedia says modern flash
    > drives are rated for 1 million write/erase cycles per cell. I don't
    > know how he uses his drive, but that far exceeds my expected remaining
    > lifetime (I'm 70). Now data retention is a limitation, with only 10
    > years.... I do expect to be around for longer than that. But I doubt
    > I'd still be using the same netbook for that long.


    This is a very complex issue. Most of what's going on is trade secret
    and unknowable by mere mortals.
    Reading is not a problem. Writing is the problem.

    I thought that moving the program files folder would be ok, because
    it's all read stuff and the volatile stuff would be stored in the
    registry on the HD. But when I checked it out, I found over a hundred
    ..ini files that store volatile stuff like most recently used files.

    If it gets written once when you close the program, you're probably safe.
    If you're copying 10,000 files and the MRU entry gets updated for
    every file, you've got a problem.

    Some programs may also store temporary files or caches in their install
    directory.

    Depending on the wear leveling algorithm, if any, it may matter a LOT
    whether the flash drive is mostly empty of mostly full.

    You'll have to google it, but there are some tools designed for embedded
    windows that dramatically reduce writes to the drive. Not at all clear
    if they would work the way you've set up your system. There was a long
    thread a few months ago about longevity of SSD. Think it was in
    comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage.

    A million sounds like a big number until you start talking about how fast
    a computer can run through it.
     
    mike, Jan 15, 2010
    #4
  5. BillW50

    HeyBub Guest

    wrote:
    > flash drives are NOT made for this application. constant read/writing
    > to the drive will kill it very quickly as they are limited to the
    > number of re-write cycles and have a limited number of years data
    > retention.
    >
    > Flamer.


    Sort of. It's the writing, not the reading, that wears them out. But the
    entries in the Program Files folder, no matter where it's located, are
    written only once.
     
    HeyBub, Jan 15, 2010
    #5
  6. In article <#>,
    HeyBub <> wrote:
    >
    >Sort of. It's the writing, not the reading, that wears them out. But the
    >entries in the Program Files folder, no matter where it's located, are
    >written only once.


    Not true. Many aplications regularly write state and initialization
    data to their "home" directories in Program Files.
     
    the wharf rat, Jan 15, 2010
    #6
  7. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:,
    Pegasus [MVP] typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:29:12 +0100:
    > "BillW50" <> said this in news item
    > news:hio5le$ml5$-september.org...
    >> Well it is partly true. As I moved the Program Files folder to a
    >> flash drive. I believe this is a useful tip for those with small
    >> system drives. And unlike Hitachi microdrive filter, it doesn't slow
    >> down the computer and isn't a pain in the butt to install. I came up
    >> with this because my nephew's 4GB netbook was always running out of
    >> drive space. You can't normally just install new programs on a flash
    >> drive,
    >> because about 50% of them will refuse to install on a removable
    >> drive. Nor does it help for the programs already installed. This
    >> method fixes both problems. I used BartPE to move all of the folders
    >> and files found in the
    >> Program Files folders to a flash drive. I suppose any boot disc
    >> would work as long as you can move folders with it. I tried using
    >> Windows Safe Mode, but it wouldn't move everything. If someone gets
    >> it to work, let me know. I didn't try that hard.
    >>
    >> Now the system drive must be in NTFS format, the flash drive doesn't
    >> matter. Now boot Windows in Safe Mode. If you miss the opportunity,
    >> Windows will recreate some of the Program Files once again in Normal
    >> Mode. I haven't tested what to do in this case, so you are on your
    >> own here. Now with Windows in Safe Mode, I haven't seen Windows
    >> needing
    >> anything in the Program Files folder to function, so it appears to
    >> behave. Next you need to use diskmgmt.msc to mount the flash drive
    >> in the Program Files folder. And that is it. Now reboot normally.
    >>
    >> Now all of your programs lives on the flash drive. And any programs
    >> you add to Program Files, also gets saved to the flash drive. This
    >> frees up lots of space on the system drive. Also I found no program
    >> that complains running from a flash drive yet.
    >>
    >> I only found two side effects so far. And I like to hear from others
    >> who may have found more.
    >>
    >> 1) Best to uninstall Avast if you are using it. Then reinstall it
    >> after the mounting is complete. It wasn't in the System Tray
    >> afterwords. So I don't know if it was running or not. But
    >> uninstalling before or after and reinstalling it again works great.
    >>
    >> 2) MS Works v9 breaks if you move the folder and then put it back
    >> again. I don't know why, maybe this is some sort of copy protection.
    >>
    >> And like always, make backups before you do anything. <grin>

    >
    > There is a lot of bad advice in this post.
    >
    > - As flamer sais, flash drives have a very limited number of write
    > cycles. They will die quickly when used the way you suggest.


