A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

USB thumb drives.



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46  
Old May 20th 18, 01:13 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default USB thumb drives.

In article , Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
wrote:

Do these thumb drives last forever, or should
their contents be transferred to the latest USB
drives?


Theoretically, they should last a long time but a lot can destroy them
like moisture and a seemingly miniscule amount of bending. I'd
transfer their contents to more recent, faster USB keys.


I was given one that was stood upon by a 15 stone man. The data was not recoverable.


then it was junk.
Ads
  #47  
Old May 20th 18, 01:53 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default USB thumb drives.

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2018 10:11:25 +0100, default wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:49:55 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:

I have many USB2 & USB3 going back 10+ years, and
now some are "socket specific" on my 10 YO
computer motherboard (some USB3s will work on some
sockets; even USB2 sockets) and not others.

Do these thumb drives last forever, or should
their contents be transferred to the latest USB
drives?


The number of write cycles determines the life. Many manufacturers
specify 10,000. If that's true, the life expectancy is not likely to
be exceeded in normal use, like storing files or using it to transfer
files from one device to another.

That said, the use to which flash memory is put can also determine
it's life expectancy. If, for instance, it is used in a data-logger,
back-ups, or recording system where the data is re-written or
written-over in the course of normal usage.


Microsoft allow you to use them to expand your system RAM. I guess that
would wear them out ****ing quickly.


If you were referring to paging, I think you'd be quite surprised
how a modern system handles paging.

I think you will find "maintenance activity" on Windows 10,
amounts to more wear of your SSD, than paging. This includes
a 1GB file that Window Defender keeps for caching (it's keeping
track of a scan there or something), the 1GB+ file windows.edb that
the Search Indexer keeps pecking at, and the USN Journal, are
examples of overheads. I've had a USN Journal with a size
of 15GB (collected over time), and I'm not sure whether
Windows has any automated maintenance for USN Journal or
not. (You can remove the USN Journal yourself, but
it should simply start a new one afterwards. Entries
are added, every time a file is added or deleted from
the partition, making the daily addition rate small.)

I tried some experiments with the pagefile, and the system
wouldn't actually page. There was a tiny "spike" where a
few writes to the pagefile leaked through, until some
other process in Windows alleviated the pressure. I even
tried to get two processes to consume RAM at the same
time, and got a slightly larger "spike" when they hit
the end. But the behavior is no where near as bad as
the paging behavior would be in Win2K or WinXP, where
they really did try to use pagefile.sys on the C:
hard drive as an actual RAM extension.

I'm probably not using the right kinds of test
cases for this, which could be why I'm failing
to get an exceedingly bad result from the pagefile.

And before Sinofsky was fired, this was what he
was on about, in some blog post. Although (of course)
he uses different metrics than I would have used to
answer this question.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/e7/...-state-drives/

You have the option of disabling the pagefile. On
modern systems with a lot of RAM, this is looking
like a better option all the time.

Hibernating a system will use some SSD writes,
but the size of what is written, is proportional to
what part of RAM is in usage. If your photo editor
had a 1GB image open, hibernating the system at that
point might write out 1GB of RAM from that operation,
to the hiberfile. The system has a small contribution
to add, which best case, could be as small as 350MB or
so (that's about as small as the core of the OS can get,
when it's under pressure). I don't know if the OS is
clever enough to purge runtime caches before writing
the hiberfile or not. Certainly there is a tendency
to not "trust" such caches, when the system comes back up.

Hibernating the kernel (for Fast Start) will cause a
small amount of writes at shutdown. Like the 350MB
metric above for "minimum core OS size", the space
needed to hibernate the kernel and drivers is quite
small.

The fastest way to study this, is probably to use
your SSD toolbox, shut down and boot a few times,
then check in the toolbox to see how many terabytes
of writes had been done. And figure out from that,
what kind of "rate" your usage pattern causes.

I don't hibernate my systems here, only sleep them,
so I won't have any hibernate contributions adding to my
results. (Any computers running here, are usually
plugged into my modest UPS, which is why I can't
afford to have too many computers running at
one time. There's just enough hold-up time, to
manually do two shutdowns before the battery
is flat :-) )

Paul
  #48  
Old May 20th 18, 01:58 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
wasbit[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 229
Default USB thumb drives.

