Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Kickflash experiences  (Read 21371 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline voxel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 322
    • Show only replies by voxel
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #44 from previous page: August 08, 2004, 07:37:01 AM »
Hi michael :-)

Nice to see you have recovered well :-D

Ha! a small question for you : it would be possible to make an extension like the 1Gb Individual's one for the Algor? Am I wrong? would it be possible you make such extension in a near future? a bootable one of course :-)

BTW, it's time to lay some rat traps around, don't you think ;-)
Amigalement,
Jean-François Bachelet, Amiga nuts since 1985.
-------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Happy Computing : Amiga! (© 2K4-2K8 voxel)
 

Offline Kronos

  • Resident blue troll
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 4017
    • Show only replies by Kronos
    • http://www.SteamDraw.de
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #45 on: August 08, 2004, 07:52:36 AM »
Quote

tjaoz wrote:

When you have no hardware write protection (Algor and Romulus case) of the Flash memory you are always exposed to destroying your Flash memory by a malicious virus before you find out that some software is rewriting it again and again.
 


So you recommend not to use the Algor in combination with any Elbox-products ?  :shocked:  :shocked:

/me goes and hides in a deep deep hole ....
1. Make an announcment.
2. Wait a while.
3. Check if it can actually be done.
4. Wait for someone else to do it.
5. Start working on it while giving out hillarious progress-reports.
6. Deny that you have ever announced it
7. Blame someone else
 

Offline Ilwrath

Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #46 on: August 08, 2004, 08:00:52 AM »
Quote
Quote

When you have no hardware write protection (Algor and Romulus case) of the Flash memory you are always exposed to destroying your Flash memory by a malicious virus before you find out that some software is rewriting it again and again.
So you recommend not to use the Algor in combination with any Elbox-products ?


C'mon... Elbox products and drivers don't contain malicious viruses...  They're malicious FEATURES.  See the difference?  :lol:
 

Offline voxel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 322
    • Show only replies by voxel
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #47 on: August 08, 2004, 08:19:41 AM »
q:
Elbox products and drivers don't contain malicious viruses... They're malicious FEATURES. See the difference?
q:

Viruses or malicious features are both illegal in most of the countries and can lead their author in jail with huges fines to pay.

Perhaps we can send EvilBill in prison for spreading the biggest virus of the world? ;-) :roflmao:
Amigalement,
Jean-François Bachelet, Amiga nuts since 1985.
-------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Happy Computing : Amiga! (© 2K4-2K8 voxel)
 

Offline mboehmer_e3b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 312
    • Show only replies by mboehmer_e3b
    • http://www.e3b.de/usb/
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #48 on: August 08, 2004, 02:18:32 PM »
Ah. One thing I did forget to comment on, Ratty:

Quote
Eflash 4000 is a clear Flash memory design. The whole eFlash memory is directly available in the Amiga Zorro III area. It opens the possibility of using the eFlash 4000 card not only during the computer start like other Flashes but also as the non-volatile Flash disk with fast random access.
.

Well, the MX FlashROM chips are 64kB sectored (besides the boot section, which is (32/8/8/16 kB). If you implement a random access file system there, guess what happens?

For changing one (1) bit of data, you have to do the following:

- read the whole 64kB FlashROM to a RAM location
- alter the bit you want to change in RAM
- do a SectorErase command on the FlashROM (timed by the FlashROM, cannot be influenced or made faster)
- write the whole 64kB RAM mirror back to flash, and in this case, word by word, with data bus polling after each write access to verify that the FlashROM did finish its cycle.

So. Let's count some cycles (you may use your fingers here, but keep in mind, five at one hand):

- 64*1024 read cycles from FlashROM
- 64*1024 write cycles to RAM
- 1 read cycle from RAM
- 1 write cycle to RAM
- 64*1024 read cycles from RAM
- 64*1024 write cycles to FlashROM
- 4*64*1024 read cycles from FlashROM (assuming that you have to poll four times only, which is optimistic)

This yields in approx 512k cycles; let's assume that the CPU is only occupied with changing your one bit, and nobody else likes to do something on the Zorro III bus. Take the time of 250ns for one access to both FlashROM and RAM, and 100ns in between cycles (the fastest Zorro III board I know of needs 190ns for one write access, namely the Picasso IV with Buster 11). So one access costs us 350ns.