    Nonsense. MTBF for solid state drives are 227 years. 7 times longer than
    hard drives. Writing 100MB per day to a 4GB flash would take like 4,000
    years to wear it out. To wear one out very quickly, I would have to
    overwrite it completely 24 times per day for the next 11 years before it
    was toast.

    Secondly what everybody is missing completely is the netbook also has a
    4GB solid state drive (aka flash drive). So you are moving stuff from
    one flash drive to another. The one in the netbook is soldered in place
    and cost $150 to replace (if you do it yourself). And the one you all
    are worried about costs $8 and can be replaced in a second.

    > - Flash drives are much, much slower than hard disks. A moment ago I
    > copied a 10 MByte file from my hard disk to a USB2 flash drive. I
    > then copied a different 10 MByte file from drive C: to drive E: (both
    > are partitions on the same disk). Here are the copy times:
    > to flash drive: 1,700 ms
    > to hard disk: 220 ms
    > In other words, the flash disk copy took 8 times longer than the hard
    > disk copy.


    Not all flash drives are created equal for one. They come in different
    speeds for both read and write. And there are two types of flash. SLC
    and MLC types. The later are much slower at writing than SLC types are.
    And the vast majority of the time things in the Program Files folder are
    only being read and not written too.

    > - You say that the Windows system drive must be NTFS. This is
    > incorrect. It can be FAT32.


    Incorrect. You cannot use mount a drive in a FAT32 folder. It must be
    formatted in NTFS.

    > - You propose your method as a way to overcome the limitations of a
    > small laptop disk. Yesterday I bought a 240 GByte laptop disk for
    > $70.00. What is the point of buying a slow 10 GByte flash disk that
    > will wear out quickly when you can have a fast 240 GByte hard disk
    > that will last longer than the laptop?


    You propose to install a 240GB hard drive in a netbook which has a solid
    state drive soldered on the motherboard? How in the world are you going
    to pull that off? I do have two netbooks with replaceable solid state
    drives. But they use PCIe connections and 2.5 inch hard drives don't
    fit. There just isn't enough room inside for one.

    Secondly, you just believe you can wear out a flash drive. Cheap ones,
    you probably can. As they can only handle a few thousand writes and they
    are toast. Others won't die in your lifetime. ADATA for example
    guarantees theirs for life. Or you get a free replacement.

    Thirdly, your hard drive suggestion is a very expensive option when you
    want portability. As hard drives are lucky to get just a years worth of
    use while being moved around. This is do to vibrations and shock. I just
    got two disk errors show up in my event logs just this morning while
    using this laptop on my lap. Yet SMART shows 100% healthy. With flash,
    you can move around all you want too. Even go on a Space Shuttle launch
    if you want (this is what NASA uses for their computers).

    Fourth, solid state drives are usually faster than hard drives. It isn't
    uncommon to have half of the boot time when moving to a flash drive vs.
    a hard drive. In the next couple of years, I will replace all four of my
    laptops hard drives with flash drives. One of them that lives mostly in
    a dock, can't even be undocked while running do to the fact that disk
    errors will appear in the event log. Moving to flash drive, this problem
    disappears.

    --
    Bill
    Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 2 of 3 - Windows XP SP3
     
    BillW50, Jan 15, 2010
    #7
  8. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In
    news:,
    typed on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:52:02 -0800 (PST):
    > flash drives are NOT made for this application. constant read/writing
    > to the drive will kill it very quickly as they are limited to the
    > number of re-write cycles and have a limited number of years data
    > retention.
    >
    > Flamer.


    First of all, the system drive is already a flash drive. It is called a
    solid state drive (SSD). So you would rather burn out the SSD soldered
    on the motherboard ($150 worth) than to replace a flash card ($8), eh?

    Second of all, SLC flash drives are good for 100,000 writes. MTBF is 227
    years, or 7 times longer than hard drives. Writing about 100MB per day
    on a 4GB flash would take about 4,000 years to wear it out.

    And if you are really worried, just get an ADATA flash which is
    guaranteed for life. Or you get a free replacement. Although that won't
    happen for another 4,000 years.