"Paul" wrote in message
news
wasbit wrote:
"Jason" wrote in message
...
In article ,
lid says...
nothing lasts forever, but the good ones should last a very long time.
unfortunately, some are not particularly good, possibly counterfeit.

A friend and former colleague is a very experienced EE who
works independently as a software and circuit designer and
also writes technical articles on computer topics for
magazines that you and I probably read (and journal
articles we probably don't...). I have asked him the same
questions about these gadgets. His response: "To a first
approximation ALL such devices on eBay are counterfeit."

Be careful. Buy them from places like Newegg or Frys.


I have a 1TB thumb drive, bought me as a present at a cost of £10
(13.5$).
Considering its price, I was dubious as to its capacity.
Windows shows it as 917GB with 489GB used & 428GB free space.
The 489GB was the most I could scrape together & took nearly a day to
write to the drive.


You can use fsutil to make a test file on your source
drive for testing. Now, watch in amazement, how
(assuming this fits on the remaining space on C: ),
the file takes no time at all to create. If you
use the 7ZIP right-click CRC32 hash calculator,
you'll be able to read this file off your C: drive
at 800MB/sec (even though the storage device might
be capable of much less).

fsutil file createnew C:\users\wasbit\Downloads\big.bin 900000000000

The source drive should be NTFS for this. Once the file is created
on the source drive, *now*, use File Explorer to copy it to
the target device, and then the real testing
will begin.

This allows crafting precisely sized test files.

The source file (big.bin) is likely "sparse" and the file
is technically filled with zeros. This doesn't
matter to the destination drive though, which
will have to do the usual amount of work (as
Windows isn't smart enough to preserve a sparse
file during copy, and expands the fake contents
as needed). Sparse files can be made very quickly.
Sparse files take the normal amount of time to copy
(copy will be limited by the destination write rate).

*******

I would be interested in the brand and model number
of this mythically large (13.5$) storage devices. Was
the brand Godzilla or Mothra ? Did it come
from the ocean ? Was it angry ?

Paul


Bought from
https://www.wish.com/

Windows reports 372GB file copy will take 18 hours.

Start 10.05 am
Speed 5.3-5.8 MB/sec
5.00 pm 37%,- flash drive used 861GB, Free 56.3GB Left to copy 272GB, 11.5
hours
7.00 pm 50% - flash drive used 861GB, Free 56.3GB
8.00 pm 73% - flash drive used 861GB, Free 56.3GB copying stopped

8.01 pm 37GB big2.bin file copy started
8.35pm 36% 14GB copied - flash drive used 671GB, Free 27.3GB
8.50pm 100% - flash drive used 898MB, Free 19GB

--
Regards
wasbit

  #49  
Old May 20th 18, 02:17 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default USB thumb drives.

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2018 14:12:54 +0100, Doomsdrzej wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:49:55 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:

I have many USB2 & USB3 going back 10+ years, and
now some are "socket specific" on my 10 YO
computer motherboard (some USB3s will work on some
sockets; even USB2 sockets) and not others.

Do these thumb drives last forever, or should
their contents be transferred to the latest USB
drives?


Theoretically, they should last a long time but a lot can destroy them
like moisture and a seemingly miniscule amount of bending. I'd
transfer their contents to more recent, faster USB keys.


I was given one that was stood upon by a 15 stone man. The data was not
recoverable.


They do make rugged ones.

https://www.amazon.com/LaCie-XtremKe.../dp/B00AMMI6VQ

https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2414162,00.asp

"...crushing force (it will withstand 10 tons)"

An Amazon review, claims the internal USB key portion,
will separate from the threaded screw cap, so while the
outside is rugged, the connection between the innards
and the cap isn't perfect.

HTH,
Paul


  #50  
Old May 20th 18, 02:27 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default USB thumb drives.

wasbit wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message
news
wasbit wrote:
"Jason" wrote in message
...
In article ,
lid says...
nothing lasts forever, but the good ones should last a very long time.
unfortunately, some are not particularly good, possibly counterfeit.

A friend and former colleague is a very experienced EE who
works independently as a software and circuit designer and
also writes technical articles on computer topics for
magazines that you and I probably read (and journal
articles we probably don't...). I have asked him the same
questions about these gadgets. His response: "To a first
approximation ALL such devices on eBay are counterfeit."

Be careful. Buy them from places like Newegg or Frys.

