Jim Lux wrote:
That would be indicative of a terrible implementation, or the use of NOR
flash then. Particularly for SSDs, which almost certainly use NAND
flash, the write speed is very fast. It's the erase speed which is slow.
Some data from Toshiba I happen to have convenient gives the follo
Mark Hahn wrote:
>> Indeed. I had to hit Google with "asus eee pc terminal" to find out
>> how to get it (it's filemanager->tools->console on my version), but
>> finally this
>
> I like xterm better than the fancier knockoffs. on eeepc, it's
> control-alt-t ;)
xterm is just dope for when you ne
Indeed. I had to hit Google with "asus eee pc terminal" to find out how to
get it (it's filemanager->tools->console on my version), but finally this
I like xterm better than the fancier knockoffs. on eeepc, it's control-alt-t ;)
___
Beowulf mailing l
Well I suppose we could make a stab at buildng a list here...
Omiting any companies that are based elsewhere but have UK offices (of which
there are quite a few)
Omitting all the Universities and Research centres that are writing HPC and
Grid software (Daresbury, Manchester, EPCC et al.)
Also om
Quoting Bill Broadley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Thu 22 May 2008
12:42:20 AM PDT:
Jim Lux wrote:
Actually, not a big deal. The wearout is with erases/writes, not
reads. What they do is not use the same physical location for a
given block. That is, when you read/change/write a block back,
Bill Broadley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed, but only when they = SSD, CF, SDHC and the like. I believe
> this does not apply to "flash". The flash in your PDA, motherboard,
> cell phone, mp3 player, etc does not have any innate load leveling in
> it. Does it?
For a BIOS on a motherboar
Jim Lux wrote:
Actually, not a big deal. The wearout is with erases/writes, not reads.
What they do is not use the same physical location for a given block.
That is, when you read/change/write a block back, it gets written to a
different location. There's a systematic way to keep all this