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
    BillW50, Jan 15, 2010
    #8
  9. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:,
    Charlie Hoffpauir typed on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:33:16 -0600:
    > How quickly is "quickly"? A check with wikipedia says modern flash
    > drives are rated for 1 million write/erase cycles per cell. I don't
    > know how he uses his drive, but that far exceeds my expected remaining
    > lifetime (I'm 70). Now data retention is a limitation, with only 10
    > years.... I do expect to be around for longer than that. But I doubt
    > I'd still be using the same netbook for that long.


    Actually it should be 100,000 write cycles for most SLC flash drives.
    Which has a 227 years MTBF. Or 7 times longer than hard drives.

    And that 10 years data retention starts the clock all over once again
    you make one backup and one restore.

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
    BillW50, Jan 15, 2010
    #9
  10. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:hiof7h$5a1$-september.org,
    mike typed on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:08:19 -0800:
    > Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
    >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:52:02 -0800 (PST), "flamer
    >> " <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> flash drives are NOT made for this application. constant
    >>> read/writing to the drive will kill it very quickly as they are
    >>> limited to the number of re-write cycles and have a limited number
    >>> of years data retention.
    >>>
    >>> Flamer.

    >>
    >> How quickly is "quickly"? A check with wikipedia says modern flash
    >> drives are rated for 1 million write/erase cycles per cell. I don't
    >> know how he uses his drive, but that far exceeds my expected
    >> remaining lifetime (I'm 70). Now data retention is a limitation,
    >> with only 10 years.... I do expect to be around for longer than
    >> that. But I doubt I'd still be using the same netbook for that long.

    >
    > This is a very complex issue. Most of what's going on is trade secret
    > and unknowable by mere mortals.
    > Reading is not a problem. Writing is the problem.
    >
    > I thought that moving the program files folder would be ok, because
    > it's all read stuff and the volatile stuff would be stored in the
    > registry on the HD. But when I checked it out, I found over a hundred
    > .ini files that store volatile stuff like most recently used files.
    >
    > If it gets written once when you close the program, you're probably
    > safe. If you're copying 10,000 files and the MRU entry gets updated
    > for every file, you've got a problem.
    >
    > Some programs may also store temporary files or caches in their
    > install directory.
    >
    > Depending on the wear leveling algorithm, if any, it may matter a LOT
    > whether the flash drive is mostly empty of mostly full.
    >
    > You'll have to google it, but there are some tools designed for
    > embedded windows that dramatically reduce writes to the drive. Not
    > at all clear if they would work the way you've set up your system.
    > There was a long thread a few months ago about longevity of SSD. Think
    > it was in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage.
    >
    > A million sounds like a big number until you start talking about how
    > fast a computer can run through it.


    Well for starters, I use 100,000 per cell write cycles for my SLC flash
    drive figures, which are more conservative. And if I wrote 4GB per hour
    for 24 hours per day on a 4GB flash drive, it would take 11 years to
    wear it out.

    MTBF for a SLC flash is 227 years, 7 times longer than hard drives.

    I average 100MB to 150MB writes per day of writes to SLC flash drives.
    At that rate, it would take 4,000 years to hit 100,000 writes per cell.

    So unless you are buying inferior MLC flash drives which the real cheap
    ones are only good for 5,000 writes per cell, there is little to worry
    about. But even if you do, they are so cheap, so what if you replace
    them once a year or so?

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
    BillW50, Jan 15, 2010
    #10
  11. In article <hiq7mg$dcp$-september.org>,
    BillW50 <> wrote:
    >
    >I average 100MB to 150MB writes per day of writes to SLC flash drives.
    >At that rate, it would take 4,000 years to hit 100,000 writes per cell.
    >


    But writes aren't evenly distributed across cells. The exact pattern
    depends on free space available, the balancing algorithms, and the patterns
    of the load. Also, MTBF doesn't mean that ALL those cells will last that
    long. It's a statistic; you'll see plenty of failures before that magic
    number is reached.
     
    the wharf rat, Jan 15, 2010
    #11
  12. In article <hiq67a$3hp$-september.org>,
    BillW50 <> wrote:
    >
    >And that 10 years data retention starts the clock all over once again
    >you make one backup and one restore.
    >


    Flash memory failure is a hard failure of the cell, not a data
    refresh issue.
     
    the wharf rat, Jan 15, 2010
    #12
  13. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:hiqjra$o0b$,
    the wharf rat typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:40:10 +0000 (UTC):
    > In article <hiq7mg$dcp$-september.org>,
    > BillW50 <> wrote:
    >>
    >> I average 100MB to 150MB writes per day of writes to SLC flash
    >> drives. At that rate, it would take 4,000 years to hit 100,000
    >> writes per cell.

