canon SX10is - max memory card capacity
yirgster
I couldn't find it anywhere.
TIA.
Bert Hyman
news:60b0b181-c9b7-4dce...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com
yirgster <yirg....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Max memory capacity for th Canon SX10is?
>
> I couldn't find it anywhere.
It can take SD-HC cards, which currently range up to 32GB.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
J�rgen Exner
>Max memory capacity for th Canon SX10is?
>
>I couldn't find it anywhere.
According to
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sx10is.asp it
supports. SD/SDHC/MMC cards.
SD is limited to 2GB, SDHC in the current specification is limited to
32GB.
jue
yirgster
concerned about.
That a memory card is available in a certain capacity does not imply,
by itself, that the camera can support that capacity. I've run into
this before. E.g., card can be 4GB, but camera only supports a max of
2GB.
From your answers I infer that the SX10is will support whatever
capacity the card has? Is this correct? That is, what is the maximum
card capacity that the camera will in fact support (and not
necessarily the maximum capacity of cards of that type).
That's what my question was or should have been, and what I couldn't
find on the various websites.
On Jun 27, 7:04 pm, J rgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
David J Taylor
> Thanks for your responses, but I'm not sure they addressed what I'm
> concerned about.
>
> That a memory card is available in a certain capacity does not imply,
> by itself, that the camera can support that capacity. I've run into
> this before. E.g., card can be 4GB, but camera only supports a max of
> 2GB.
>
> From your answers I infer that the SX10is will support whatever
> capacity the card has? Is this correct? That is, what is the maximum
> card capacity that the camera will in fact support (and not
> necessarily the maximum capacity of cards of that type).
>
> That's what my question was or should have been, and what I couldn't
> find on the various websites.
A camera supporting SD cards has a limit of 2GB. Except that some
non-standard 4GB SD cards were produced, and being non-standard, some
cameras worked with them and some did not. If a camera is specified to
work with SDHC cards, it should work up to the specified limit, which has
been stated to be 32GB.
David
Clair Johnston
fine to full capacity. The camera recognizes and writes to my 8G SDHC
card, but we never tied it to capacity. My view, is that unless you are
recording movies, anything over 4G is overkill. I use 8G cards in my
Nikon D300, but that is because I occasionally record in RAW.
I would expect that the SX10IS will work fine with the 32G SDHC cards
unless there is a problem with the card.
Clair
Stormin Mormon
over 2 GB just don't work. Go figure.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"yirgster" <yirg....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c03f91a2-03c3-46c9...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
David J Taylor
> My Panasonic supports SD and SDHC, but for some reason cards
> over 2 GB just don't work. Go figure.
If it doesn't work with prime brand 4GB SDHC cards, I would have said that
it's either faulty or needs a firmware upgrade. Be aware that 4GB SD
cards (as opposed to SDHC cards) are non-standard, and may or may not work
in any particular camera.
David
John Turco
<edited for brevity>
> A camera supporting SD cards has a limit of 2GB. Except that some
> non-standard 4GB SD cards were produced, and being non-standard, some
> cameras worked with them and some did not. If a camera is specified to
> work with SDHC cards, it should work up to the specified limit, which has
> been stated to be 32GB.
>
> David
Hello, David:
"Should work" doesn't mean "will work," alas. I've read of some individual
digicams' specifications, which state SDHC limits, well below 32GB (e.g.,
8GB).
That's not very shocking, though. If you'll recall, plenty of older camera
models (such as those, using Compact Flash) couldn't fully exploit their
memory card formats' capacity, either.
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
--
Paintings pain and pun
<http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
David J Taylor
Precisely why I wrote "Should work", John. Yes, I had lots of fun with
cameras not working with CF cards. In the early days, I had to take 2 x
30MB back to the shop and have them replaced by 3 x 20MB. As that was
1998, you don't want to ask what the price of 30MB CF cards was then!
Cheers,
David
John Turco
>
> John Turco wrote:
> > David J Taylor wrote:
> >
> > <edited for brevity>
> >
> >> A camera supporting SD cards has a limit of 2GB. Except that some
> >> non-standard 4GB SD cards were produced, and being non-standard, some
> >> cameras worked with them and some did not. If a camera is specified
> >> to work with SDHC cards, it should work up to the specified limit,
> >> which has been stated to be 32GB.
> >>
> >> David
> >
> >
> > Hello, David:
> >
> > "Should work" doesn't mean "will work," alas. I've read of some
> > individual digicams' specifications, which state SDHC limits, well
> > below 32GB (e.g., 8GB).
> >
> > That's not very shocking, though. If you'll recall, plenty of older
> > camera models (such as those, using Compact Flash) couldn't fully
> > exploit their memory card formats' capacity, either.
>
>
> cameras not working with CF cards. In the early days, I had to take 2 x
> 30MB back to the shop and have them replaced by 3 x 20MB. As that was
> 1998, you don't want to ask what the price of 30MB CF cards was then!
>
> Cheers,
> David
Hello, David:
My first digicam (Largan "Lmini 350") couldn't even use external storage,
as it was limited to its own, paltry 2MB of internal memory!
The next two cameras (DC3200 and DX3900, both Kodak products) took CF,
and I marvelled at how little (in physical dimensions) the cards were.
Beginning with a secondhand DX6490, all of my various Kodak models are
SD-based. Now, SD puppies are truly tiny -- and that's without counting
microSD, I might add. ;-)
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
David J Taylor
[]
> Hello, David:
>
> My first digicam (Largan "Lmini 350") couldn't even use external
> storage, as it was limited to its own, paltry 2MB of internal memory!
>
> The next two cameras (DC3200 and DX3900, both Kodak products) took CF,
> and I marvelled at how little (in physical dimensions) the cards were.
>
> Beginning with a secondhand DX6490, all of my various Kodak models are
> SD-based. Now, SD puppies are truly tiny -- and that's without
> counting microSD, I might add. ;-)
In some respects, John, I am glad to see the back of CF cards, preferring
the slide contacts on SD to the embedded pins on the CF socket. Micro-SD
I do have for the GPS, but I am more careful when I change that (as a
day's trek is usually well under a megabyte, and as that card has some
1400MB free, I don't need to remove it all that often.
I use a mixture of 2GB SD and 4GB SD-HC now. For my purposes I haven't
found card speed to be a limiting factor - the camera buffer is enough,
although the faster reading of higher-speed cards and an optimised USB 2.0
hi-speed setup is nice.
Cheers,
David
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<X9B5m.54043$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Turco wrote:
>I use a mixture of 2GB SD and 4GB SD-HC now. For my purposes I haven't
>found card speed to be a limiting factor - the camera buffer is enough,
>although the faster reading of higher-speed cards and an optimised USB 2.0
>hi-speed setup is nice.
Depends on the camera, of course, and how you use it.
While there are lots of times when slower cards make no difference,
I saw enough differences between a middle-of-the-road Kingston card and
SanDisk Extreme III with my Panasonic DMC-FZ28, especially in critical
situations, that I've now switched entirely to the latter, and settled
on 8 GB as my own price performance sweet spot, in part because I can
also use these cards as super fast computer DVD replacements.
Flash card speeds tends to go down as cards get larger, making it more
important to have a faster card at higher capacities.
Lastly, if you're going to use a fast card like the SanDisk Extreme III
with a card reader(writer), be warned that not all SDHC readers are
created equal -- many will severely limit speeds, which is why I also
use and recommend the fast SanDisk MicroMate SDHC Reader.
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Good Info
wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:25:59 GMT, "David J Taylor"
><david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
><X9B5m.54043$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>>John Turco wrote:
>
>>I use a mixture of 2GB SD and 4GB SD-HC now. For my purposes I haven't
>>found card speed to be a limiting factor - the camera buffer is enough,
>>although the faster reading of higher-speed cards and an optimised USB 2.0
>>hi-speed setup is nice.
>
>Depends on the camera, of course, and how you use it.
>
>While there are lots of times when slower cards make no difference,
>I saw enough differences between a middle-of-the-road Kingston card and
>SanDisk Extreme III with my Panasonic DMC-FZ28, especially in critical
>situations, that I've now switched entirely to the latter, and settled
>on 8 GB as my own price performance sweet spot, in part because I can
>also use these cards as super fast computer DVD replacements.
>
>Flash card speeds tends to go down as cards get larger, making it more
>important to have a faster card at higher capacities.
>
>Lastly, if you're going to use a fast card like the SanDisk Extreme III
>with a card reader(writer), be warned that not all SDHC readers are
>created equal -- many will severely limit speeds, which is why I also
>use and recommend the fast SanDisk MicroMate SDHC Reader.
