Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 121315	2011-10-20 10:25:00	Flash drive integrity	forrest44 (754)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1238813	2011-10-20 10:25:00	I have here an 8gb flash drive, which is just over 1 year old I lost it for around 6 months, and found it just the other day A lot of the data on the drive was corrupted (70% of files had random names and were unaccesable) I did a read/write check of the whole drive using a tool called Check Flash, which came up with 2 errors However, many subsequent checks of the drive have produced no errors What do you reckon I should do...? I'm not sure I want to entrust it with my data, but at the same time I can't really justify taking it back to the shop if scans are showing no errors Is flash memory known for this kind of behaviour?	forrest44 (754)
1238814	2011-10-20 12:03:00	I have here an 8gb flash drive, which is just over 1 year old I lost it for around 6 months, and found it just the other day A lot of the data on the drive was corrupted (70% of files had random names and were unaccesable) Is flash memory known for this kind of behaviour? The manufacturer will tell you no, it has data retention of 10 years or so. However, someone once told me that this is all a load of rubbish and these things lose data if not refreshed. dead doesnt = bad cells. bad cells = verify errors. dead = failure in the buffers or the matrix decoding. the buffers & decode circuits are hammered far more than the cell's i'll add this, retention on flash seems like **** - and getting worse. i used to get stuff 4-6 years old with corrupt or intermittant data in the flash, now i'm seeing stuff only a year+ in age. both fixed by a re-flash. so the flash chips have higher leakage, or the higher density is resulting in a lower electron-per-cell count. (Talking about SSDs and BIOS here, but same thing really) www.badcaps.net www.badcaps.net	Agent_24 (57)
1238815	2011-10-20 22:28:00	Thanks for the informative reply Agent 24 Will have to look into this more So it seems the flash drive is fine, but just not for holding data for an extended length of time...?	forrest44 (754)
1238816	2011-10-20 22:30:00	Hey I see you're on the badcaps site!	forrest44 (754)
1238817	2011-10-20 23:01:00	Thanks for the informative reply Agent 24 Will have to look into this more So it seems the flash drive is fine, but just not for holding data for an extended length of time...? Maybe, I don't really know - just something which might explain it. If what he says it right then it maybe that because you didn't use it for 6 months things went funny. Then again he also says BIOS can have problems after years, which is a lot longer. Maybe your drive is a bit dodgy as well - personally I trust CDs and HDDs more than flash drives (but in all cases a backup should exist anyway) Hey I see you're on the badcaps site! Yep, the forum I'm on the most 2nd only to this one :D	Agent_24 (57)
1238818	2011-10-20 23:50:00	Hmm hardforum.com techon.nikkeibp.co.jp NAND Flash memory quality is also beginning to drop. Chips manufactured using 90nm-generation technology in 2004-05, for example, were assured for about 100,000 rewrites and data retention of about a decade. As multi-level architecture and smaller geometry are introduced, quality is showing a sharp decline. The 30nm 2-bit/cell chips expected to enter volume production in 2009-10 may well end up with a rewrite assurance of no more than 3,000 cycles, and a data retention time of about a year. The first 3-bit/cell chips are hitting the market now, with only a few hundred rewrites. Looks like HDD's are going to be around for a while longer yet And older flash drives could be more reliable...	forrest44 (754)
1238819	2011-10-21 00:08:00	That really is pathetic. I guess the best option as they say is 1-bit/cell SSDs, but if those would be cheaper than HDDs is a good question (probably eventually though) HDDs certainly won't be going out of favor with me any time soon... if ever. Remember they've had 50+ years to get things running pretty damn well. Jumping ship doesn't really make much sense to me.	Agent_24 (57)
1