I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I
write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file
system). Took nearly five hours.
Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
What a con.
I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file system). Took nearly five hours.known issue. same as with harddrives.
Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
What a con.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:
I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I
write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file
system). Took nearly five hours.
Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
What a con.
Their website says “some of the listed storage capacity is used for formatting and other purposes and is not available for data storage”,
but really, they should be advertizing no more than the available
capacity.
What size does lsblk -b claim?
Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
What a con.
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:
Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
With 1 K = 1024, 1 M = 1024 K, and 1 G = 1024 M,
61865984000 bytes are approximately 57 Gbytes.
What a con.
Still, a real con, to me, would have less
than advertised by an order of magnitude.
I'm willing to give them some leeway.
On 02-Jan-23 8:29 pm, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
What size does lsblk -b claim?
Exactly the number I got, so at least it's not lying about that (I
believe some questionable drives on Ebay do lie).
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
On 02-Jan-23 8:29 pm, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
What size does lsblk -b claim?
Exactly the number I got, so at least it's not lying about that (I
believe some questionable drives on Ebay do lie).
I once bought one of the cheapest Chinese memory sticks (or "flash
drives", if my terminology still drives people here crazy) from
Aliexpress. It was something like 128MB, in a multiple-choice listing so
that the price would sort as the lowest in search results, but stepped
up a lot once you selected any of the other, much larger, capacities.
I thought if it worked, at the price it might be handy to buy a few of
them, because I usually only want to use them with files that are a few
MB big. It arrived formatted, and software claimed the advertised
capacity, so I attempted to write a small file to it (something under
1MB, I think it was a text file), and got a write error. After that I
was never able to even read anything from it (not even the empty
partition) again.
It's tempting to wonder whether it actually has a flash chip in it at
all, but it's super-glued into its case so disassembly would be very
hard. At least I got a refund without any fuss.
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:
I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I
write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file
system). Took nearly five hours.
Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
Their website says “some of the listed storage capacity is used for formatting and other purposes and is not available for data storage”,
but really, they should be advertizing no more than the available
capacity.
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:
I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I
write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file
system). Took nearly five hours.
Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
Their website says “some of the listed storage capacity is used for
formatting and other purposes and is not available for data storage”,
but really, they should be advertizing no more than the available
capacity.
But wouldn't that vary somewhat according to the filesystem put on it? They could perhaps base it on whatever filesystem (usually FAT32 or exFAT) they put on it. All filesystems store some metadata about files, but some will
be more efficient about how they do it. (Already, I can see one way
FAT-type filesystems would have a leg up on the competition: they store no file-ownership information.)
scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us wrote:
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:
I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I
write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file
system). Took nearly five hours.
Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
Their website says “some of the listed storage capacity is used for
formatting and other purposes and is not available for data storage”,
but really, they should be advertizing no more than the available
capacity.
But wouldn't that vary somewhat according to the filesystem put on
it? They
could perhaps base it on whatever filesystem (usually FAT32 or exFAT)
they
put on it. All filesystems store some metadata about files, but some
will
be more efficient about how they do it. (Already, I can see one way
FAT-type filesystems would have a leg up on the competition: they
store no
file-ownership information.)
I have the box from a 1TB USB HD sitting here. On the back in small
print it says,
"One Terabyte [TB] means one trillion bytes. Total available capacity
will vary based on operating environment, and your results and storage capacity will vary accordingly."
Which seems to cover all these bases.
Dave
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:
I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I
write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file
system). Took nearly five hours.
Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
Their website says “some of the listed storage capacity is used for
formatting and other purposes and is not available for data storage”,
but really, they should be advertizing no more than the available
capacity.
But wouldn't that vary somewhat according to the filesystem put on it? They could perhaps base it on whatever filesystem (usually FAT32 or exFAT) they put on it. All filesystems store some metadata about files, but some will
be more efficient about how they do it. (Already, I can see one way
FAT-type filesystems would have a leg up on the competition: they store no file-ownership information.)
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> writes:
I grew suspicious of the capacity of my Lexar 64GB flash drive, so I
write raw data to it until it was full (i.e. no partitions, no file
system). Took nearly five hours.
Total data written 61865984000 bytes.
Their website says “some of the listed storage capacity is used for
formatting and other purposes and is not available for data storage”,
but really, they should be advertizing no more than the available
capacity.
But wouldn't that vary somewhat according to the filesystem put on it?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 388 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:40:49 |
| Calls: | 8,220 |
| Calls today: | 18 |
| Files: | 13,122 |
| Messages: | 5,872,261 |
| Posted today: | 1 |