Good points. There's lots of variables involved in which the card speed
might or might not be important. As well as the capabilities of any
card-reader if using that to access your files. Keep in mind too that
advertised speed rates of cards are their READ speeds which is always
faster, not their WRITE speeds. There is often a wide difference between
the two. You have to buy and test them to find out the true write speeds,
or find benchmark lists online by those who have tested cards for their
write speeds.
Speed of the camera's own firmware writing to card being one bottleneck.
[For some interesting information: See the difference in the very same SD
cards being used on various camera platforms and how their speeds change
from Digic II, III, and IV camera processors.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Benchmarks The interesting part of these tests
as these are done in-camera. Direct camera to card benchmarks. How the
camera will see and use them independent of any card-reader and computer
CPU speed tests. Also note the difference in speeds between the very same
cards being formatted in FAT16 or FAT32. FAT16 often affording much faster
access times, ~25% faster. That's like going from Class-4 to Class-6, for
free.]
If burst-modes are often needed.
Size of files being saved. JPG? RAW? etc.
If video mode is important. What audio-sampling rate you have chosen for
videos. If you can adjust that video quality bandwidth over a wide range as
in CHDK supported cameras.
There are just way too many variables for anyone to be able to give advice
to another on what speed of card they should get for their camera. Camera
platform, camera usage, shooting styles, no two people's needs will be
identical.
Some interesting findings:
Oddly, and going against all known information. I have found that if I am
needing a fast burst rate for some experiment and the card starts to
bog-down to 2/3rds to 1/2 its beginning write-speed after some 50 to 100
frames. If I take out that card and use Window's Defragmentation utility on
it (in a card reader), then all original access speed returns. Normal
3rd-party defraggers seem to have trouble recognizing removable media. I've
tried quite a few to see if others would work. You might have to perform
this twice, as it seems like the 1st-run defragmentation isn't the same as
subsequent ones. After 2 or 3 defragmentations Windows' defragger is no
longer able to change any of he file structure on the card and there is no
added benefit by doing this again.
This shouldn't be true, due to the random-access nature of memory cards.
And indeed you'll read this cut-in-stone information everywhere on the net.
That "Defragmentation on any memory card is useless and only detracts from
the available R/W life of the card." As I also read when I went looking for
an explanation to this oddity. But I've run into this problem so often in
the past and used defragmentation as a simple fix each time, that I'm now
convinced that there is a fragmentation bottle-neck on random-access memory
cards. Anecdotal evidence, but one of which I've now convinced myself
through real-world tests and uses, in spite of all the "learned" advice all
over the net. (Though this wouldn't be the first time, far from it, that
some common advice all over the internet posted by self-proclaimed experts
has been proven wrong by my own tests and findings.)
Ignore all the advice you read online and try Window's defragger the next
time your card is acting sluggish. See if it doesn't restore fast access
time again. It does on all of the ones I've tried this on. I don't need to
do this often, but after using an SD card for multiple uses (MP3 files,
portable-apps, etc.) if there has been a lot of file changes on the card
between photography sessions, then I'll snug-up all the files again after I
have spooled off all the images. Leaving the next new camera images for the
large clear chunk beyond all the files already retained on the card. I
would simply do an in-camera reformat but my cards are used for many
devices and multiple uses. The CHDK camera cards also keep the CHDK
operating system on them (with boot code, settings, special FAT16
formatting for extra speed, scripts, e-books, etc.). Reformat is not very
practical for my needs. Defrag SD to the rescue.
John Turco
<edited for brevity>
> I use a mixture of 2GB SD and 4GB SD-HC now. For my purposes I haven't
> found card speed to be a limiting factor - the camera buffer is enough,
> although the faster reading of higher-speed cards and an optimised USB 2.0
> hi-speed setup is nice.
>
> Cheers,
> David
Hello, David:
My own purchasing decisions have been, primarily, based upon price and
capacity. Branding isn't a huge factor, nor is speed.
I do own three SDHC cards (two "A-Data" 4GB ones and a Toshiba 8GB), but,
only my Pentax K100D is compatible with them. Their packages remain sealed,
as I rarely use the DSLR.
Although, it's "merely" 6 megapixels, the K100D can produce JPEG files,
well over 4MB apiece-- and I even have two images, above 5MB. They're all
considerably larger, than anything my P&S cameras ever create (including
the Kodak V603, which is also 6MP).
Shooting RAW, in the K100D, would further increase the demands for storage
space; then, my SDHC media should come in rather handy.
John Navas
<7lte55d9grc8qi54l...@4ax.com>:
>Oddly, and going against all known information. I have found that if I am
>needing a fast burst rate for some experiment and the card starts to
>bog-down to 2/3rds to 1/2 its beginning write-speed after some 50 to 100
>frames. If I take out that card and use Window's Defragmentation utility on
>it (in a card reader), then all original access speed returns. Normal
>3rd-party defraggers seem to have trouble recognizing removable media. I've
>tried quite a few to see if others would work. You might have to perform
>this twice, as it seems like the 1st-run defragmentation isn't the same as
>subsequent ones. After 2 or 3 defragmentations Windows' defragger is no
>longer able to change any of he file structure on the card and there is no
>added benefit by doing this again.
>
>This shouldn't be true, due to the random-access nature of memory cards.
>...
Because flash must be erased in device-dependent blocks, random writing
is often much slower than sequential writing, which can be a problem
when the file system becomes fragmented. Device-dependent block size
can also be a problem when reading fragmented files, but tends not to be
as significant as writing. So defragmenting can be helpful, but equally
helpful is to just erase the card before reuse.
John Navas
<7lte55d9grc8qi54l...@4ax.com>:
>Some interesting findings:
>
>Oddly, and going against all known information. I have found that if I am
>needing a fast burst rate for some experiment and the card starts to
>bog-down to 2/3rds to 1/2 its beginning write-speed after some 50 to 100
>frames. If I take out that card and use Window's Defragmentation utility on
>it (in a card reader), then all original access speed returns. Normal
>3rd-party defraggers seem to have trouble recognizing removable media. I've
>tried quite a few to see if others would work. You might have to perform
>this twice, as it seems like the 1st-run defragmentation isn't the same as
>subsequent ones. After 2 or 3 defragmentations Windows' defragger is no
>longer able to change any of he file structure on the card and there is no
>added benefit by doing this again.
>
>This shouldn't be true, due to the random-access nature of memory cards.
>...
"Flash Memory Fragmentation -- Myths and Facts"
<http://www.wizcode.com/articles/comments/flash_memory_fragmentation_myths_and_facts>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Flash cards unlike hard drives do not have movable parts so
defragmentation is useless.
Conclusion: Fragmentation has a serious impact on flash card performance
especially during write operations and when the file system is heavily
fragmented across many different flash pages.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Defragmentation shortens flash memory life span.
Conclusion: Defragmentation indeed increases the number of flash media
write-cycles. With modern flash cards life cycle and wear leveling this
does not represent a potential problem as it takes decades for the
sectors to start becoming bad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: Backing up the data of a flash card, formatting and then restoring
it again will produce a file system free of fragmentation.
Conclusion: Using the backup/restore approach will not achieve the same
results as using a well designed file system defragmenter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data reliability on fragmented vs. non-fragmented file systems
Conclusion: Keeping a file system free of fragmentation significantly
increases the chances of data recovery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Navas
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." -Gene Spafford
Bob Larter
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:02:39 -0500, Good Info <g...@myplace.com> wrote in
> <7lte55d9grc8qi54l...@4ax.com>:
>
>> Oddly, and going against all known information. I have found that if I am
>> needing a fast burst rate for some experiment and the card starts to
>> bog-down to 2/3rds to 1/2 its beginning write-speed after some 50 to 100
>> frames. If I take out that card and use Window's Defragmentation utility on
>> it (in a card reader), then all original access speed returns. Normal
>> 3rd-party defraggers seem to have trouble recognizing removable media. I've
>> tried quite a few to see if others would work. You might have to perform
>> this twice, as it seems like the 1st-run defragmentation isn't the same as
>> subsequent ones. After 2 or 3 defragmentations Windows' defragger is no
>> longer able to change any of he file structure on the card and there is no
>> added benefit by doing this again.
>>
>> This shouldn't be true, due to the random-access nature of memory cards.
>> ...
>
> Because flash must be erased in device-dependent blocks, random writing
> is often much slower than sequential writing, which can be a problem
> when the file system becomes fragmented. Device-dependent block size
> can also be a problem when reading fragmented files, but tends not to be
> as significant as writing. So defragmenting can be helpful, but equally
> helpful is to just erase the card before reuse.
The best technique of all is to re-format your card after downloading
your photos from it. That way, you're not fighting the automatic
wear-leveling algorithm in the card.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
John Navas
wrote in <4a5b8a3e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Because flash must be erased in device-dependent blocks, random writing
>> is often much slower than sequential writing, which can be a problem
>> when the file system becomes fragmented. Device-dependent block size
>> can also be a problem when reading fragmented files, but tends not to be
>> as significant as writing. So defragmenting can be helpful, but equally
>> helpful is to just erase the card before reuse.
>
>The best technique of all is to re-format your card after downloading
>your photos from it. That way, you're not fighting the automatic
>wear-leveling algorithm in the card.
That's no different than erasing the card, unless you're talking _long_
format, which is what would actually engage the wear leveling mechanism.
John McWilliams
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:25:49 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4a5b8a3e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>> Because flash must be erased in device-dependent blocks, random writing
>>> is often much slower than sequential writing, which can be a problem
>>> when the file system becomes fragmented. Device-dependent block size
>>> can also be a problem when reading fragmented files, but tends not to be
>>> as significant as writing. So defragmenting can be helpful, but equally
>>> helpful is to just erase the card before reuse.
>> The best technique of all is to re-format your card after downloading
>> your photos from it. That way, you're not fighting the automatic
>> wear-leveling algorithm in the card.
>
> That's no different than erasing the card, unless you're talking _long_
> format, which is what would actually engage the wear leveling mechanism.
I won't even get into wear leveling, but reformatting is way preferable
to erasing all, as you always start with a clean slate, no
fragmentation, and *it is way faster on my cameras* (Canons).
--
John McWilliams
John Navas
wrote in <h3g8u5$m6k$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>I won't even get into wear leveling, but reformatting is way preferable
>to erasing all, as you always start with a clean slate, no
>fragmentation,
Likewise with erasure.
>and *it is way faster on my cameras* (Canons).
Erasing the photo directory on my computer is essentially instantaneous.
Good Info
Which isn't always practical for some of us that do a lot of multitasking
with a wide array of interests and creative needs. I also like to use
Micro-SD cards so they may be swapped between many devices at any time.
Always having emergency backup memory for whatever task or device has
momentary priority.
Between the file-managers built into CHDK cameras and Rockbox**, for my MP3
player to listen to favorite tunes while out on a shoot, which even has a
text-editor built in to allow me to write or tweak scripts for my CHDK
camera while out in the field; it's almost like carrying a laptop along to
manage files. All fitting in one roomy jacket pocket. Now if only one of
them would have a defrag utility in them too.
Reformat is very impractical for some of us. My previous text about this:
>>>>... after using an SD card for multiple uses (MP3 files,
>>>>portable-apps, etc.) if there has been a lot of file changes on the card
>>>>between photography sessions, then I'll snug-up all the files again after I
>>>>have spooled off all the images. Leaving the next new camera images for the
>>>>large clear chunk beyond all the files already retained on the card. I
>>>>would simply do an in-camera reformat but my cards are used for many
>>>>devices and multiple uses. The CHDK camera cards also keep the CHDK
>>>>operating system on them (with boot code, settings, special FAT16
>>>>formatting for extra speed, scripts, e-books, etc.). Reformat is not very
>>>>practical for my needs. Defrag SD to the rescue.
>>>>
** Rockbox's file-renaming feature is very handy to circumvent the Garmin
2025 map-sector limit. Carry half the world on one Micro-SD card in about 9
files on an 8G GPS card. Take it out and insert it into your compact
Rockbox player, then rename the file of your world maps that you want to
"gmapsupp.img" as needed. My MP3 player is only 1.3"x3" (GPS is 2"x4"), but
such a handy device to carry to supplement my other tools when Rockbox is
installed on it. Not to mention the 20 days, or so, worth of tunes and
audio-books, it even plays videos (albeit at very tiny resolution). Camera,
GPS, MP3 player, all fitting in one roomy pocket. All using the same memory
format, and they all support each other technically too. Can't ask for more
than that. It's like the ultimate combo of adventuring photographer's
needs.
p.s. Thanks John, for posting info to reaffirm my own findings. Had I found
that first I wouldn't have wasted so much time trying to find something on
the net that refuted all the parroted net-bs out there that I constantly
ran into, that went 100% in opposition to my own observations. This is why
I NEVER believe anything posted to the net, until I have personally tested
it myself.
John McWilliams
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:23:09 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
> wrote in <h3g8u5$m6k$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>> I won't even get into wear leveling, but reformatting is way preferable
>> to erasing all, as you always start with a clean slate, no
>> fragmentation,
>
> Likewise with erasure.
>
>> and *it is way faster on my cameras* (Canons).
>
> Erasing the photo directory on my computer is essentially instantaneous.
Erasing or reformatting a camera card on the computer is not:
a) a recommended practice
b) what I talked about.
Oh, yeah, sure I know you've done it 8,799 times with no problem.
--
John McWilliams
John Navas
wrote in <h3gd0e$kq7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:23:09 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
>> wrote in <h3g8u5$m6k$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> I won't even get into wear leveling, but reformatting is way preferable
>>> to erasing all, as you always start with a clean slate, no
>>> fragmentation,
>>
>> Likewise with erasure.
>>
>>> and *it is way faster on my cameras* (Canons).
>>
>> Erasing the photo directory on my computer is essentially instantaneous.
>
>Erasing or reformatting a camera card on the computer is not:
>
>a) a recommended practice
I disagree.
David J Taylor
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:32:37 -0700, John McWilliams
>> Erasing or reformatting a camera card on the computer is not:
>>
>> a) a recommended practice
>
> I disagree.
Certainly, formatting in the computer is not a practice I would recommend,
as it may well cause problems such as formatting the card with a file
system which the camera does not understand, rendering the card unusable.
Use the Format command provided by your camera.
David
Talking to 1st Graders
Unless you want faster speed from an SD card. If your SD card is 4G or less
and of the SD, not the SDHC variety, you may experience significant
improvement in write and read access. As much as 25% by formatting it on
the computer in FAT16 instead of FAT32. Your camera may or nay not
recognize it. If it does not then just reformat it in the camera. I've been
using FAT16 4G cards for over 2 years now without one byte lost, enjoying
the significant speed improvement over Class-6.
Please don't offer advice about things to which you are proving your
ignorance.
David J Taylor
Just to clarify, formatting a card as NTFS in your computer is likely to
render it unusable in a camera.
David
Bob Larter
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:25:49 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4a5b8a3e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>> Because flash must be erased in device-dependent blocks, random writing
>>> is often much slower than sequential writing, which can be a problem
>>> when the file system becomes fragmented. Device-dependent block size
>>> can also be a problem when reading fragmented files, but tends not to be
>>> as significant as writing. So defragmenting can be helpful, but equally
>>> helpful is to just erase the card before reuse.
>> The best technique of all is to re-format your card after downloading
>> your photos from it. That way, you're not fighting the automatic
>> wear-leveling algorithm in the card.
>
> That's no different than erasing the card,
If you mean deleting all the files on the card, that's not so, as
formatting the card will clear the FAT, which a 'delete all' won't do.
> unless you're talking _long_
> format,
No, I'm not, I'm just talking about an in-camera FAT-32 format.
> which is what would actually engage the wear leveling mechanism.
Correct.
Bob Larter
Exactly. I always reformat (in-camera) after downloading the files to my
PC. I've never had any performance problems with any of my CF cards.
Bob Larter
Correct. The format command from your camera is certain to create the
correct (usually FAT32) format on your card, & will be 100% compatible
with the wear-leveling mechanism your card uses. It takes the same time
(ie; fast) as erasing all your files, but guarantees that you have a
fresh, unfragmented, file system.
Bob Larter
It's not just 'likely', it's a certainty. I don't know of any digital
camera that understands anything other than FAT16 or FAT32. As you
probably know, Windows will format as NTFS by default - you have to tell
it explicitly to format as anything else.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> "Flash Memory Fragmentation -- Myths and Facts"
[John Navas reads web pages]
Why am I not surprised you cite web pages that are incoonsistent
in their arguing on the same page, always picking the most
favourable, distorted, maybe theoretically possible view ... and
having a strong agenda (selling a tool that purportedly prevents
the problem)?
Why am I not surprised that John doesn't even grasp why the
claims from that web site have nothing to with the use of flash
as practiced by digital cameras?
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Please don't offer advice about things to which you are proving your
> ignorance.
Yes, please don't.
And if you had anything valuable to say, you'd not be shifting
your name every other post.
-Wolfgang
Name and Name! What is Name?
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>And if you had anything valuable to say, you'd not be shifting
>your name every other post.
>
>-Wolfgang
At the risk of entertaining an always-off-topic brain-dead troll (you).