    >
    > But writes aren't evenly distributed across cells. The exact pattern
    > depends on free space available, the balancing algorithms, and the
    > patterns of the load. Also, MTBF doesn't mean that ALL those cells
    > will last that long. It's a statistic; you'll see plenty of failures
    > before that magic number is reached.


    No problem. As that is what wear leveling takes care of. I have been
    using flash drives (SSD) for running Windows for two years now and no
    problems yet.

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
    BillW50, Jan 15, 2010
    #13
  14. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:hiqjsp$o0b$,
    the wharf rat typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:40:57 +0000 (UTC):
    > In article <hiq67a$3hp$-september.org>,
    > BillW50 <> wrote:
    >>
    >> And that 10 years data retention starts the clock all over once again
    >> you make one backup and one restore.

    >
    > Flash memory failure is a hard failure of the cell, not a data
    > refresh issue.


    Not from what I understand. It isn't a hard failure, but a soft one. As
    the cells slowly leaks and it takes 10 years before the information
    can't be read anymore. That is true if you don't use it for 10 years.
    But use it all of the time, wear leveling will rewrite it zillions of
    times in ten years. So no worries there.

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
    BillW50, Jan 15, 2010
    #14
  15. BillW50

    mike Guest

    BillW50 wrote:
    > In
    > news:,
    > typed on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:52:02 -0800 (PST):
    >> flash drives are NOT made for this application. constant read/writing
    >> to the drive will kill it very quickly as they are limited to the
    >> number of re-write cycles and have a limited number of years data
    >> retention.
    >>
    >> Flamer.

    >
    > First of all, the system drive is already a flash drive. It is called a
    > solid state drive (SSD). So you would rather burn out the SSD soldered
    > on the motherboard ($150 worth) than to replace a flash card ($8), eh?
    >
    > Second of all, SLC flash drives are good for 100,000 writes. MTBF is 227
    > years, or 7 times longer than hard drives. Writing about 100MB per day
    > on a 4GB flash would take about 4,000 years to wear it out.


    This is a hot discussion topic that won't be settled here...but
    Aren't most large flash drives MLC now?
    Consider the case where your flash drive is full except for one block.
    You have a continually updated log file that writes OFTEN.
    With no wear leveling, you've got big trouble.
    With excellent wear leveling, it may not matter at all.
    And wear leveling is probably not in the spec or discoverable by
    legal means. I'd expect a usb flash to have little and a SSD to
    have a LOT of wear leveling. YMMV.

    I just don't buy into 4000 years life.
    I've seen anecdotal reports on wearing out a flash drive in a month
    with windows without taking any precautions to limit writes.
    People who used the embedded windows tools to limit writes fared much
    better.
    >
    > And if you are really worried, just get an ADATA flash which is
    > guaranteed for life. Or you get a free replacement. Although that won't
    > happen for another 4,000 years.

    In my experience, the life of the guarantor is the weak link in that
    strategy.
    >
     
    mike, Jan 15, 2010
    #15
  16. BillW50

    HeyBub Guest

    the wharf rat wrote:
    > In article <#>,
    > HeyBub <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Sort of. It's the writing, not the reading, that wears them out. But
    >> the entries in the Program Files folder, no matter where it's
    >> located, are written only once.

    >
    > Not true. Many aplications regularly write state and initialization
    > data to their "home" directories in Program Files.


    Ah, yeah. I forgot. That's one reason Vista gets all huffy if you try to do
    so.

    Still, the OS itself is niggardly about writing to the PF folder.
     
    HeyBub, Jan 15, 2010
    #16
  17. In article <hiqkid$9e7$-september.org>,
    BillW50 <> wrote:
    >
    >Not from what I understand. It isn't a hard failure, but a soft one. As


    Writing data to flash requires applying an electrical charge. The
    individual cells "trap" that charge and the gate (cell) resists the passage
    of the sensor current. The ability to store that charge degrades with each
    write cycle. Eventually the cell becomes unable to store enough charge to
    provide the required resistance and reads permanently high - always shows 1.
     
    the wharf rat, Jan 15, 2010
    #17
  18. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:hiqm5g$23m$,
    the wharf rat typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:19:44 +0000 (UTC):
    > In article <hiqkid$9e7$-september.org>,
    > BillW50 <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Not from what I understand. It isn't a hard failure, but a soft one.
    >> As

    >
    > Writing data to flash requires applying an electrical charge. The
    > individual cells "trap" that charge and the gate (cell) resists the
    > passage of the sensor current. The ability to store that charge
    > degrades with each write cycle. Eventually the cell becomes unable
    > to store enough charge to provide the required resistance and reads
    > permanently high - always shows 1.


