From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 16U3oK-0002mu-00 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:42:20 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <20020125103941.26958.qmail@web8101.in.yahoo.com> References: <20020125103941.26958.qmail@web8101.in.yahoo.com> To: Ramya Ravichandran Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Cf Card vs DiskOnChip Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:53:20 +0000 Message-ID: <4181.1011956000@redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: rrhsin@yahoo.co.in said: > > I am a newbie developing a embedded linux controller for an > industrial environment. I am unable to decide whether to use a Compact > Flash card or DiskOnChip.With 128MB I need to get the whole thing > running. Can someone plese tell me as which one to use and why? People have reported severe reliability problems with CF cards. With the DiskOnChip, all the translation stuff to emulate a block device is done in software, which is probably a better option. The downside of the DiskOnChip is that the Linux driver doesn't do wear levelling, although it's easy enough to add, and that the vendor's driver is a binary-only module and hence of dubious legality. I would go for the DiskOnChip and add wear levelling support - all you need to do it make it randomly pick a clean block for erasure occasionally, to make sure stuff moves around over time. -- dwmw2