Please explain your logic behind that kind of thinking. This should be MOST
amusing.
Preemptive Speculative Reasons:
What's the matter? If you started to put together all the really good info
that you agree with as all coming from one person, and then realize that it
was also authored by the same person that you constantly disagree with, is
this going to somehow make the info you agree with less accurate and the
info you don't agree with more accurate?
Fuck, you are such a dolt.
LOL!
Oh wait! I know! You're so insecure in your little basement world that you
are looking for some kind of continuity of "credibility" somewhere in your
lost little psychotic mind. That's it! Isn't it!
You want credibility from someone's words on the internet?!
If that's the case, then you're more fucking insane than I first thought!
LOL!
Here's a beginner's lesson for you, just to get you started (if that's even
possible with a brain as dead as yours):
"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion."
Democritos of Abdera
J�rgen Exner
"A troll by any other name smells just as bad."
Freely adopted from Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare.
jue
TheRealSteve
>"Flash Memory Fragmentation -- Myths and Facts"
><http://www.wizcode.com/articles/comments/flash_memory_fragmentation_myths_and_facts>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Myth: Flash cards unlike hard drives do not have movable parts so
>defragmentation is useless.
>
>Conclusion: Fragmentation has a serious impact on flash card performance
>especially during write operations and when the file system is heavily
>fragmented across many different flash pages.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Myth: Defragmentation shortens flash memory life span.
>
>Conclusion: Defragmentation indeed increases the number of flash media
>write-cycles. With modern flash cards life cycle and wear leveling this
>does not represent a potential problem as it takes decades for the
>sectors to start becoming bad.
These two conclusions are self inconsistent. It's funny how the
website doesn't mention wear leveling in the first myth/conclusion and
why it makes it impossible to fully defragment a flash drive. It may
look like it's defragmented on the outside but the controller may have
actually put things all over the place on the actual memory chips
because of it's wear leveling algorithm. But they don't tell you that
until they get to the 2nd myth/conclusion because that's where it
helps their conclusion instead of hurting it.
The best way to keep your flash memory fragmentation free is to just
make sure you copy all the data off it when you get the camera back to
the computer and then use the camera to format the flash memory next
time you go shooting.
Steve
Martin Brown
> "Flash Memory Fragmentation -- Myths and Facts"
> <http://www.wizcode.com/articles/comments/flash_memory_fragmentation_myths_and_facts>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Myth: Flash cards unlike hard drives do not have movable parts so
> defragmentation is useless.
>
> Conclusion: Fragmentation has a serious impact on flash card performance
> especially during write operations and when the file system is heavily
> fragmented across many different flash pages.
It has to be pathologically fragmented before there is a significant
performance hit. How do you think it does load levelling internally?
The seek time on a solid state disk is tiny. It is possible that if you
have lots of small to medium size files that come and go on a portable
computer SSD that things might deteriorate to the point where
defragmentation is worthwhile once in a blue moon.
But a digicam is typically used to add files sequentially on blank media
until the card is full and then the results copied to a master computer.
Formatting the media on insertion into the camera ensures compatibility.
Some cameras can be tetchy about media previously used in other brand or
models with roughly similar but not identical naming conventions.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Myth: Defragmentation shortens flash memory life span.
>
> Conclusion: Defragmentation indeed increases the number of flash media
> write-cycles. With modern flash cards life cycle and wear leveling this
> does not represent a potential problem as it takes decades for the
> sectors to start becoming bad.
A million or so write cycles typically. Wasting a high proportion of
them defragmenting to no good end is not particularly sensible even on a
portable computing device. Benchmark it and you will not see a lot of
difference before and after.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Myth: Backing up the data of a flash card, formatting and then restoring
> it again will produce a file system free of fragmentation.
>
> Conclusion: Using the backup/restore approach will not achieve the same
> results as using a well designed file system defragmenter.
True enough, but it is probably adequate if you are nervous about having
the file system contiguous. A proper defragmenter may try to put the
most frequently used files at the fastest access position on the disk
but for an SSD this makes little sense.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Data reliability on fragmented vs. non-fragmented file systems
>
> Conclusion: Keeping a file system free of fragmentation significantly
> increases the chances of data recovery.
This one is true, but only because some of the data recovery programs
are rather simple minded.
Regards,
Martin Brown
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<KMU6m.56008$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:32:37 -0700, John McWilliams
>[]
>>> Erasing or reformatting a camera card on the computer is not:
>>>
>>> a) a recommended practice
>>
>> I disagree.
>
>Certainly, formatting in the computer is not a practice I would recommend,
>as it may well cause problems such as formatting the card with a file
>system which the camera does not understand, rendering the card unusable.
That's possible, but unlikely, and easily avoided.
Regardless, what I do is erase, not format,
usually by Moving, rather than Copying,
the folder of images to the computer.
The advantage of erasing over formatting is that
recovery of images is still possible.
>Use the Format command provided by your camera.
That works too, but I don't recommend it, because there's
a greater risk of accidentally losing images.
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<vmV6m.56012$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>David J Taylor wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:32:37 -0700, John McWilliams
>> []
>>>> Erasing or reformatting a camera card on the computer is not:
>>>>
>>>> a) a recommended practice
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>
>> Certainly, formatting in the computer is not a practice I would
>> recommend, as it may well cause problems such as formatting the card
>> with a file system which the camera does not understand, rendering
>> the card unusable. Use the Format command provided by your camera.
>Just to clarify, formatting a card as NTFS in your computer is likely to
>render it unusable in a camera.
Not unusable, just in need of formatting,
and only if you deliberately choose to format in NTFS.
Also, NTFS is not recommended for flash
because it will wear it out more rapidly.
John Navas
wrote in <4a5c3ea1$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>David J Taylor wrote:
>> Just to clarify, formatting a card as NTFS in your computer is likely to
>> render it unusable in a camera.
>
>It's not just 'likely', it's a certainty. I don't know of any digital
>camera that understands anything other than FAT16 or FAT32. As you
>probably know, Windows will format as NTFS by default - you have to tell
>it explicitly to format as anything else.
Not correct. Try it.
Screen shot of Windows XP Format launched on 8 GB SanDisk Extreme
III SDHC in SanDisk MicroMate reader connected by USB to ThinkPad T41:
<http://i29.tinypic.com/14bnfc8.png>
To format a flash drive as NTFS, you have to
first Optimize for Performance (rather than Quick Removal),
and then select NTFS as the file system when formatting.
John Navas
wrote in <4a5c3de9$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>The format command from your camera is certain to create the
>correct (usually FAT32) format on your card,
Correct.
>& will be 100% compatible
>with the wear-leveling mechanism your card uses.
No more so than formatting in your computer.
>It takes the same time
>(ie; fast) as erasing all your files, but guarantees that you have a
>fresh, unfragmented, file system.
No more so than complete erasure.
David J Taylor
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:13:47 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> Just to clarify, formatting a card as NTFS in your computer is
>> likely to render it unusable in a camera.
>
> Not unusable, just in need of formatting,
> and only if you deliberately choose to format in NTFS.
I haven't actually tried that to see whether the camera rejects it
altogether. I guess it would depend on the particular camera.
> Also, NTFS is not recommended for flash
> because it will wear it out more rapidly.
However, for these very large USB memory sticks, as opposed to camera
cards, I prefer the reliability of NTFS even if it shortens the life. I
only use the sticks occasionally, not every day.
Cheers,
David
John Navas
wrote in <4a5c3d1c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John McWilliams wrote:
>> I won't even get into wear leveling, but reformatting is way preferable
>> to erasing all, as you always start with a clean slate, no
>> fragmentation, and *it is way faster on my cameras* (Canons).
>
>Exactly. I always reformat (in-camera) after downloading the files to my
>PC. I've never had any performance problems with any of my CF cards.
Complete erasure produces the same benefit with less risk of losing
images.
John Navas
wrote in <4a5c3ccf$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> That's no different than erasing the card,
>
>If you mean deleting all the files on the card, that's not so, as
>formatting the card will clear the FAT, which a 'delete all' won't do.
The FAT is cleared by the erasure.
You don't seem to understand how FAT works.
David J Taylor
[]
> Regardless, what I do is erase, not format,
> usually by Moving, rather than Copying,
> the folder of images to the computer.
>
> The advantage of erasing over formatting is that
> recovery of images is still possible.
>
>> Use the Format command provided by your camera.
>
> That works too, but I don't recommend it, because there's
> a greater risk of accidentally losing images.
I'm just the opposite, John. I would only use "Move" in exceptional
circumstances. I normally "Copy" to the computer, so that I can verify
the transfer if needed. Only once the copies on the computer are checked
would I write to the memory card.
I use "format in the camera" so that a clean directory structure is ready
for next time. I haven't checked whether any of the file recovery
utilities would work on an in-camera formatted card, and unfortunately I
don't have time to check right now.
Cheers,
David
John Navas
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<Cj%6m.72231$S16....@newsfe23.iad>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> "Flash Memory Fragmentation -- Myths and Facts"
>> <http://www.wizcode.com/articles/comments/flash_memory_fragmentation_myths_and_facts>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Myth: Flash cards unlike hard drives do not have movable parts so
>> defragmentation is useless.
>>
>> Conclusion: Fragmentation has a serious impact on flash card performance
>> especially during write operations and when the file system is heavily
>> fragmented across many different flash pages.
>
>It has to be pathologically fragmented before there is a significant
>performance hit. How do you think it does load levelling internally?
The performance hit of even modest fragmentation is substantial, as can
be easily seen in testing. Try it, don't just guess.
>The seek time on a solid state disk is tiny. It is possible that if you
>have lots of small to medium size files that come and go on a portable
>computer SSD that things might deteriorate to the point where
>defragmentation is worthwhile once in a blue moon.
Flash memory is accessed by large block, not by byte, and sequential
access to different blocks is typically much slower than to the same
block.
>But a digicam is typically used to add files sequentially on blank media
>until the card is full and then the results copied to a master computer.
Many people delete images in camera, which results in fragmentation.
>Formatting the media on insertion into the camera ensures compatibility.
Complete erasure, either in computer or in camera, works just as well.
>Some cameras can be tetchy about media previously used in other brand or
>models with roughly similar but not identical naming conventions.
Only if defective, and not a problem on any reasonably current camera.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Myth: Defragmentation shortens flash memory life span.
>>
>> Conclusion: Defragmentation indeed increases the number of flash media
>> write-cycles. With modern flash cards life cycle and wear leveling this
>> does not represent a potential problem as it takes decades for the
>> sectors to start becoming bad.
>
>A million or so write cycles typically. Wasting a high proportion of
>them defragmenting to no good end is not particularly sensible even on a
>portable computing device.
Actually has no significant impact on life. Even daily defragmenting
would add only a nominal 365 write cycles per year.
>Benchmark it and you will not see a lot of
>difference before and after.
You actually will see a big difference. Try it yourself.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Myth: Backing up the data of a flash card, formatting and then restoring
>> it again will produce a file system free of fragmentation.
>>
>> Conclusion: Using the backup/restore approach will not achieve the same
>> results as using a well designed file system defragmenter.
>
>True enough, but it is probably adequate if you are nervous about having
>the file system contiguous. A proper defragmenter may try to put the
>most frequently used files at the fastest access position on the disk
>but for an SSD this makes little sense.
That's not a "proper" defragmenter.
Try JkDefrag, excellent and free. <http://www.kessels.com/Jkdefrag/>
Default Fast Optimization is ideal for flash drives.
John McWilliams
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:33:30 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> <KMU6m.56008$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:32:37 -0700, John McWilliams
>> []
>>>> Erasing or reformatting a camera card on the computer is not:
>>>>
>>>> a) a recommended practice
>>> I disagree.
>> Certainly, formatting in the computer is not a practice I would recommend,
>> as it may well cause problems such as formatting the card with a file
>> system which the camera does not understand, rendering the card unusable.
>
> That's possible, but unlikely, and easily avoided.
>
> Regardless, what I do is erase, not format,
> usually by Moving, rather than Copying,
> the folder of images to the computer.
>
> The advantage of erasing over formatting is that
> recovery of images is still possible.
Bzzzt. Wrong on two counts:
A.) You (at least, I) can recover from a reformatted card
B.) If you do not erase or reformat on computer, you have a backup on
the card until you reformat in camera.
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:33:30 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>
>> Use the Format command provided by your camera.
>
> That works too, but I don't recommend it, because there's
> a greater risk of accidentally losing images.
David had it right. There's less over all risk of losing images by
waiting to clear the card once it's back in the camera.
--
john mcwilliams
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<UE07m.56176$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:13:47 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>[]
>>> Just to clarify, formatting a card as NTFS in your computer is
>>> likely to render it unusable in a camera.
>>
>> Not unusable, just in need of formatting,
>> and only if you deliberately choose to format in NTFS.
>
>I haven't actually tried that to see whether the camera rejects it
>altogether. I guess it would depend on the particular camera.
A few early digital cameras would refuse to even format flash cards with
foreign formatting, but that's a problem long since corrected in later
generations of digital cameras.
>> Also, NTFS is not recommended for flash
>> because it will wear it out more rapidly.
>
>However, for these very large USB memory sticks, as opposed to camera
>cards, I prefer the reliability of NTFS even if it shortens the life. I
>only use the sticks occasionally, not every day.
FAT32 is generally preferred not only because of fewer write cycles, but
also because it makes it easier to recover accidentally deleted files.
John McWilliams
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:09:00 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4a5c3d1c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>> I won't even get into wear leveling, but reformatting is way preferable
>>> to erasing all, as you always start with a clean slate, no
>>> fragmentation, and *it is way faster on my cameras* (Canons).
>> Exactly. I always reformat (in-camera) after downloading the files to my
>> PC. I've never had any performance problems with any of my CF cards.
>
> Complete erasure produces the same benefit with less risk of losing
> images.
>
[see other parts of threads for specific refutation]
J. Clarke
Note that that site is trying to sell you a defragging program, so of
_course_ they are going to "prove" that defragging is needed.
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<7J07m.56179$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> Regardless, what I do is erase, not format,
>> usually by Moving, rather than Copying,
>> the folder of images to the computer.
>>
>> The advantage of erasing over formatting is that
>> recovery of images is still possible.
>>
>>> Use the Format command provided by your camera.
>>
>> That works too, but I don't recommend it, because there's
>> a greater risk of accidentally losing images.
>
>I'm just the opposite, John. I would only use "Move" in exceptional
>circumstances. I normally "Copy" to the computer, so that I can verify
>the transfer if needed. Only once the copies on the computer are checked
>would I write to the memory card.
Move only deletes the original _after_ the file has been successfully
read from the source and written to the destination -- there is no more
risk than Copy and Delete.
>I use "format in the camera" so that a clean directory structure is ready
>for next time. I haven't checked whether any of the file recovery
>utilities would work on an in-camera formatted card, and unfortunately I
>don't have time to check right now.
A clear directory structure is also created by complete erasure.
The standard DCF (Design rule for Camera File system) structure:
/
+----- DCIM
+----- CAMERA [actual name dependent on camera & sequence]
Deleting (as when Moving) either the CAMERA folder or the DCIM folder
will remove _all_ fragmentation.
David J Taylor
[]
> Move only deletes the original _after_ the file has been successfully
> read from the source and written to the destination -- there is no
> more risk than Copy and Delete.
There is no verify option with the Move command - if the write to
destination disk has silently failed you've lost your data.
> A clear directory structure is also created by complete erasure.
>
> The standard DCF (Design rule for Camera File system) structure:
> /
> +----- DCIM
> +----- CAMERA [actual name dependent on camera & sequence]
> Deleting (as when Moving) either the CAMERA folder or the DCIM folder
> will remove _all_ fragmentation.
I still prefer the "format in the camera later" method, as it leave the
possibility to verify data after transferring.
Cheers,
David
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<ut17m.56202$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> Move only deletes the original _after_ the file has been successfully
>> read from the source and written to the destination -- there is no
>> more risk than Copy and Delete.
>
>There is no verify option with the Move command - if the write to
>destination disk has silently failed you've lost your data.
True, but when was the last time you had a permanent hard disk error?
I've not had one in several years, and if I did get one, I'd have far
more serious problems than a lost image. Especially with a SMART
enabled hard drive, it's just not enough risk for me to worry about,
especially since I could undelete the images on the flash drive.
>> A clear directory structure is also created by complete erasure.
>>
>> The standard DCF (Design rule for Camera File system) structure:
>> /
>> +----- DCIM
>> +----- CAMERA [actual name dependent on camera & sequence]
>> Deleting (as when Moving) either the CAMERA folder or the DCIM folder
>> will remove _all_ fragmentation.
>
>I still prefer the "format in the camera later" method, as it leave the
>possibility to verify data after transferring.
Fair enough. "Different strokes for different folks."
John Navas
wrote in <h3i6dm$s5r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:33:30 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
>> <KMU6m.56008$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>> ... what I do is erase, not format,
>> usually by Moving, rather than Copying,
>> the folder of images to the computer.
>>
>> The advantage of erasing over formatting is that
>> recovery of images is still possible.
>
>Bzzzt. Wrong on two counts:
>
>A.) You (at least, I) can recover from a reformatted card
If the format overwrites the directory, as is often the case, then
recovery is more difficult and problematic than with deletion of the
file, which leaves the directory entry intact.
>B.) If you do not erase or reformat on computer, you have a backup on
>the card until you reformat in camera.
With erasure in the computer, I still have backup on the card until the
card is overwritten.
Gracious apology accepted. ;)
John Navas
wrote in <h3i6h1$s5r$2...@news.eternal-september.org>:
I respectfully disagree.
See my prior posts to this thread for the reasons.
John Navas
wrote in <h3i6ja$s5r$3...@news.eternal-september.org>:
What I wrote is correct.
>[see other parts of threads for specific refutation]
Likewise.
John Navas
wrote in <h3i6i...@news3.newsguy.com>:
>Martin Brown wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> "Flash Memory Fragmentation -- Myths and Facts"
>>> <http://www.wizcode.com/articles/comments/flash_memory_fragmentation_myths_and_facts>
>Note that that site is trying to sell you a defragging program, so of
>_course_ they are going to "prove" that defragging is needed.
These facts can be easily verified with relatively simple testing.
I've done that. Have you? ;)
David J Taylor
[]
> True, but when was the last time you had a permanent hard disk error?
> I've not had one in several years, and if I did get one, I'd have far
> more serious problems than a lost image. Especially with a SMART
> enabled hard drive, it's just not enough risk for me to worry about,
> especially since I could undelete the images on the flash drive.
Tempting fate answering that question, John! Not often, but possibly once
a year. Certainly frequently enough that I would /never/ use "move"
rather than "copy" on any critical data (such as shots or GPS tracks from
a once-in-a-lifetime holiday).
David
John Navas
wrote in <4a5c3ea1$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>... As you
>probably know, Windows will format as NTFS by default - you have to tell
>it explicitly to format as anything else.
Actually FAT32. You're probably thinking of the problem where Windows
formats with FAT32 by default, but the camera only supports FAT16.
<http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/BB4945CEAAE4DAD986256D890016E8F4/$file/FAT_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf>
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<CV17m.56215$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> True, but when was the last time you had a permanent hard disk error?
>> I've not had one in several years, and if I did get one, I'd have far
>> more serious problems than a lost image. Especially with a SMART
>> enabled hard drive, it's just not enough risk for me to worry about,
>> especially since I could undelete the images on the flash drive.
>
>Tempting fate answering that question, John! Not often, but possibly once
>a year.
Yikes! What hard disks are you using?!
You might want to consider using better drives.
But even at that failure rate, the risk of hard disk failure between the
time you copy files to a computer and the time you reformat the card in
your camera is still very very small as compared to the risk after
you're reused the card.
>Certainly frequently enough that I would /never/ use "move"
>rather than "copy" on any critical data (such as shots or GPS tracks from
>a once-in-a-lifetime holiday).
I'd just undelete the files on the flash card.
If you really care that much, then you should be rotating flash cards,
not reusing them for an extended period of time, and immediately copying
images to multiple backups. Not to mention only using top grade flash
cards in addition to other top grade components. Is that what you do?
Martin Brown
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
> <edited for brevity>
>
>> I use a mixture of 2GB SD and 4GB SD-HC now. For my purposes I haven't
>> found card speed to be a limiting factor - the camera buffer is enough,
>> although the faster reading of higher-speed cards and an optimised USB 2.0
>> hi-speed setup is nice.
>
> Hello, David:
>
> My own purchasing decisions have been, primarily, based upon price and
> capacity. Branding isn't a huge factor, nor is speed.
>
> I do own three SDHC cards (two "A-Data" 4GB ones and a Toshiba 8GB), but,
> only my Pentax K100D is compatible with them. Their packages remain sealed,
> as I rarely use the DSLR.
Test it *very* carefully before going over the 2GB & 4GB fill
boundaries. I lost some important shots a couple of years back when my
istD decided that although it would apparently work with 2GB cards it
would ignore the second GB. After a while there were aways the same
number of shots left on the card :(
It helpfully flashed up an "image not saved message" on the rear LCD
screen which I wasn't looking at on an SLR in the heat of the moment.
>
> Although, it's "merely" 6 megapixels, the K100D can produce JPEG files,
> well over 4MB apiece-- and I even have two images, above 5MB. They're all
> considerably larger, than anything my P&S cameras ever create (including
> the Kodak V603, which is also 6MP).
That is more likely to be down to the choice of the JPEG compression
parameters used by the K100D. Canons tend to be among the most
conservative highest quality and pan out at almost 1MB/mpixel JPEGs for
high contrast detailed scenes (even on some of the Ixus P&S).
>
> Shooting RAW, in the K100D, would further increase the demands for storage
> space; then, my SDHC media should come in rather handy.
I find battery life is worse with some of the larger cards. YMMV
Regards,
Martin Brown
John Navas
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<lb27m.58638$Xs4....@newsfe11.iad>:
>John Turco wrote:
>> Shooting RAW, in the K100D, would further increase the demands for storage
>> space; then, my SDHC media should come in rather handy.
>
>I find battery life is worse with some of the larger cards. YMMV
That shouldn't be the case unless the card is defective -- power
consumption of flash memory is small compared to other operation of the
camera.
Martin Brown
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:57:22 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> <CV17m.56215$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>> []
>>> True, but when was the last time you had a permanent hard disk error?
>>> I've not had one in several years, and if I did get one, I'd have far
>>> more serious problems than a lost image. Especially with a SMART
>>> enabled hard drive, it's just not enough risk for me to worry about,
>>> especially since I could undelete the images on the flash drive.
>> Tempting fate answering that question, John! Not often, but possibly once
>> a year.
>
> Yikes! What hard disks are you using?!
> You might want to consider using better drives.
I see one every couple of years, but nothing like that often on my own
machines. The last one was a neighbours PC that was taking in excess of
15 minutes to boot into Windows 2k. Most of his data survived.
> But even at that failure rate, the risk of hard disk failure between the
> time you copy files to a computer and the time you reformat the card in
> your camera is still very very small as compared to the risk after
> you're reused the card.
Which is why you should archive to two independent media types before
reusing the card (and verify that the media matches the disk image). I
have seen too much lost data in my time to take chances.
It isn't enough that the thumnails appear to be OK in the directory view
you should view the transferred images as a slideshow to force a decode
of the main file rather than the header thumbnail.
>
>> Certainly frequently enough that I would /never/ use "move"
>> rather than "copy" on any critical data (such as shots or GPS tracks from
>> a once-in-a-lifetime holiday).
>
> I'd just undelete the files on the flash card.
>
> If you really care that much, then you should be rotating flash cards,
> not reusing them for an extended period of time, and immediately copying
> images to multiple backups. Not to mention only using top grade flash
> cards in addition to other top grade components. Is that what you do?
Pretty much. Grandfather, father, son cycling of media keeps the
original images around long enough to ensure a full backup. I would
never dream of using move on valuable files either.
Next time around I will probably switch to hardware RAID.
Regards,
Martin Brown
l v
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:36:24 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net>
> wrote in <h3i6i...@news3.newsguy.com>:
>
>> Martin Brown wrote:
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> "Flash Memory Fragmentation -- Myths and Facts"
>>>> <http://www.wizcode.com/articles/comments/flash_memory_fragmentation_myths_and_facts>
>
>> Note that that site is trying to sell you a defragging program, so of
>> _course_ they are going to "prove" that defragging is needed.
>
> These facts can be easily verified with relatively simple testing.
> I've done that. Have you? ;)
>
Wouldn't performing an in-camera format of the card eliminate
fragmentation. *Assuming* fragmentation even exists.
--
Len
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> True, but when was the last time you had a permanent hard disk error?
> >> I've not had one in several years, and if I did get one, I'd have far
> >> more serious problems than a lost image. Especially with a SMART
> >> enabled hard drive, it's just not enough risk for me to worry about,
> >> especially since I could undelete the images on the flash drive.
> >
> >Tempting fate answering that question, John! Not often, but possibly once
> >a year.
>
> Yikes! What hard disks are you using?!
> You might want to consider using better drives.
suggesting that a better drive will avoid a failure is extremely bad
advice. any drive can fail at any time.
> >Certainly frequently enough that I would /never/ use "move"
> >rather than "copy" on any critical data (such as shots or GPS tracks from
> >a once-in-a-lifetime holiday).
>
> I'd just undelete the files on the flash card.
it's easier to just drag, without needing special software.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Move only deletes the original _after_ the file has been successfully
> >> read from the source and written to the destination -- there is no
> >> more risk than Copy and Delete.
> >
> >There is no verify option with the Move command - if the write to
> >destination disk has silently failed you've lost your data.