I have a 1TB thumb drive, bought me as a present at a cost of £10
(13.5$).
Considering its price, I was dubious as to its capacity.
Windows shows it as 917GB with 489GB used & 428GB free space.
The 489GB was the most I could scrape together & took nearly a day to
write to the drive.


You can use fsutil to make a test file on your source
drive for testing. Now, watch in amazement, how
(assuming this fits on the remaining space on C: ),
the file takes no time at all to create. If you
use the 7ZIP right-click CRC32 hash calculator,
you'll be able to read this file off your C: drive
at 800MB/sec (even though the storage device might
be capable of much less).

fsutil file createnew C:\users\wasbit\Downloads\big.bin 900000000000

The source drive should be NTFS for this. Once the file is created
on the source drive, *now*, use File Explorer to copy it to
the target device, and then the real testing
will begin.

This allows crafting precisely sized test files.

The source file (big.bin) is likely "sparse" and the file
is technically filled with zeros. This doesn't
matter to the destination drive though, which
will have to do the usual amount of work (as
Windows isn't smart enough to preserve a sparse
file during copy, and expands the fake contents
as needed). Sparse files can be made very quickly.
Sparse files take the normal amount of time to copy
(copy will be limited by the destination write rate).

*******

I would be interested in the brand and model number
of this mythically large (13.5$) storage devices. Was
the brand Godzilla or Mothra ? Did it come
from the ocean ? Was it angry ?

Paul


Bought from
https://www.wish.com/

Windows reports 372GB file copy will take 18 hours.

Start 10.05 am
Speed 5.3-5.8 MB/sec
5.00 pm 37%,- flash drive used 861GB, Free 56.3GB Left to copy 272GB,
11.5 hours
7.00 pm 50% - flash drive used 861GB, Free 56.3GB
8.00 pm 73% - flash drive used 861GB, Free 56.3GB copying stopped

8.01 pm 37GB big2.bin file copy started
8.35pm 36% 14GB copied - flash drive used 671GB, Free 27.3GB
8.50pm 100% - flash drive used 898MB, Free 19GB


Time for the testing tools.

https://www.raymond.cc/blog/test-and...-with-h2testw/

Paul
  #51  
Old May 20th 18, 02:35 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default USB thumb drives.

In article , wasbit
wrote:

Windows reports 372GB file copy will take 18 hours.


that's just under 6 mbyte/sec. something is *very* wrong.
  #52  
Old May 20th 18, 04:54 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default USB thumb drives.

nospam wrote:
In article , wasbit
wrote:

Windows reports 372GB file copy will take 18 hours.


that's just under 6 mbyte/sec. something is *very* wrong.


There are older sticks that do this.

I have a Sandisk USB2 that did 3MB/sec on writes.
(It had Ultra in the name, not Extreme. Their Extreme
ones tend to behave better.)

There was at least one USB2 stick, that managed
to produce less than 1MB/sec performance. The protocol
may have been USB2 (at the connector), but the transfer to
NAND inside was decidedly lacking.

Paul
  #53  
Old May 20th 18, 05:55 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default USB thumb drives.

In article , Paul
wrote:

Windows reports 372GB file copy will take 18 hours.


that's just under 6 mbyte/sec. something is *very* wrong.


There are older sticks that do this.


very old and not particularly good ones.

usb 3 sticks typically do around 5-10x that, sometimes more.

this one claims over 400 mbyte/sec, likely limited by the *other* drive:
http://www.poweredbymushkin.com/Home...item/33-ventur
a-ultra/750-ventura-ultra-60gb-flash-drive#specifications

a lesser spec model is rated at 200 mbyte/sec read, 40mbyte write:
http://www.poweredbymushkin.com/Home...item/20-ventur
a-plus/706-ventura-plus-32gb-usb-flash-drive
  #54  
Old May 20th 18, 08:32 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
wasbit[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 229
Default USB thumb drives.