We will need for the whole operation, if we only calculate the read/write times, forget about the self timed sector erase operation and omit all housekeeping of the filesystem, in total a time of 0.18sec. For writing one (1) bit.
In case of changing one byte we end up with random access times in writing of 0.18 Byte/s, or 180 miliByte/s :)

Pfuh. Looks like something completely useful... and this is what you are calling "fast random access"?

In case of the ALGOR / ROMulus, we have Atmel FlashROMs with 256byte sectors, and an internal write buffer of 256byte RAM, which means that you can do a "normal" write of 256bytes to the FlashROM, followed by a ProgramSector operation.

You may do the calculation for this case (change one byte in random access) as some exercise. And you may take your shoes of, if you run out of fingers, and effectively double your data bus width by this hack :)

Michael
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16882
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #49 on: August 08, 2004, 05:02:27 PM »
Quote

mboehmer_e3b wrote:
...
We will need for the whole operation, if we only calculate the read/write times, forget about the self timed sector erase operation and omit all housekeeping of the filesystem, in total a time of 0.18sec. For writing one (1) bit.
In case of changing one byte we end up with random access times in writing of 0.18 Byte/s, or 180 miliByte/s :)


:lol: Any faster and the machine would implode, its casing physically sucked into the vortex left in the near relatavistic data transfer's prodigious wake...

Seriously, I doubt that were such a random IO mechanism designed that it would be implemented in such a way. Unless made by MS or something.

Surely the mirrored area would be kept in RAM and then the rom area updated after a sufficient amount of it had been modified, or some time interval elapsed, whichever happened sooner.

All this talk of using a flashrom as a sort of reusable hard disk replacement sounds pretty stupid to me - don't these things have a limited number of write cycles anyway :-?
int p; // A
 

Offline mboehmer_e3b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 312
    • Show only replies by mboehmer_e3b
    • http://www.e3b.de/usb/
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #50 on: August 08, 2004, 09:15:10 PM »
Quote
Seriously, I doubt that were such a random IO mechanism designed that it would be implemented in such a way. Unless made by MS or something.


It's not MS, unfortunately, it's originating from the FlashROM technology itself. You must erase one sector before you can write to it, as you (in simple words) discharge all cells to 0xff when erasing, and charge single cells when writing. You cannot discharge single bit cells, so FlashROMs are somehow like old EPROMs - they were discharged by UV light, and charged while programming, with no possibility to remove the stored charge from the floating gate (but exposing the whole die to UV light).

Quote
Surely the mirrored area would be kept in RAM and then the rom area updated after a sufficient amount of it had been modified, or some time interval elapsed, whichever happened sooner.


In principle this would work, but then you have a RAM disk, and you will be better workig with RAD: :)
With the possibility to crash the machine at any time, or switch it off or reset it, you cannot gurantee data integrity with such a RAM / FlashROM mirroring.

In embedded systems such things are sometimes done, but only with small sectored FlashROMs. There are Linux versions supporting such jffs file systems.

With FlashROM cards things are different, as they usually have a serial interface and allow erasing single cells. This technique is also used in modern FlashROM based microcontroller chips.

Michael
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16882
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #51 on: August 08, 2004, 10:08:31 PM »
Quote

mboehmer_e3b wrote:

It's not MS, unfortunately, it's originating from the FlashROM technology itself...


I get you :-)

Quote

Quote
Surely the mirrored area would be kept in RAM and then the rom area updated after a sufficient amount of it had been modified, or some time interval elapsed, whichever happened sooner.


In principle this would work, but then you have a RAM disk, and you will be better workig with RAD: :)


Well, a RAD: that supports a power down and not just a reboot. Not a totally useless idea ;-)

Quote
With the possibility to crash the machine at any time, or switch it off or reset it, you cannot gurantee data integrity with such a RAM / FlashROM mirroring.


Very true, but I don't see that any other storage devices have a better time. You can crash or reset before all your system buffers were flushed to your hard disk etc. It's a bit worse for the flashrom case assuming you mirror all of it and not just a few pages as some sort of write cache buffer.

