Verifying SD Cards

On 05 May 2016 17:00:08 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> Gave us:

>Of course you use FAT32 only on cards/sticks/drives you want to use
>for quick worry-free interchange of files.  The sneaker network.

  Does not work for DVD iso image files or movie files over 4GB in size.
>
>Any use of those devices for permanent storage in a system should of
>course use the native filesystem on that system or a filesystem
>optimized for flash storage.

  What is the list of "file systems which are optimized for flash
storage"?

On 05/05/2016 20:23, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On 05 May 2016 17:00:08 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> Gave us:
>
>> Of course you use FAT32 only on cards/sticks/drives you want to use
>> for quick worry-free interchange of files.  The sneaker network.
>
>    Does not work for DVD iso image files or movie files over 4GB in size.
>>
>> Any use of those devices for permanent storage in a system should of
>> course use the native filesystem on that system or a filesystem
>> optimized for flash storage.
>
>    What is the list of "file systems which are optimized for flash
> storage"?
>

JFFS & JFFS2 are the first 2 that spring to mind.

On Thu, 5 May 2016 20:19:38 +0100, druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:

>On 05/05/2016 13:30, Hans-Bernhard Br&#4294967295;ker wrote:
>> Am 05.05.2016 um 08:47 schrieb druck:
>>
>>> NTFS isn't good for SD cards, its a journalled filing system meaning a
>>> lot more writes, and would work very inefficiently if data was
>>> continually flushed to the card, if it isn't flushed it would corrupt
>>> frequently if not properly unmounted before removal.
>>
>> I believe you've got the latter aspect backwards.  Journalling exists
>> precisely to avoid that kind of corruption.  Non-journalling file
>> systems like FAT corrupt a whole lot more easily and more thoroughly
>> than journalling ones.
>>
>No, NTFS only journals filing system meta data, so while it can 
>automatically recover what looks like a valid filing system, the 
>contents of the files may be corrupted.
>
>This is actually a lot more insidious than with FAT where if it is 
>corrupted the filing system is broken and it will usually tell you 
>straight away, and you can restore from backup.


That's a bit silly.  Neither FAT or NTFS guarantee writes to file
data, and both will allow silent corruption of a written-to open file
in the event of a crash (as in lost writes).

NTFS at least largely prevent crashes from corrupting files that were
not being written to at the time of the crash.

On 5/5/2016 1:00 PM, Rob wrote:
>
> Of course you use FAT32 only on cards/sticks/drives you want to use
> for quick worry-free interchange of files.  The sneaker network.
>
> Any use of those devices for permanent storage in a system should of
> course use the native filesystem on that system or a filesystem
> optimized for flash storage.

"Native" filesystem?  What file system is native to Linux?

-- 

Rick C

On Thu, 05 May 2016 19:51:24 -0500, Robert Wessel
<robertwessel2@yahoo.com> Gave us:

>On Thu, 5 May 2016 20:19:38 +0100, druck <news@druck.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 05/05/2016 13:30, Hans-Bernhard Br&#4294967295;ker wrote:
>>> Am 05.05.2016 um 08:47 schrieb druck:
>>>
>>>> NTFS isn't good for SD cards, its a journalled filing system meaning a
>>>> lot more writes, and would work very inefficiently if data was
>>>> continually flushed to the card, if it isn't flushed it would corrupt
>>>> frequently if not properly unmounted before removal.
>>>
>>> I believe you've got the latter aspect backwards.  Journalling exists
>>> precisely to avoid that kind of corruption.  Non-journalling file
>>> systems like FAT corrupt a whole lot more easily and more thoroughly
>>> than journalling ones.
>>>
>>No, NTFS only journals filing system meta data, so while it can 
>>automatically recover what looks like a valid filing system, the 
>>contents of the files may be corrupted.
>>
>>This is actually a lot more insidious than with FAT where if it is 
>>corrupted the filing system is broken and it will usually tell you 
>>straight away, and you can restore from backup.
>
>
>That's a bit silly.  Neither FAT or NTFS guarantee writes to file
>data, and both will allow silent corruption of a written-to open file
>in the event of a crash (as in lost writes).
>
>NTFS at least largely prevent crashes from corrupting files that were
>not being written to at the time of the crash.


  Hey!  Who said you have a right to talk about writes and then write it
in here?!  It's just not right.  It is not the write thing to do.

On Thu, 05 May 2016 15:23:35 -0400
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On 05 May 2016 17:00:08 GMT, Rob <nomail@example.com> Gave us:
> 
> >Of course you use FAT32 only on cards/sticks/drives you want to use
> >for quick worry-free interchange of files.  The sneaker network.
> 
>   Does not work for DVD iso image files or movie files over 4GB in
> size.
>
Sneakernet doesn't let things like that get in the way - I used to
download stuff and split it into floppy-sized chunks to take it home.

On Thu, 5 May 2016 21:53:49 -0400
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/5/2016 1:00 PM, Rob wrote:
> >
> > Of course you use FAT32 only on cards/sticks/drives you want to use
> > for quick worry-free interchange of files.  The sneaker network.
> >
> > Any use of those devices for permanent storage in a system should of
> > course use the native filesystem on that system or a filesystem
> > optimized for flash storage.
> 
> "Native" filesystem?  What file system is native to Linux?
> 
MINIX?

;-)

On 5/5/2016 10:23 PM, Rob Morley wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2016 21:53:49 -0400
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/2016 1:00 PM, Rob wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course you use FAT32 only on cards/sticks/drives you want to use
>>> for quick worry-free interchange of files.  The sneaker network.
>>>
>>> Any use of those devices for permanent storage in a system should of
>>> course use the native filesystem on that system or a filesystem
>>> optimized for flash storage.
>>
>> "Native" filesystem?  What file system is native to Linux?
>>
> MINIX?
>
> ;-)

I don't get it.  Maybe I don't know enough about MINIX???

-- 

Rick C

On Fri, 6 May 2016 02:45:07 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> Gave us:

>On 5/6/2016 1:25 AM, John Doe wrote:
>> A most persistent troll with a chronic ego problem...
>
>It's not like you are bringing much to the party.

  He thinks that his retarded "drill powered bicycle" is electronics.

  And watch out, because the stupid putz adds groups to every post he
makes like this.

On 06/05/16 11:39, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2016-05-06, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/5/2016 1:00 PM, Rob wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course you use FAT32 only on cards/sticks/drives you want to use
>>> for quick worry-free interchange of files.  The sneaker network.
>>>
>>> Any use of those devices for permanent storage in a system should of
>>> course use the native filesystem on that system or a filesystem
>>> optimized for flash storage.
>>
>> "Native" filesystem?  What file system is native to Linux?
>
> EXT*
>
>

Well its certainly mostly the default, but native?

>


-- 
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is 
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp