From: John Ruschmeyer (jruschme_at_comcast.net)
Date: Wed Mar 31 2004 - 11:38:40 PST
> From: Marco Mailand
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:06 PM
> To: NTLK
> Subject: Re: [NTLK] OT: USB Pen Drives
>
>
> "John Ruschmeyer" wrote @ 30.3.2004 22:40 Uhr / <jruschme_at_comcast.net>:
> > I almost wonder if it is some quirk of the
> > formatting of this drive (I was almost tempted to try
> reformatting it with a
> > single FAT to see if that made a difference)
> A single FAT??? Did you partition it in two drives and thus
> having two FAT's
> (file allocation tables)? Or is there an option to have two FAT for one
> partition? Maybe the memory is defective...
No, a standard DOS file system always has two copies of the File Allocation
Table- a primary and a "backup" which is supposedly useful for recovery.
This is in theory, at least, as supposedly there are not a lot of tools that
can really do much to recover from the backup FAT plus, since the two are
stored right after each other (unlike unix inode table copies, for instance)
the chances are that any physical damage to one copy will likely affect the
other copy as well.
That said, I had a chance to do some testing yesterday with this pen drive.
The problem definately appears to be delayed writes. From the feel of it,
the cache is not being properly flushed even when i do the "unplug or remove
hardware". Instead, I seem to need to wait a *really* long time or do a
complete shutdown.
The odd thing is, the problem appears to be isolated to this particular pen
drive. I don't know if its a quirk of the drive's hardware or of Win2k SP4,
but it just does not want to flush the cache in a timely manner. By
comparison, Linux appears to have no problems with this drive.
Odd... probably time to register for the USBman forums and ask there...
<<<John>>>
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 31 2004 - 12:00:05 PST