>
> True, but when was the last time you had a permanent hard disk error?
last year. in fact the drive failed in such a way that any time the
computer tried to access it, it took quite a while to time out with
lots of interesting sounds. that made booting take longer, even after
changing the boot device. seagate had a bad batch of drives known for
head crashes. most recently, there was a firmware bug in some drives.
shit happens.
> I've not had one in several years, and if I did get one, I'd have far
> more serious problems than a lost image.
not if you had an up to date backup. in my case, i did have a backup
(two in fact), and i simply rebooted from the backup drive. nothing
was lost, other than the brief time to reboot. i bought a replacement
drive and replaced it a few days later.
if you expect to 'have far more serious problems' when (not if) a disk
failure occurs, then you ought to rethink how you do backups.
seriously.
> Especially with a SMART
> enabled hard drive, it's just not enough risk for me to worry about,
> especially since I could undelete the images on the flash drive.
smart is actually not all that useful. it basically tells you the drive
has failed not that the drive will fail.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >I'm just the opposite, John. I would only use "Move" in exceptional
> >circumstances. I normally "Copy" to the computer, so that I can verify
> >the transfer if needed. Only once the copies on the computer are checked
> >would I write to the memory card.
>
> Move only deletes the original _after_ the file has been successfully
> read from the source and written to the destination -- there is no more
> risk than Copy and Delete.
there very definitely is more risk since there is only one copy of the
images. if something goes wrong, even user error, the files are gone.
J. Clarke
The thing about modern hard disks is that they appear to the user to be
error free until they use up all their sparing, and then, suddenly, they are
very, very dead, and if you haven't been monitoring the SMART status then it
comes without warning.
If it's got critical data on it run a RAID. Doesn't cost that much these
days.
John Navas
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<Xv27m.33343$%02....@newsfe15.iad>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> But even at that failure rate, the risk of hard disk failure between the
>> time you copy files to a computer and the time you reformat the card in
>> your camera is still very very small as compared to the risk after
>> you're reused the card.
>
>Which is why you should archive to two independent media types before
>reusing the card (and verify that the media matches the disk image). I
>have seen too much lost data in my time to take chances.
I've never lost anything that way.
>It isn't enough that the thumnails appear to be OK in the directory view
>you should view the transferred images as a slideshow to force a decode
>of the main file rather than the header thumbnail.
That's only with images corrupted on the flash card. Almost all hard
drive errors will be caught by the error detection and correction in the
hard drive. Thus it really is sufficient to just ensure the copied
images can be read.
John Navas
in <140720091054398934%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <7abp55pivat2l05ea...@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Yikes! What hard disks are you using?!
>> You might want to consider using better drives.
>
>suggesting that a better drive will avoid a failure is extremely bad
>advice. any drive can fail at any time.
There are good drive models and bad drive models, just as with any other
component, and high-end enterprise class drives are considerably more
durable and reliable than low-end consumer class drives.
John Navas
wrote in <h3ih3...@news3.newsguy.com>:
>David J Taylor wrote:
>> Tempting fate answering that question, John! Not often, but possibly
>> once a year. Certainly frequently enough that I would /never/ use
>> "move" rather than "copy" on any critical data (such as shots or GPS
>> tracks from a once-in-a-lifetime holiday).
>
>The thing about modern hard disks is that they appear to the user to be
>error free until they use up all their sparing, and then, suddenly, they are
>very, very dead, and if you haven't been monitoring the SMART status then it
>comes without warning.
Failure typically occurs in other ways, usually due to "grown defects",
and only matters when there is a hard read error. Catastrophic drive
failure is much less common.
John Navas
in <140720091054429150%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <u19p559d7akv1k4r8...@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> I've not had one in several years, and if I did get one, I'd have far
>> more serious problems than a lost image.
>
>not if you had an up to date backup.
There is no such thing. I do back up regularly, but there will always
be a gap from the last backup unless you are constantly backing up in
real time, which is not only a big hit on performance, but impractical
when on the go as much as I am.
>> Especially with a SMART
>> enabled hard drive, it's just not enough risk for me to worry about,
>> especially since I could undelete the images on the flash drive.
>
>smart is actually not all that useful. it basically tells you the drive
>has failed not that the drive will fail.
SMART is actually quite good at predicting common drive failures if you
use it as intended.
John Navas
in <140720091054469401%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
Not so -- files are only deleted _after_ a _successful_ Move, and can be
undeleted on the memory card if necessary as long as the card hasn't
been reused.
David J Taylor
[]
>> Tempting fate answering that question, John! Not often, but
>> possibly once a year.
>
> Yikes! What hard disks are you using?!
> You might want to consider using better drives.
With an MTBF of ten years, and with 10 drives, once a year is about the
expected failure rate. I am now buying disks which run cooler (the
so-called green HDs), although I have no firm evidence that this improves
disk life, but it does reduce the power consumption of the PC and the
temperature inside the PC.
[]
> If you really care that much, then you should be rotating flash cards,
> not reusing them for an extended period of time, and immediately
> copying images to multiple backups. Not to mention only using top
> grade flash cards in addition to other top grade components. Is that
> what you do?
I do rotate the cards, and the camera data is copied onto two PCs, and two
external USB HDs (which are only connected to write the backups). Every
so often I copy to two sets of DVDs, but I do this less frequently since I
have had the external HDs. One of the external HDs and one DVD set is
kept off-site.
I would /never/ use Move rather than Copy when initially downloading the
data from the SD reader to the PC. I use brand-name SD cards, bought from
reputable dealers, mostly SanDisk.
I would also /not/ use 4GB SD cards (as opposed to SD HC cards) and run
FAT16 outside the normal operating limit of 2GB.
Cheers,
David
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> I've not had one in several years, and if I did get one, I'd have far
> >> more serious problems than a lost image.
> >
> >not if you had an up to date backup.
>
> There is no such thing.
nonsense.
> I do back up regularly, but there will always
> be a gap from the last backup unless you are constantly backing up in
> real time, which is not only a big hit on performance, but impractical
> when on the go as much as I am.
and if nothing occurred during the gap, you have an up to date backup.
thanks for conceding.
> >> Especially with a SMART
> >> enabled hard drive, it's just not enough risk for me to worry about,
> >> especially since I could undelete the images on the flash drive.
> >
> >smart is actually not all that useful. it basically tells you the drive
> >has failed not that the drive will fail.
>
> SMART is actually quite good at predicting common drive failures if you
> use it as intended.
nope, sorry. see google's disk study. they found that it was a very
poor predictor of drive failure. and i'm going to ignore the 'if you
use it as intended' dodge.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Yikes! What hard disks are you using?!
> >> You might want to consider using better drives.
> >
> >suggesting that a better drive will avoid a failure is extremely bad
> >advice. any drive can fail at any time.
>
> There are good drive models and bad drive models, just as with any other
> component, and high-end enterprise class drives are considerably more
> durable and reliable than low-end consumer class drives.
they're also more expensive and not a viable option for a laptop, but
more importantly, they are not immune from failure either. *any* drive
can fail, and it usually happens at the most inconvenient time.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:54:46 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote
> in <140720091054469401%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>
> >In article <a27p55hs8o47mtbjq...@4ax.com>, John Navas
> ><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >I'm just the opposite, John. I would only use "Move" in exceptional
> >> >circumstances. I normally "Copy" to the computer, so that I can verify
> >> >the transfer if needed. Only once the copies on the computer are checked
> >> >would I write to the memory card.
> >>
> >> Move only deletes the original _after_ the file has been successfully
> >> read from the source and written to the destination -- there is no more
> >> risk than Copy and Delete.
> >
> >there very definitely is more risk since there is only one copy of the
> >images. if something goes wrong, even user error, the files are gone.
>
> Not so -- files are only deleted _after_ a _successful_ Move,
that's fine but users might screw up, apps might crash or the disk
might fail. shit happens. there *is* a higher risk with a move. you
are welcome to ignore it, but it's quite obvious that one copy is
riskier than two (or more).
> and can be
> undeleted on the memory card if necessary as long as the card hasn't
> been reused.
nice caveat. aside from needing additional software, if you reuse the
card, which most people do, you won't be able to undelete all of them.
you might get some, however.
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<_X37m.56289$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Yikes! What hard disks are you using?!
>> You might want to consider using better drives.
>
>With an MTBF of ten years, and with 10 drives, once a year is about the
>expected failure rate.
MTBF is only meaningful over a very large population.
Failure rate is a curve that starts high, drops down after the infant
mortality period, and then rises as the drive ages. If better drives
are used and replaced within design service life (3-5 years, depending
on the drive), then failure rates should be very low. I typically
replace my drives in no more than 3 years.