"Paul" wrote in message
news

Time for the testing tools.

https://www.raymond.cc/blog/test-and...-with-h2testw/


######################
Chip Genius

Description: [F:]USB Mass Storage Device(Generic Flash Disk)
Device Type: Mass Storage Device

Protocal Version: USB 2.00
Current Speed: High Speed
Max Current: 200mA

USB Device ID: VID = 0000 PID = 7777
Serial Number: EB541BB0

Device Vendor: Generic
Device Name: Mass Storage
Device Revision: 0106

Manufacturer: Generic
Product Model: Flash Disk
Product Revision: 8.00

Controller Vendor: Alcor Micro
Controller Part-Number: AU6989SN-GTB/AU6998SN [F206] - F/W FA02
Flash ID code: ADDE14AB - Hynix H27QCG8D2F5R - 1CE/Single Channel
[MLC-16K] - Total Capacity = 8GB

Tools on web: http://dl.mydigit.net/special/up/alcor.html


Possible Flash Part-Number
[1CE]H27QCG8D2F5R x 1 pcs/Channel x 1 Channel


Flash ID mapping table
[Channel 0] [Channel 1]
ADDE14AB424A --------
-------- --------
-------- --------
-------- --------
-------- --------
-------- --------
-------- --------
-------- --------

################################
FFT - Volume File Test
FAKEFLASHTEST v1.0.9 [SSi]

F: New Volume DRIVE 2 - 917.9GiB Generic Flash Disk

Warning: Testing 19527MB out of reported drive size of 939999MB
Writing 97 x 200MB files...
00:00:00 Writing F:\FAKETEST1.tmp
00:00:34 Writing F:\FAKETEST2.tmp, 00:39:45 remaining
00:01:11 Writing F:\FAKETEST3.tmp, 00:53:30 remaining
00:01:47 Writing F:\FAKETEST4.tmp, 00:59:33 remaining
00:02:22 Writing F:\FAKETEST5.tmp, 01:02:31 remaining
00:02:57 Writing F:\FAKETEST6.tmp, 01:04:18 remaining
00:03:31 Writing F:\FAKETEST7.tmp, 01:05:07 remaining
00:04:06 Writing F:\FAKETEST8.tmp, 01:05:51 remaining
00:04:41 Writing F:\FAKETEST9.tmp, 01:06:17 remaining
00:05:15 Writing F:\FAKETEST10.tmp, 01:06:19 remaining
00:05:50 Writing F:\FAKETEST11.tmp, 01:06:25 remaining
00:06:25 Writing F:\FAKETEST12.tmp, 01:06:24 remaining
00:06:59 Writing F:\FAKETEST13.tmp, 01:06:10 remaining
00:07:35 Writing F:\FAKETEST14.tmp, 01:06:08 remaining
00:08:09 Writing F:\FAKETEST15.tmp, 01:05:47 remaining Checking...
DATA ERROR!
Verifying files 1 - 15...
-----------------------
TEST FINISHED
3000MB of filespace was tested.
Test Time = 00:08:46

TEST FAILED: Only 0MB out of the 3000MB tested were good.

Deleting test files - please wait... Finished.

THIS DRIVE IS PROBABLY FAKE (COUNTERFEIT) OR FAULTY - THE CONTENTS MAY NOW
BE CORRUPT!

############################
Drive (quick) formatted NTFS

H2testw reports test will take 29 hours

--
Regards
wasbit

  #55  
Old May 20th 18, 12:04 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
default[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 201
Default USB thumb drives.

On Sat, 19 May 2018 21:27:50 -0400, Paul
wrote:

wasbit wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message
news
wasbit wrote:
"Jason" wrote in message
...
In article ,
lid says...
nothing lasts forever, but the good ones should last a very long time.
unfortunately, some are not particularly good, possibly counterfeit.

A friend and former colleague is a very experienced EE who
works independently as a software and circuit designer and
also writes technical articles on computer topics for
magazines that you and I probably read (and journal
articles we probably don't...). I have asked him the same
questions about these gadgets. His response: "To a first
approximation ALL such devices on eBay are counterfeit."

Be careful. Buy them from places like Newegg or Frys.

I have a 1TB thumb drive, bought me as a present at a cost of £10
(13.5$).
Considering its price, I was dubious as to its capacity.
Windows shows it as 917GB with 489GB used & 428GB free space.
The 489GB was the most I could scrape together & took nearly a day to
write to the drive.


You can use fsutil to make a test file on your source
drive for testing. Now, watch in amazement, how
(assuming this fits on the remaining space on C: ),
the file takes no time at all to create. If you
use the 7ZIP right-click CRC32 hash calculator,
you'll be able to read this file off your C: drive
at 800MB/sec (even though the storage device might
be capable of much less).

fsutil file createnew C:\users\wasbit\Downloads\big.bin 900000000000

The source drive should be NTFS for this. Once the file is created
on the source drive, *now*, use File Explorer to copy it to
the target device, and then the real testing
will begin.

