Oh, it's much worse than that. Counterfeit cards are often manipulated to lie to the OS about their capacity as well. They don't "fill up" at all, they just throw away your data, or overwrite it silently.
Then the card corrupted all of my photos.
dd bs="$(blockdev --getsize64 "$device")" count=1 if=/dev/urandom of=random-file
dd if=random-file of="$device"
cmp random-file "$device"
EDIT: I'm not sure if my use of dd's bs and count is a good idea, though. It might be better to do:
head -c "$(blockdev --getsize64 "$device")" /dev/urandom > random-file
For that second line, I often prefer to do:
pv random-file > "$device"
EDIT 2: As discussed in other threads, one should make sure to invalidate the kernel's cache of the device between steps 2 and 3. My safest bet on how to do that is to reboot the computer.
dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1048576 count=5000 | tee test.bin | md5sum
Maybe someone will come along and provide references to a a definitive answer on what the behaviour will be.
My point is: it's not trivial to ensure that you're actually testing the right thing.
True, but this doesn't necessarily guarantee that the subsequent read will come from the card and not the cache.
It might as currently implemented; I don't know. But without specific evidence that it does and will continue to do so indefinitely, I wouldn't assume it for verification purposes.
I make the same point again: it's not trivial to ensure that you're actually testing the right thing.
Unplugging and replugging the card really should invalidate the cache though.
This part drives me nuts. I wish devices would just follow the spec, and accept up to the maximum capacity. But it seems like device manufacturers end up testing the biggest card when they make the device, and as time marches on, you have to search Amazon reviews to see which cards work and which devices have hardcoded smaller limits on capacity.
I mean, they can't test hardware that doesn't exist yet, so what is the alternative?
If there's a hardcoded maximum, that's one thing, but we don't know that's what is going on, do we?
There are occasionally hiccups, like the whole debacle where the MBR partition table (from 1893) was limited to a few terabytes and the industry switched over to GPT, but even today if you put in a >2TB disk into an ancient machine that does not support GPT it can usually at least use the portion of the disk that it can address.
Just read the spec and write your software to support it. It is not like we are asking for support of terabyte SD cards on machines released with the maximum SD card size was 128MB.
I wish PC hardware manufacturers would do that. You don’t even need too old hardware or software to find compatibility bugs, here’s an example: https://superuser.com/q/807871/31483
I still think it's quite an impressive feat to support that much data before computers even existed though lol
Snow Leopard was released a decade ago, so seems like their choice of wording is indicating a bias there.
 10.6.5 was released in Nov 2010 however per Wikipedia, so almost 9 years. Still feel my point remains.
So yes, very unfair to bash Apple about over this, you raise valid concerns.
When exFAT was released I added this to the Wikipedia entry only to have it reverted within hours. Hmm.
Does anyone have a real life anecdote of a device which supports a given version of the standard not be able to use a card of the same version larger than the device supports? I've yet to run into it and always considered it a misunderstanding from issues when newer versions of the standard came out with higher capacity being conflated with what the manufacturer was able to validate on release date but maybe I've just been lucky.
We tried a 32GB card first, the update seamed to run fine. To finalize the update file is deleted from the sd-card. This all happened, then the device was stuck in firmware-update mode (undocumented state).
Tried it again with a 4GB sd-card, update worked fine.
We assume the update file was spread beyond the 8GB boundary
I'm scared to try an unauthorized card in my Nintendo Switch because I could lose my Zelda save file.
And yes, older versions like SD literally did not have the bits to even communicate cards with 512 GiB.
No, I think it's correct. From Wikipedia :
SDSC: 1 MiB to 2 GiB
SDHC: 2 GiB to 32 GiB
SDXC: 32 GiB to 2 TiB
SDUC: 2 TiB to 128 TiB
This assumes that the Ecoboost version isn't just a engine swap - it could be that Ford uses everything the same from transmission back, and just pops different engines and badges on. I don't know if this is true or not, though.
For instance, on their old Ranger pickup trucks (basically rebadged Mazdas), the rear axle on virtually all of them was way over-engineered vs the rest of the pickup:
While there were some differences between models, most of them used one of two sizes, and they just dropped a different engine and transmission in. In this case, depending on what you had, you might end up breaking other parts before the axle gives (the Ranger axles are a popular swap upgrade from the Dana 30 axle on Jeeps, due to it's robustness)..
MicroSD cards and SSD drives use exactly the same technology (NAND flash memory), so it’s a mystery to me that microSD cards are unreliable, but SSD drives are extremely reliable. Genuine SanDisk cards have failed on me for no apparent reason, but I’ve never had a problem with SSD drives with much greater usage.
SD cards doesn't have that mostly for cost and size constraint.
The difference is in using lowest quality leftover Flash memory.
I use two in my primary camera that are setup for mirroring just in case. One in my pocket camera and one in a Raspberry PI. So maybe that's why I haven't experienced any failures. Don't know if model of card has any relevance, but I only buy the SanDisk Extreme Pro cards.
205 is the approx width of the tread in mm
55 is the height of the tire, expressed as a ratio reletive to the width
r usually meant Radial type tire, but has just become part of the standard notation iirc.
17 is the inner diameter in Inches
96 is the Load rating expressed as non linearly scaling variable, needing a chart,in this case 1565lbs.
R is the speed rating, which is usually, but not always in alphabetical order due to weird grandfathered codes. In this case, it means the tire is safe to speeds up to 106mph.
While not hard, it is complex. You can run a taller(sometimes) or shorter(usually) sidewall, or wider(often) or narrower(almost always) tread (within reason), but you can not under rate the load, use a different inner diameter, or signifigantly slower speed rating.
(Also, you can buy tires online)
I mean it seems like most I have had wear out way in a few months even with next to no use.
More info in the comments here: