Re: Non-volatile counter implementation
- From: "Thomas Magma" <somewhere@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:36:52 GMT
I would use a small, low cost micro (PIC maybe) and save the count in theOh, I should have mentioned that we already have flash, RAM, etc.
EEPROM. Single chip solution.
Thomas
available in our system so this is just a software question. Is there an
advantage of EEPROM over flash in terms of erase cycles?
Andrew
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
"While RAM has no limitations on rewrites to memory, EEPROMs are limited in
that repeated write and erase cycles eventually damage the thin insulating
layer, a process called 'wear out'. Some early EEPROMs could only perform
about 100 erase-write cycles but new models specify 100,000 erase-write
cycles or more. Flash memory is cheaper than EEPROM but will wear out
faster, typically after 10,000 erase-write cycles. Another reason why EEPROM
is more effective for storing configuration data is that Flash memory has to
erase multiple memory locations at a time. Changing a single byte is only
possible by rewriting a whole block, which causes the flash memory to wear
out more quickly than one might otherwise expect."
Thomas
.
- References:
- Non-volatile counter implementation
- From: andrew queisser
- Re: Non-volatile counter implementation
- From: Thomas Magma
- Non-volatile counter implementation
- Prev by Date: Re: Simple, embedded USB host for digital camera control
- Next by Date: Re: AT89c51snd1c
- Previous by thread: Re: Non-volatile counter implementation
- Next by thread: Re: Non-volatile counter implementation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