Anyway, I'm not taking the "flashrom as disk" idea too seriously, but I don't think any serious attempt would work in the method described, not if 0.18mB/s was the theoretical max ;-)
int p; // A
 

Offline Schoenfeld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Mar 2004
  • Posts: 175
    • Show only replies by Schoenfeld
    • http://icomp.de
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #52 on: August 09, 2004, 06:28:06 AM »
What an interesting thread!

I must admit that I haven't read the article in the Amiga Plus magazine yet, but will do as soon as I return to Germany in a little over two weeks. Got to find out what the bad rating originates from, as there's nothing that the author of the test has mentioned to be "not working" while he was in constant feedback with lots of detailed questions about the product. I'll address everything he critisizes, and put it into consideration for the next software update.

Another interesting idea I took from this thread is the boot priority thing for the 1G expansion. That's a great thing to add, and I'll keep that in mind. If somehow possible, I will add a jumper-like connector that lets you override the boot priority setting in the RDB and set it to an alternative level that's set in the flashrom (can be higher or lower, whatever your needs are).

Further, I'd like to mention that the 1G expansion will also work on E3B's products, as it'll use the normal clockport lines. Yes, we're competitors, but we also understand how to cooperate for the customer's convenience. If someone has a highway with Romulus, he should not be forced to buy a Kickflash if he also wants the 1G expansion.

As for it being vaporware at this point, I have to admit that I am only one person that's currently completely busy doing two other projects. Bear with me, as soon as the Catweasel MK4 production is running, I have time for other things. For now, the focus is on *finishing* things and get them onto the shelves for Xmas business.

Now back on topic: All the feedback I've had from Kickflash customers was positive. Of course, my opinion is biased, but I'd say cou can't go wrong with Kickflash, neither for functionality, nor price, nor expandability.

Jens Schoenfeld
 

Offline voxel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 322
    • Show only replies by voxel
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #53 on: August 09, 2004, 08:48:22 AM »
Hi jens :-)

What a good news! your 1Gb extension usable on the Algor/Romulus cards! Yeepee :-D

It would be cool too to have a jumper/keyswitch to control it's flashrom write protect mode :-)

I can't wait for it! (in fact I will wait patiently, as ever ;-)
Amigalement,
Jean-François Bachelet, Amiga nuts since 1985.
-------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Happy Computing : Amiga! (© 2K4-2K8 voxel)
 

Offline Cyberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2003
  • Posts: 5696
    • Show only replies by Cyberus
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #54 on: August 09, 2004, 03:04:17 PM »
@tjaoz

If you ARE associated with Elbox, then you're fast putting me off buying any of their products. You've turned my favourite forum into a battleground for seemingly no good reason. The poor guy who made the original post in this thread is probably none the wiser, if not more confused.
 
Sentiment is very important in business (believe it or not), and you're portraying Elbox in a very bad light at the moment.
Seems as if you're shooting yourself in the foot, if you're intention was to get people to buy your products.

Just my thr'penny's worth
I like Amigas
 

Offline tjaoz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Feb 2003
  • Posts: 165
    • Show only replies by tjaoz
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #55 on: August 09, 2004, 05:10:22 PM »
@mboehmer_e3b

Quote
My godness. While I spent two weeks in hospital, my friend Ratty is back again... well. I didn't expect fair behaviour from Elbox, so what.

Poor Michael, good to know you are back to the net.
Unfortunately, your hospital stay did not work a lot, you still exhibit symptoms of some type of mental disorder called paranoid schizophrenia and you hear Elbox voices everywhere.

It looks like you need more treatment... :-D

Quote
Haha. This is a good one. You know, ROMulus is located on both the HIGHWAY clockport and the expansion port. I'm astonished that you made such a mistake while doing backward engineering. Please download the HIGHWAY manual from my website and do your homework properly. And, for exercising mathematics, clockports have four (4) address lines, namely A[5:2]. You know, one less than you have fingers on one hand.

How many address lines there are in the clock port is of no relevance. There is not a single address line in the clock port which would not be in the expansion port. Their numbers do not sum up, as they are exactly the same address lines.
 
