• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

BCD396T - Is There A Limit To Memory Rewrites?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ctrl

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
127
Location
Phoenix Area.
Dont really feel like signing up to a site I will have no use to view.

Can someone who has a bc246t break down the info for us on here? I'm curious to know this as well..
 

rfaricy

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
150
EEPROM is completely different from RAM. Anyone who tells you differently, is retarded.

Therefore, compare the number of writes you can do to the 396 to the number of writes your computer can do to your memory. You will find that you will never have an issue writing to your 396 millions (read: billions, trillions, quadrillions, quintillions, etc) of times...
 

gr8amp

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
129
Location
Boston, MA
rfaricy said:
EEPROM is completely different from RAM. Anyone who tells you differently, is retarded.
Unbelievable! That was uncalled for. Retarded?...Hardly. Trying to be helpful.....yes.

Anyways, the channel memory is usually stored on an EEPROM like a 24LC256. These have guaranteed write/erase cycles in the millions (usually specified as 1 million). You really have nothing to worry about.
 

rfaricy

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
150
gr8amp said:
Unbelievable! That was uncalled for. Retarded?...Hardly. Trying to be helpful.....yes.
"Anyone who tells you differently, is retarded." Did you tell anyone differently? No. You have no basis to take offense.

ANYWAY :roll: ... the CPU would probably give out before the memory ever did.
 

Dubbin

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
4,465
Location
Findlay Ohio
rfaricy said:
"Anyone who tells you differently, is retarded." Did you tell anyone differently? No. You have no basis to take offense.

ANYWAY :roll: ... the CPU would probably give out before the memory ever did.
This place is starting to get as bad as the usergroups :roll:
 

gr8amp

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
129
Location
Boston, MA
rfaricy said:
"Anyone who tells you differently, is retarded." Did you tell anyone differently? No. You have no basis to take offense.

ANYWAY :roll: ... the CPU would probably give out before the memory ever did.

Regardless of the weak logic behind your statement, having spent a large amount of time working with children and young adults with physical and mental disabilities, I find your comments highly offensive and inappropriate given the topic of this thread. Retardation often has little to do with ones ability to learn, and is more related to ones ability to function in everyday life. I see absolutely no correlation between EEPROM memory and this disability.

Your post was in conflict with the information initially posted by b52hbuff, indicating that your comments were directed towards him.

The information that I posted was in fact different from yours. You compare the number of write cycles allowed in the 396 to the number of times you can write to memory in your computer. These are completely different types of memory, and a direct comparison can not be made between the two. Plus, "(read: billions, trillions, quadrillions, quintillions, etc)" is well over the manufacturers guaranteed limits.

Also, please explain your comment : ".. the CPU would probably give out before the memory ever did." Have you studied reliability data from renesas for the CPU? If not, what is the basis of this comment?

I am sure you will come back with some argument. This is fine, but don't expect me to reply.
 
Last edited:

b52hbuff

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,583
Location
Los Altos, CA
rfaricy said:
EEPROM is completely different from RAM. Anyone who tells you differently, is retarded.

Therefore, compare the number of writes you can do to the 396 to the number of writes your computer can do to your memory. You will find that you will never have an issue writing to your 396 millions (read: billions, trillions, quadrillions, quintillions, etc) of times...
Well this brings up an interesting question. My belief is that the channel memory in the radio is stored is some flash memory. What is the longest amount of time anyone has left their battery out of the radio and still had channels in tact?

I'm guessing that noone has lost memory due to extended lack of power.

I back that guess up by the observation that if you kill battery to the radio, it doesn't store it's last state. If you power down the radio, then it does store it's last state. The inference I draw is that as part of the 'power down' procedure, the CPU writes state somewhere. If all of the memory was elecrostatically backed up, then a 'power loss' would work the same way as a 'power down'.

Anyway, I didn't have a bunch of time to research the post, my only intent was to share what I knew and get people thinking.

My thoughts are that 1M cycles is probably too many. I'm 'guessing' the number would be more in the 10^5 range and not 10^6. But the best way to figure it out is to dig into the data sheets...
 
N

NWTSCL

Guest
gr8amp said:
Regardless of the weak logic behind your statement...

I am sure you will come back with some argument. This is fine, but don't expect me to reply.
Tell us, oh great pot calling the kettle black: why did you start an argument by insulting his comments? Better yet, where do you get off rebutting what he says when you are insult the possibility that he may do the same to you -- ESPECIALLY when you asked direct questions of him? Why did you ask him questions if you don't want him to respond? Can you say "hypocrite"...?
 

slicerwizard

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
5,338
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Hm. Another thread poisoned by rfaricy. Figures.

Amtel AT45DB021B 2Mbit DataFlash.

Endurance: 100,000 program/erase cycles per page.

Page size: 264 bytes.

Please pardon my on-topic distraction - you may now resume your flamefest.
 

STiMULi

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
1,581
Location
Tucson, Arizona
slicerwizard said:
Hm. Another thread poisoned
That is a great way to think of it.

Poisoned threads.

I find that many of my statments are thread killers*. I guess that would be deadly poison verses the kind that just makes you want to puke :)

(*Let's see if it works :D)

We now return you to you thread already in progress...
 

rfaricy

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
150
NWTSCL said:
Tell us, oh great pot calling the kettle black: why did you start an argument by insulting his comments? Better yet, where do you get off rebutting what he says when you are insult the possibility that he may do the same to you -- ESPECIALLY when you asked direct questions of him? Why did you ask him questions if you don't want him to respond? Can you say "hypocrite"...?
Exactly. Gr8amp, You will notice I haven't contributed further remarks when I very well could have. You seem to continue to respond, and you're just adding gasoline to the fire. So if I am such a bad person, then take a step back and realize you're only contributing to the negativity. If you hadn't responded, I wouldn't be writing this. And if I decided not to post this, you probably wouldn't ever reply back. Funny how that works, isn't it?

"... indicating that your comments were directed towards him."

No, that would be an assumption on your part. I was making a general statement. You seem to be the one personalizing it, not I. I never even read that particular reply until after you pointed it out. Joke's on you.

I don't "poison" threads, either. There have been, on occasion, some pretty darn stupid threads posted and I speak my mind. There ARE such things as stupid questions - the ones that could've been answered if the person had even BOTHERED to look into something as simple as an owner's manual.

I am not contributing any further to this thread, it's a waste of everyone's time. And if anyone else wants to continue it, be my guest, but it will show your manners to be far worse than mine.
 

DaveIN

Founders Curmudgen
Database Admin
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
6,508
Location
West Michigan
slicerwizard said:
Amtel AT45DB021B 2Mbit DataFlash.

Endurance: 100,000 program/erase cycles per page.

Page size: 264 bytes.
So, I don't think you need to be too worred about the re-writes...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top