This allows crafting precisely sized test files.

The source file (big.bin) is likely "sparse" and the file
is technically filled with zeros. This doesn't
matter to the destination drive though, which
will have to do the usual amount of work (as
Windows isn't smart enough to preserve a sparse
file during copy, and expands the fake contents
as needed). Sparse files can be made very quickly.
Sparse files take the normal amount of time to copy
(copy will be limited by the destination write rate).

*******

I would be interested in the brand and model number
of this mythically large (13.5$) storage devices. Was
the brand Godzilla or Mothra ? Did it come
from the ocean ? Was it angry ?

Paul


Bought from
https://www.wish.com/

Windows reports 372GB file copy will take 18 hours.

Start 10.05 am
Speed 5.3-5.8 MB/sec
5.00 pm 37%,- flash drive used 861GB, Free 56.3GB Left to copy 272GB,
11.5 hours
7.00 pm 50% - flash drive used 861GB, Free 56.3GB
8.00 pm 73% - flash drive used 861GB, Free 56.3GB copying stopped

8.01 pm 37GB big2.bin file copy started
8.35pm 36% 14GB copied - flash drive used 671GB, Free 27.3GB
8.50pm 100% - flash drive used 898MB, Free 19GB


Time for the testing tools.

https://www.raymond.cc/blog/test-and...-with-h2testw/

Paul


Good cite, thank you.

I've been testing every flash card and USB drive for some time now
because the size scam is so prevalent even legit suppliers get taken.
(the same thing occurs in the pharmaceutical industry today)

In the case of flash drives, it is fairly easy to report to the
software any size the scammer chooses, with a little firmware
manipulation, so suddenly a 16GB drive is sold as a 64. The consumer
doesn't catch on because drive is just used to hold a few files and
the real capacity isn't exceeded. When the card is filled past it's
real capacity, the mark may just think it died and throw it out, so
the fraud isn't caught and the scam became quite lucrative.

  #56  
Old May 20th 18, 03:41 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default USB thumb drives.

wasbit wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message
news

Time for the testing tools.

https://www.raymond.cc/blog/test-and...-with-h2testw/



######################
Chip Genius

Controller Vendor: Alcor Micro
Controller Part-Number: AU6989SN-GTB/AU6998SN [F206] - F/W FA02
Flash ID code: ADDE14AB - Hynix H27QCG8D2F5R - 1CE/Single Channel
[MLC-16K] - Total Capacity = 8GB


Proving once again, that you really can get $13 worth
of storage, by paying $13 :-)

I take it, when they modified the declaration on the
drive, the controller was limited to declaring 2TB
and could not declare a larger number. Or they would
have set it to an even higher number.

Paul
  #57  
Old May 20th 18, 06:14 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ant[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default USB thumb drives.

Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2018 14:17:44 -0500, (Ant) wrote:


Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2018 14:45:42 -0700,
wrote:


I have several HP 8gb devices, metal cases, and NO keyring hole at
all.

I also have a Lexar 128 GB USB3 device that is the size of a USB Mouse
receiver, so clearly also NO keyring hole. Hell, IT is barely big
enough to grab hold of when trying to remove it!



I have one even smaller. It's completely flat, perhaps 1/16 of an inch
thick, and about the size of a small postage stamp. If I remember
correctly, it's 64KB. I got it as a distribution of a piece of
software.


64 KB?!?!



As I said, If I remember correctly. It was very small, but perhaps not
that small. 16MB? 32MB? I probably got the number right and the unit
wrong--64MB.


16 MB sounds more accurate. Not sure what you can do with 16 KB. That's like in the 80s.
--
Quote of the Week: "The fact that we can't easily foresee clues that
would betray an intelligence a million millennia farther down the road
suggests that we're like ants trying to discover humans. Ask yourself:
Would ants ever recognize houses, cars, or fire hydrants as the work of
advanced biology?" --Seth Shostak
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @
http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )
  #58  
Old May 20th 18, 06:32 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default USB thumb drives.

In article , Ant
wrote:

Not sure what you can do with 16 KB. That's like in the 80s.


one could do a lot...

https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch2-5.html
MIT's original design called for just 4K words of fixed memory and
256 words of erasable (at the time, two computers for redundancy were
still under consideration). By June 1963, the figures had grown to
10K of fixed and 1K of erasable. The next jump was to 12K of fixed,
with MIT still insisting that the memory requirement for an
autonomous lunar mission could be kept under 16K! Fixed memory
leapt to 24K and then finally to 36K words, and erasable memory had
a final configuration of 2K words.
  #59  
Old May 20th 18, 08:21 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
s|b
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,496
Default USB thumb drives.

