| ??? 03/10/06 06:00 Read: times |
#111831 - Been there done that Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Abhishek Singh said:
I thing FAT is not suitable for systems with small RAM. reason is that you have to keep the table in the RAM in order to keep track of the next block in the file system. "INODE"s are efficient in this regard. You really don't have to keep much in memory. Granted, FAT probably isn't appropriate if you have no external memory, but I wrote a FAT12 implementation (almost done) that only buffered two 512-byte sectors--one for the file being read/written and the other for the FAT sector currently loaded. Regards, Craig Steiner |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| SD/MMC CARD with FAT | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| There is a company that wants $$$ | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Possibly less $$ | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| they will be lucky | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Money is the problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use the search box | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| example ide interface code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Discussion about this in the past... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Nuts and volts | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Something to try... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| File length | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| FAT are not suitable for micros with ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Been there done that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
thats interesting | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| file length -> change in FAT | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| DFSS | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| O lot of work.... | 01/01/70 00:00 |