Re: EWF RAM Overlay
From: Mark K Vallevand (mark.vallevand_at_unisys.com)
Date: 02/03/05
- Next message: KM: "Re: FBA Generic Command Behaviour"
- Previous message: KM: "Re: Adding RawDep"
- In reply to: KM: "Re: EWF RAM Overlay"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 10:24:54 -0600
We use 512mb CF partitioned into a large C: boot and a very small D: data.
C: is EWF RAM REG protected. D: is not. We only put things on D: that are
critical to our functionality. Perhaps 50k of data. All updates to C: can
be lost if the EWF is not committed, and thats OK. Yes, we'd like to have
the log files, dumps, trace files, etc, from C: to resolve problems, but if
they are lost and the customer still has functionality, then we are happy.
We know the volume of updates to the files on D: and have calculated the
worst case for flash burnout to be 7 years on standard grade devices. If we
write at less than the worst case (and we will) and we use modern industrial
grade devices (and we do), then we won't consider flash burnout to be an
issue.
We are considering setting some OS files to be on the unprotected D:, but
have not done anything yet. So far its hasn't been an issue. The OS is
reliable and our hardware is good. Its rare that we see crashes or hangs
requiring reset. When we have seen them, the critical data has not been
lost and we are back running quickly.
-- Regards. Mark K Vallevand "KM" <konstmor@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:up%233l0VCFHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > Slobodan, > True. I forgot about the option even though a RAM Disk was actively used > on a few of my images :-) > > Richard, you may want to search NG archive - a lot of various info and > links have been posted with regards to the problem and > various RAM Disk implementations. > > -- > Regards, > KM, BSquare Corp. > > >> Hi Richard, >> >> Unprotected partition also can be a RAM Disk. >> >> Regards, >> Slobodan >> >> "KM" <konstmor@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:Oq$muxOCFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... >> > richard, >> > >> > Usually when you talk about unprotected partition you mean HDD or etc >> > but not CF. >> > You are right it is not recommended to have an unprotected partition on >> > CF because it will wear out that part of the card. >> > >> > In case you have only CF, you want to minimize system and application >> > log files (e.g., set the IE CacheLimits to minimum >> acceptable >> > for your platform, limit the EventViewer log file sizes, etc.). >> > >> > Or, look at more reliable and hence more expensive flash solutions like >> > M-System uDoc. >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > KM, BSquare Corp. >> > >> > >> > > I have a Compact flash with RAM Reg mode. It has been mentioned in >> > > the >> > > document that in order to reduce the no of writes, some temporary >> > > files >> > > and Log files need to be redirected to unprotected volume. Is it >> > > advisable to have an unprotected partition for Compact flash?? bcoz >> > > if >> > > we have an unprotected partition for writing Temporary files and log >> > > files then this part of CF will get weared faster than having the >> > > single partition fully protected by RAM EWF without redirecting >> > > temporary files. >> > > >> > > regards >> > > Richards >> > > >> > >> > >> >> > >
- Next message: KM: "Re: FBA Generic Command Behaviour"
- Previous message: KM: "Re: Adding RawDep"
- In reply to: KM: "Re: EWF RAM Overlay"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|