On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:49:55 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:

Do these thumb drives last forever, or should
their contents be transferred to the latest USB
drives?


I can only speak from personal experience. I've got several thumb
drives, all from SanDisk.

- 512MB Cruzer Micro
- 4GB Cruzer Titanium
- 16GB Cruzer Contour
- 64GB Extreme (USB 3.0)
- 128GB Extreme Pro (USB 3.0)

I ordered the 64GB and 128GB drives from a shop in Hong Kong (through
eBay).

The 64GB drive is used /all the time/. I transfer MKV files to it, watch
them on my BluRay disc player and then I delete them. I've been doing
that for years now. Never an error. On a rare occasion, the MKV freezes
when playing, but that could also be caused by the file itself or the
disc player. Rebooting the disc player always solves the problem.

I once bought a (supposedly) 4GB flash drive from DaneElec. Never got it
to work properly and it certainly wasn't 4GB.

--
s|b
  #60  
Old May 20th 18, 08:42 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default USB thumb drives.

On Sun, 20 May 2018 01:53:56 +0100, Paul wrote:

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2018 10:11:25 +0100, default wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:49:55 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:

I have many USB2 & USB3 going back 10+ years, and
now some are "socket specific" on my 10 YO
computer motherboard (some USB3s will work on some
sockets; even USB2 sockets) and not others.

Do these thumb drives last forever, or should
their contents be transferred to the latest USB
drives?

The number of write cycles determines the life. Many manufacturers
specify 10,000. If that's true, the life expectancy is not likely to
be exceeded in normal use, like storing files or using it to transfer
files from one device to another.

That said, the use to which flash memory is put can also determine
it's life expectancy. If, for instance, it is used in a data-logger,
back-ups, or recording system where the data is re-written or
written-over in the course of normal usage.


Microsoft allow you to use them to expand your system RAM. I guess that
would wear them out ****ing quickly.


If you were referring to paging, I think you'd be quite surprised
how a modern system handles paging.

I think you will find "maintenance activity" on Windows 10,
amounts to more wear of your SSD, than paging. This includes
a 1GB file that Window Defender keeps for caching (it's keeping
track of a scan there or something), the 1GB+ file windows.edb that
the Search Indexer keeps pecking at, and the USN Journal, are
examples of overheads. I've had a USN Journal with a size
of 15GB (collected over time), and I'm not sure whether
Windows has any automated maintenance for USN Journal or
not. (You can remove the USN Journal yourself, but
it should simply start a new one afterwards. Entries
are added, every time a file is added or deleted from
the partition, making the daily addition rate small.)


I have noticed my SSD maxed out now and then when Windows decides I'm not using the computer. No idea what it's up to, since I assume SSDs don't need defragmenting.

Do SSDs slow down when they're nearly full, or when they're old? I'm sure mine isn't as fast as it used to be.

I tried some experiments with the pagefile, and the system
wouldn't actually page. There was a tiny "spike" where a
few writes to the pagefile leaked through, until some
other process in Windows alleviated the pressure. I even
tried to get two processes to consume RAM at the same
time, and got a slightly larger "spike" when they hit
the end. But the behavior is no where near as bad as
the paging behavior would be in Win2K or WinXP, where
they really did try to use pagefile.sys on the C:
hard drive as an actual RAM extension.

I'm probably not using the right kinds of test
cases for this, which could be why I'm failing
to get an exceedingly bad result from the pagefile.

And before Sinofsky was fired, this was what he
was on about, in some blog post. Although (of course)
he uses different metrics than I would have used to
answer this question.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/e7/...-state-drives/

You have the option of disabling the pagefile. On
modern systems with a lot of RAM, this is looking
like a better option all the time.


I disable hibernation on systems where the RAM is a good proportion the size of the SSD, as it eats a good chunk of the free space. But when I've ever turned off a pagefile, I always end up with something saying it's out of memory when it isn't. I work on the assumption that a pagefile isn't used unless it has to be.

--
Which is it, is man one of god's blunders or is god one of man's? -- Friedrich Nietzsche
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.