you post is technical so wrong it hurts.
Do you really not undersdtand the topic?
Do you really believe the non sense that you post or do you post lies with an agenda?

I don't think the Natami should have a CF slot. If people want CF, they can just buy a 5 Euro adapter card from IDE to CF. Anyway, the new CF standard defines a SATA-like port. Anyway, a fitting file system for CF AND SSD would be a great thing!

By the way: IDE is dead and will stay dead. SATA is the way!

I'd be happy even if it was 4 GB only.... While I expect to use a 16 or 32 GB card.

I've been using the RAM: disk in my Amiga to it's ultimate limits since 1990 when I expanded my A2000 to 9 Megs of RAM.

I copy the programs I want to use to RAM: or RAD: and then run them.... Why have umpteen megs of RAM and leave them idle??? Why NOT use AMIGA to it's maximum ability?.... Remember AMIGA is the SUPERIOR computer AND operating system!!!!

When I use AWeb, it's ENTIRELY in RAM including the cache. When I turn off my Amiga, there isn't ANY clutter on my hard drive.... UNLIKE certain other systems that shall remain nameless. ;-) :-DDD

I think that CF used properly is of extreme benefit to us.

Last thing.... BOOT TIME. The CF has no spin up time, even if you had 500 MB a second transfer rate from your hard drive, the CF would load miniscule AOS before the hard drive does!!!!!!

You can get a 4GB CF for as low as 10, a 8GB CF for 18, and a 16GB CF for less than 30. A cheap 32GB SSD costs twice as much as a cheap 16GB CF.
 
But I would not recommend to use CF if you aim for huge sizes like 64 GB ...  Those big CF cards are still relative expensive.

Some misinformation was here spread about performance and transfer rates. Some performance numbers that Christian posted of SSD cards are off-topic or wrong in this discussion.

We want to provide the correct information, so the users can make an educated decision.

So first lets get some fact straight:

The NATAMI has a parallel bus (PERIOD!)
This is simply a matter of fact and this is the best you can do with the type of FPGA that the NATAMI is build from.

This means the maximum transfer rate ever possible is 130 MB/sec.
Even with a raid over 100 SSD cards you will not get over 130MB/sec.

Lets get some transfer rate expectation cleared up also:

As of today the NATAMI will by far not reach 130MB/sec!
* But enhancing SCSI.device and enable UDMA modes is a task we want to get done soon. This will then allow to reach very good transfer rates - And hopefully we will get very close to the 130MB limit.

CF cards typically are sold in those speed grades
1) noname cheap cards - no speed grade
2) Sandisk cheap cards - 30 MB/sec
3) Sandisk fast cards - 60 MB/sec
4) Sandisk ultra fast cards - 90 MB/sec

If I would buy a CF card I would choose type 2 or 3.
Buying Type 1 is risky, as some no name cards are of low quallity.
Buying Type 4 is too expensive to make sense IMHO.

BTW the same is true for SSD.
I would be careful to buy a noname SSD.
And even if you pay extra for a brand card you could still get ripped of with a fake one.

The whole Flash market is floaded with no name cards, or no name cards reprinted as brand cards.

I would not advice to buy any card without testing them.
You should always make sure you get no fake one!

What is dangerous here in this discussion is that Christian is spreading misinformatinon.
 

CF cards do not die like Christian is trying to make the people to believe.
 
The truth is that the techniques that a SSD and a CF uses for wear levelling is the just same.
They are at the end build from the same chips.
 
The truth is also that YOU need to take care when formatting any flash device. If you wrongly format the drive then you can wear it of about 50 times faster. This means wrong formatting kills your drive!
 
The CF cards we talk about here run native IDE.
The speed of the drives is measured in native IDE mode.
(Normal CF can not do any other mode anyway!)
 
Christians spoke about that CF cards run at 50% performance in IDE mode.
This should NOT be that case.
If this happens then it indicates one of two things:
A) He got ripped of and bought a bad fake card.
B) He formatted to card wrongly. Bad formatting will ruin performance and ruin the card itself.

A wrongly formatted the drive will be much slower and wear out quickly!
 
 
The point of this thread is to acknowledge its crudial to correctly format a flash device.
 
This is true for all flash devices being them SD, CF or SSD!
 
The point of this thread is that we want to make AMIGA OS
sensitive for correctly formating and correctly handling flash devices in general.
 
This means with some tuning of the filesystem all your flash disk will run fast and live long.
 

Always make a backup, this is something some people even after 25 years of good home computers still do not get.

@Gunnar I have a slight off topic question.

CF are sold formatted as VFAT right?
Can AOS read VFAT?
Can Natami hot swap CF cards?

The only way to do this at any company is to discuss and agree <b>the rules</B> with a boss and then enforce it.
Very simple rules - use networked drives for data (from which i do backups), run once a day remote sync program for those who don't work at office (laptops etc) etc. etc.

For individual people - it's not really matter more than if THEY want to protect their data.

Of course filesystem and device reliability matters. But should matter no more than how often you waste time RECOVERING data,not how much data you lose.

As for VFAT - AFAIK it can.

The CF Bootup time is still fast. A CF is on a exist Amiga still slower than a Harddrive with the MB/s values but the access time make the Bootup faster. Anyhow i would have the throughput of a Harddrive or a SSD with 90 MB game like Beneath a Steel Sky from 1993. There is a huge loading time difference between a A1200 with 10 MB/s and a A4000 with >30MB/s.
Beneath have a lot small Files under 1KB, some 64,72,82 Bytes.
With smaller Blocksizes the CFs get slower, so you have to
load for one of this files about 4096 Bytes. Thats overhead
and require a higher throughput as you may expect.

I wonder does it make sense to argue with people endlessly,
or is it better for the sake of providing correct information for the other readers to kick people which on purpose write wrong information out?

If it is not worth to be back up, then it is certainly not worth to be restored. ;)

But of course as you don't do backups at all you never had faulty one.

It's funny that people spend more time explaining why they don't do backups regularly than it would take doing them.

From me EOT.