>I would also /not/ use 4GB SD cards (as opposed to SD HC cards) and run
>FAT16 outside the normal operating limit of 2GB.
Agreed.
John Navas
<1nqui6-...@dell.lras.home.net>:
Yes.
>*Assuming* fragmentation even exists.
Fragmentation unquestionably does exist.
The only real debate is over how much it matters.
John Navas
in <140720091128552283%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
There are good and bad laptop drives as well. In addition to specs,
rotation speed, capacity, and prices are good guides. When you buy the
cheapest thing you can find, you typically get what you pay for. ;)
John Navas
in <140720091128592538%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
My experience in the disk drive business says otherwise.
John Navas
in <140720091129022743%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <4pip55pi10al7jnht...@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Not so -- files are only deleted _after_ a _successful_ Move,
>
>that's fine but users might screw up, apps might crash or the disk
>might fail. shit happens. there *is* a higher risk with a move. you
>are welcome to ignore it, but it's quite obvious that one copy is
>riskier than two (or more).
Or you might get hit with a meteor and lose everything.
David J Taylor
[]
> MTBF is only meaningful over a very large population.
>
> Failure rate is a curve that starts high, drops down after the infant
> mortality period, and then rises as the drive ages. If better drives
> are used and replaced within design service life (3-5 years, depending
> on the drive), then failure rates should be very low. I typically
> replace my drives in no more than 3 years.
So of us don't have that luxury, John. The oldest PC running here is an
Intel PIII 550MHz which must be at least 9 years old, and still on the
original HDs. If it works, why change it? If it fails, likely it will
just be scrapped.
Cheers,
David
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> There are good drive models and bad drive models, just as with any other
> >> component, and high-end enterprise class drives are considerably more
> >> durable and reliable than low-end consumer class drives.
> >
> >they're also more expensive and not a viable option for a laptop, but
> >more importantly, they are not immune from failure either. *any* drive
> >can fail, and it usually happens at the most inconvenient time.
>
> There are good and bad laptop drives as well. In addition to specs,
> rotation speed, capacity, and prices are good guides. When you buy the
> cheapest thing you can find, you typically get what you pay for. ;)
who said anything about buying the cheapest? and how many laptops ship
with enterprise class drives?
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> SMART is actually quite good at predicting common drive failures if you
> >> use it as intended.
> >
> >nope, sorry. see google's disk study. they found that it was a very
> >poor predictor of drive failure. and i'm going to ignore the 'if you
> >use it as intended' dodge.
>
> My experience in the disk drive business says otherwise.
google's study was with over 100,000 disk drives. how many have you
evaluated?
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Not so -- files are only deleted _after_ a _successful_ Move,
> >
> >that's fine but users might screw up, apps might crash or the disk
> >might fail. shit happens. there *is* a higher risk with a move. you
> >are welcome to ignore it, but it's quite obvious that one copy is
> >riskier than two (or more).
>
> Or you might get hit with a meteor and lose everything.
or get hit with straw.
John Navas
in <140720091225195340%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
That's what most people and many OEMs do.
>and how many laptops ship
>with enterprise class drives?
Better laptops are often available with better drives, sometimes as an
extra cost option.
Otherwise you can buy a laptop with the smallest and cheapest drive
possible, upgrade it yourself, and sell the removed drive, which is
often what I do, as in the case of my current ThinkPad T41.
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<eO47m.56322$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
Fair enough. "Different strokes for different folks." My own network
server is an ancient Pentium Pro with relatively recent state-of-the-art
hard drives in a RAID configuration.
John Navas
in <140720091225225505%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
Well over a million. Perhaps Google's usable isn't typical.
John Navas
in <140720091225245673%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
Good point -- straw man showers are definitely a hazard here on Usenet.
;)
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<eO47m.56322$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
p.s. To be clear, I'm not saying everyone should do it my way.
I respect that your way is right for you.
I'm just pointing out how low the real risk can be.
SMS
> Wouldn't performing an in-camera format of the card eliminate
> fragmentation. *Assuming* fragmentation even exists.
It's always preferable to format the card in the camera, for that and
other reasons. What you want to do is to transfer all the photos onto
your hard drive, make another copy on an external drive, then re-format
the card.
The referenced site is trying to sell defragmentation software. It's
not surprising that they've taken Henry Kaiser's motto of "Find a Need
and Fill it" to the next level of "Create a Need that Doesn't Exist, and
Convince Clueless People to Buy something to Fill that Non-Existent
Need." Fortunately for them, there is no shortage of clueless people in
the world, as the person that started this thread has so often
demonstrated with his posts.
You gotta love the statement regarding backing up, reformatting, and
restoring, "The entire process is very slow. It will take hours to copy
back and forth a large flash card filled with multimedia." Uh, no it
doesn't take hours, unless you're using a card reader on USB 1.0,
running on a 486 system running Windows 3.1, with 128MB of memory and a
slow hard drive.
J. Clarke
Have you actually read it? It says that one reallocation or scan failure
reported in SMART indicates that the drive is in imminent danger of failure
and that about half of all failed drives showed a SMART error. Doesn't
sound so useless to me.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> >> SMART is actually quite good at predicting common drive failures if you
> >> >> use it as intended.
> >> >
> >> >nope, sorry. see google's disk study. they found that it was a very
> >> >poor predictor of drive failure. and i'm going to ignore the 'if you
> >> >use it as intended' dodge.
> >>
> >> My experience in the disk drive business says otherwise.
> >
> >google's study was with over 100,000 disk drives. how many have you
> >evaluated?
>
> Well over a million. Perhaps Google's usable isn't typical.
you personally evaluated over 1 million drives? bullshit. google's
survey is very representative of drive reliability.
nospam
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
> > nope, sorry. see google's disk study. they found that it was a very
> > poor predictor of drive failure. and i'm going to ignore the 'if you
> > use it as intended' dodge.
>
> Have you actually read it?
yes
> It says that one reallocation or scan failure
> reported in SMART indicates that the drive is in imminent danger of failure
> and that about half of all failed drives showed a SMART error. Doesn't
> sound so useless to me.
3.5.6 Predictive Power of SMART Parameters
After our initial attempts to derive such models
yielded relatively unimpressive results, we turned to the
question of what might be the upper bound of the accuracy
of any model based solely on SMART parameters.
Our results are surprising, if not somewhat disappointing.
Out of all failed drives, over 56% of them have no
count in any of the four strong SMART signals, namely
scan errors, reallocation count, of�ine reallocation, and
probational count. In other words, models based only
on those signals can never predict more than half of the
failed drives.
...
We conclude that it is unlikely that SMART data alone
can be effectively used to build models that predict failures
of individual drives.
l v
Since flash card's (SSD) are now starting to be used in computers, there
may be merit to the need to defrag a SSD. However, I wouldn't expect
the process or tools to be any different than on a computer with a
standard hard drive. And there are existing 3rd party disk defragers.
Looks like a new marketing spin in this tough economy to drum up
business in a new field.
--
Len
Believe Not
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Benchmark it and you will not see a lot of
>difference before and after.
I have, and yes there is a hugely significant difference. Using CHDK's
in-camera benchmark test has also proved this. This test is independent of
any card-reader and computer bottleneck that might exist. When using burst
mode on a camera the speed of saving files can reduce by as much as half
the normal burst rate if there is fragmentation. This is what lead me to
find my OWN solution because the advice I found on the internet didn't
match up with reality.
It doesn't matter what all the "experts" claim online. I know for a fact
that defragging my SD cards is a good thing now. When needed. My personal
experience trumps all those online "experts".
Experts = kids living in their mommies' basements, hosting popular
web-pages and blogs, parroting what someone else started once because it
"sounded good" and they too now want to appear as knowledgeable to the
world. The number of them saying the same thing doesn't mean it's more
valid if they are all mindlessly parroting the same nonsense. The very same
way that the topmost Google pages become popular. It sounds plausible so
everyone stops searching there and accepts it as fact, those pages then get
the most hits and remain that way, no matter how much in error they might
be. Then everyone else parrots the same net-nonsense. Ignorance spreads
exponentially on the internet and stays that way as fact. Always.
"Belief is not the beginning but the end of all knowledge." - Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe
Never has that been truer in humanity than Google's "popularity"
sort--designed to create a hierarchy of opinions rated according to
whomever's minds are the most lazy and most ignorant. This does not bode
well as a useful vehicle for real knowledge.
John Navas
in <140720091336502821%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
Where did I say that? No, my employers and clients evaluated the
drives, with some of the work being done by me and my staff, some of the
work being done by other people.
>google's
>survey is very representative of drive reliability.
Google runs server farms that almost certainly have access patterns
totally different from average consumers.