So there are no 12 different address lines, so it is too few of them to make Algor/Romulus Flash memory having random average speed (even in the 4KB page) at the Zorro II speed level. Period.

Quote
> In the second case, reading the selected location of the Flash memory requires a prior sending information to CPLD about the window number and the address within the window.

You are wrong here, sorry.

Hehe, that's what I thought. As the read speed issue makes your friend Chris so nervous, it looks like you had decided for the first method: "1. The CPLD circuit generates sequentially Flash addresses, incrementing the internal address counter at each successive reading."

With this solution, average random read speed of Algor/Romulus Flash memory is 2.8 kilobytes/s. :lol:

Quote
Anyhow, some remarks on the eFlash, just by looking at the picture in the AmigaPlus magazine:

Really humorous how much you worry about Elbox making an interface faster than 16MB/s, while your own interface is SEVERAL times slower. :-)  
 

Offline tjaoz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Feb 2003
  • Posts: 165
    • Show only replies by tjaoz
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #56 on: August 09, 2004, 05:27:31 PM »
@Doobrey

Quote
Who in their right mind would actually need to reflash the memory 10,000 times let alone 100,000??

When the Flash card is hardware protected against unwanted writing, it is not important so much. What about when the card does not have such protection?! Algor and Romulus do not have it!

Quote
At least he`s open about being paid by E3B for his work.
Funny that Tjaoz, cos the only posts you ever make on Amiga.org are to promote Elbox`s products and slag off their competitors products. Do you get paid by your post count, or are you on a salary?

I have nothing to do with Elbox, sorry.

I'm Hodges' client. Hodges cancelled my Poseidon keys which I bought from him. He did it after I wrote in a Highway ML that there was an error in the specs of the product by his friend Michel (E3B). At the same time, his friend Michael Boehmer sent me private messages with threats. All in all, I was cheated by Hodges, plus I am all the time attacked and offended by him and his friend Michael. I do not like Hodges' way of doing business. I thought if he cancelled your key for which you had paid, you would be the same more critical about his behaviour. By the way, he is attacking me and offending whenever he can. :pissed:

I do not hide the fact that I have many of Elbox products. I value them very much and I have enough courage to speak about it although I know I am going against a small group of fanatic enemies of Elbox, who see Elbox as competition to their favourites.
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16882
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #57 on: August 09, 2004, 05:38:30 PM »
Is there the slightest risk that this thread might get back on topic this year?
int p; // A
 

Offline tjaoz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Feb 2003
  • Posts: 165
    • Show only replies by tjaoz
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #58 on: August 09, 2004, 05:41:55 PM »
Karlos

Quote
Anyway, I'm not taking the "flashrom as disk" idea too seriously, but I don't think any serious attempt would work in the method described, not if 0.18mB/s was the theoretical max

Theorethical max? Rather theoretical min.

Michael tried to calculate write speed assuming that the whole sector must be rewritten only because he want to modify one bit. As you properly noted, he completely forgot that data caching may be used in such situations.

BTW. His calculations are wrong. eFlash 4000/1MB uses two MX29F400 memories connected to 16 data lines each. These chips work in the 16-bit mode then. In this mode MX29F400 sectors need 4k, 8k, 16k or 32k writes, but never 64k as Michael assumed. (MX29F400 datasheet is here.)

Anyway it is clear that write time to the Flash is much slower than its read time, so using it as RAM is pointless. However, it is good to use it as a super fast hard drive (with zero seek time), where data may be stored, which do not require frequent modifications, and which are needed to be accessed (read) very fast, like password lists, key lists, signatures (including photos) or other personal data.
Anyway, I think that everyone can think about a number of reasonable applications for this fast, noiseless disk.
 

Offline x56h34

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2003
  • Posts: 2921
    • Show only replies by x56h34
Re: Kickflash experiences
« Reply #59 on: August 09, 2004, 05:45:17 PM »
@tjaoz:

Well, you are from Poland. You are from Krakow. You show up only in Elbox related threads. You badmouth everything that is competing with Elbox's products. By all means you stink of Elbox stench. I'm sorry. You may not work for them, but you are highly annoying and I feel like throwing up every time I see your post.