<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Flash-based data warehousing is getting ever closer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/14/solid-state-data-warehouse/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/14/solid-state-data-warehouse/</link>
	<description>Choices in data management and analysis</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:28:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Weinreb</title>
		<link>http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/14/solid-state-data-warehouse/#comment-68066</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Weinreb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:46:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dbms2.com/2008/01/14/solid-state-data-warehouse/#comment-68066</guid>
		<description>As I understand it, the problem of the 100K write burnout has been
addressed by various Flash file systems.  The OLPC has one of
these; see JFFS2 in the Wikipedia.  There's another called LogFS
and another called YAFFS.  My impression is that the burnout is not
a serious technical obstacle, even though it sounds like one at
first.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I understand it, the problem of the 100K write burnout has been<br />
addressed by various Flash file systems.  The OLPC has one of<br />
these; see JFFS2 in the Wikipedia.  There&#8217;s another called LogFS<br />
and another called YAFFS.  My impression is that the burnout is not<br />
a serious technical obstacle, even though it sounds like one at<br />
first.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