    True, but that takes 100,000 rewrites per cell to kill it. Writing 100MB
    per day on a 4GB would take 4,000 years to rewrite every cell 100,000
    times.

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
    BillW50, Jan 15, 2010
    #18
  19. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:hiql6s$4ih$-september.org,
    mike typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:02:35 -0800:
    > BillW50 wrote:
    >> In
    >> news:,
    >> typed on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:52:02 -0800 (PST):
    >>> flash drives are NOT made for this application. constant
    >>> read/writing to the drive will kill it very quickly as they are
    >>> limited to the number of re-write cycles and have a limited number
    >>> of years data retention.
    >>>
    >>> Flamer.

    >>
    >> First of all, the system drive is already a flash drive. It is
    >> called a solid state drive (SSD). So you would rather burn out the
    >> SSD soldered on the motherboard ($150 worth) than to replace a flash
    >> card ($8), eh? Second of all, SLC flash drives are good for 100,000
    >> writes. MTBF is
    >> 227 years, or 7 times longer than hard drives. Writing about 100MB
    >> per day on a 4GB flash would take about 4,000 years to wear it out.

    >
    > This is a hot discussion topic that won't be settled here...but
    > Aren't most large flash drives MLC now?
    > Consider the case where your flash drive is full except for one block.
    >
    > You have a continually updated log file that writes OFTEN.
    > With no wear leveling, you've got big trouble.


    Only those cheap no-name flash has no wear leveling. And what happens is
    like any other drive. The area is marked as bad and the capacity gets
    less and less. All of the information still stays save though.

    > With excellent wear leveling, it may not matter at all.
    > And wear leveling is probably not in the spec or discoverable by
    > legal means. I'd expect a usb flash to have little and a SSD to
    > have a LOT of wear leveling. YMMV.


    I know a guy who claims that those cheap no-name flash drives only lasts
    him 2 months on average. He runs VMs on them with tons of writing. Shall
    I say constant writing on them.

    I on the other hand, have never worn out a single flash yet. And in the
    beginning, I used to worry about writing to them a lot. But after no
    failures in all of these years, I have dropped my guard.

    And in the newsgroups, I don't hear of anybody complaining of flash
    drive failures except the cheap ones. Adata for example, I haven't heard
    one reported case yet.

    > I just don't buy into 4000 years life.
    > I've seen anecdotal reports on wearing out a flash drive in a month
    > with windows without taking any precautions to limit writes.
    > People who used the embedded windows tools to limit writes fared much
    > better.


    I have three 16GB adata flash drives for two years now and no problems
    with them yet. And writing to them on average 100MB per day, it would
    take thousands of years to write each cell 100,000 times.

    >> And if you are really worried, just get an ADATA flash which is
    >> guaranteed for life. Or you get a free replacement. Although that
    >> won't happen for another 4,000 years.

    >
    > In my experience, the life of the guarantor is the weak link in that
    > strategy.


    My SSD are not failing and my flash drives are not either. Let's see, I
    have 5 SSD and 12 flash drives. And I decided not to worry about them
    until one or two of them had failed. So far (knock on wood), no problems
    to report. ;-)

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
    BillW50, Jan 15, 2010
    #19
  20. In article <hiqmeq$mc1$-september.org>,
    BillW50 <> wrote:
    >
    >True, but that takes 100,000 rewrites per cell to kill it. Writing 100MB


    Not really. Given a sufficiently large population of cells one
    cell will fail for every certain number of writes. The chances of any
    particular cell failing on any particular write are about 1 in 100000,
    but the chances of any one of the cells in the array failing are much larger.
    And they're still dependent on the number of writes, so SOME cells will
    INEVITABLY fail.
     
    the wharf rat, Jan 15, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nobody
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,270
    nobody
    Dec 12, 2003
  2. Paul Mathews
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    291
    Firefox
    Nov 16, 2005
  3. Paul Mathews
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    272
    Paul Mathews
    Nov 20, 2005
  4. Andy Louie
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    711
  5. liketofindoutwhy

    can a Mac use the full 4GB if installed?

    liketofindoutwhy, Apr 14, 2008, in forum: Apple
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    211
    nospam
    Apr 15, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page