New CompactFlash card to allow RAID-style &#39;mirroring&#39;

They won't for much longer, not in their present form (which by the way, I have ALWAYS thought to be an idiotic design with those flimsy pins).

We have now XQD cards supported by Sony, Nikon and others and an updated CF card format (the name of which escapes me at the moment) supported by Canon; and both cards have flat contacts like SD cards rather than those idiotic pins.

I am not too sure about this but I think there are some benefits to having a CF type arhitecture (i.e. with hard drive type controller on the card). Others with more knowledge on this subject might care to comment and share their knowledge.

Regards,
plevyadophy

Jun 3, 2013permalink

poa kichizi

Because of fast read/write speeds. SD cards can't compete in that regard.

Jun 3, 2013permalink

http://www.sandisk.com/products/memory-cards/compactflash/extremepro/?capacity=64GB

@poa kichizi

Whilst CF cards are still somewhat faster than most SD cards, the difference isn't that significant anymore; and as far as I am aware, correct me if I am wrong, the latest spec SD cards have pretty much caught up in speed with CF cards.

So there must be some other reason for their continued existence. Perhaps it's just a habitual thing; they were once way superior in performance to SD cards, so were used in high-spec cams and users have such cams have got used to such cards so manufacturers have kept supplying high-spec cams with CF card slots.

There may also be, as I have suggested above, some other technical reason or benefit for their continuance.

Jun 3, 2013permalink

kelpdiver

the difference is significant to people shooting burst modes, and frankly it's hard to get a long history of SD cards with overstated class ratings.

Jun 3, 2013permalink

Josh152

Look at Sandisk extreme pro series cards. The SDHC cards are actually rated for a higher write speed than the CF cards are:

http://www.sandisk.com/products/memory-cards/sd/extremepro-sdxc-sdhc-uhs-1-95mbs/?capacity=64GB

CF is obsolete and has been for a few years now. Not only does SD not take up as much space both in your card wallet and in the camera but it also is much more durable due to not having those silly, fragile pins. Plus it even has write protection switch. Now that they are as fast or faster than most CF cards and have the same capacities they are the superior format. It is only the erroneous market perception that CF cards are faster/more pro and camera manufactures not wanting to take the flak from forcing their customers to switch card formats that is keeping Cameras like the 5DIII/D800/1DX/D4 from using sdhc/sdxc instead of CF cards.

Jun 4, 2013*permalink

mimot13

@Josh152 :Sorry, but your comments are wrong.. on Sandisk page, the related speed are "read speed" NOT write speed..! Have a look on Rob Galbraith's page who has seriously compared almost all wellknown CF and SD cards.
Size of CF cards : do you shoot sometimes in winter in hard conditions and have to change your memory card, eventually with gloves ? Likely not. CF is very big compared to additional battery, lens, filter aso..that you normaly have in your bag ? It's a joke no ?
I use CF since 2003 and had never any trouble with connection although pins are supposedly not ideal, but they're well protected.
The main reason why CF are faster than SD is the fact that CF has its circuit driver IN the card unlike SD cards which are driven from DSLR directly, thus processor load during shooting is higher with this card. This certainly also explain the significant price difference..
I use both SD and CF cards on a D800, write CF speed from Lexar and Sandisk are far above best available SD card.

Jun 4, 2013*permalink

Josh152

Ok so the write the same speed instead of the sdhc being slightly faster. My point still stands. Both the CF and SDHC are rated for 90mb/s write speeds.

Jun 4, 2013permalink

domina

CF cards have a faster connection than UHS-I SD cards: CF UDMA7 is 167MB/s while SD UHS-I is 50MB/s for cheap ones or 100MB/s for pricey SDs. Even older UDMA6 CF cards are still faster than UHS-I SDs: UDMA6 is 133MB/s.

Sep 13, 2013permalink

Jeff Peterman

This doesn't make any sense. With hard drive mirroring, you have a backup in case one hard drive fails. But this is a single card with a single interface, so what's the chance that one copy of the file will be good if the other is bad? Pretty slim. The most likely failure will be at the interface.

Jun 3, 2013permalink

kelpdiver

flash media shows failures at the block level. The entire reason people are interested in two card slots in their cameras is from past experience where an image was lost by just a few bad bytes, which typically kills one horizonal row 8 pixels tall.

The problem, however, is that a card with one bad block is likely to have others, and due to wear leveling, the second copy could be right next to the first.

Jun 3, 2013permalink

gefrorenezeit

How many of you had a break down of a card which worked flawlessly before would be the more interesting question, wouldn't it? ;)

Jun 2, 2013permalink

Shamael

One has to tell me first to what and to whom that will serve. If the card breaks, you throw the 2 partitions away. If one gets corrupted, the corrupted sector is mirrored, thus both will not work. If the card gets lost, both partitions are lost. So, is there anything we don't know here? I do not ask "that I know" since I think that we all ask the same question. On the other side, CF gets more and more replaced by SD, what is a bargain since you can fit 25 SD cards in a matchbox. Now, if they could make a CF body with 2 sd cards in slots, mirrored, that would make sense.

Jun 2, 2013*permalink

SiriusDoggy

What makes you think that it writes to one side then mirrors to the other, therefore mirroring the corrupted side? Maybe it writes to both sides at the same time so "IF" one side does get corrupted, the other side will be fine. And as for your other examples, the "2SD card slots" version doesn't solve any of them either.

Jun 2, 2013permalink

Teila Day

I agree with Shamael- I'd much rather have a CF camera that has additional SD card slots (mirrored... or not via menu option). I would feel much more comfy with that option, and it would prove more useful to me.

Jun 2, 2013permalink

@Teila Day,

Do you mean a card that looked something like this, but with a mirroring option?

RAID O CompactFlash

Photofast CR-7200 CompactFlash Adapter Runs Four microSDs In RAID
http://gizmodo.com/5302727/photofast-cr+7200-compactflash-adapter-runs-four-microsds-in-raid

Jun 3, 2013permalink

Teila Day

@plevyadophy absolutely not. I'm just talking about having four card slots; two CF and two SD. Via menu, the photographer can mirror one or both CF slots, or use them as overflow cards. That would be so much better to me.

Jun 3, 2013permalink

@Teila Day,

Good idea,but in practice it's not likely to happen except perhaps on large medium format cameras simply because to have four memory card slots would no doubt make the camera very large indeed in comparison to the current size of (none MF) cameras.

Jun 3, 2013permalink

Nikonworks

This offers a false promise of image security.

My Eye-Fi wifi SD card enables me to have my images on two separate devices, not one device with one set of contacts, one toggle switch, etc.

I have an SD card with its sliding 'Protect' lock tab broken off, it is useless.

So is a mirrored CF card.

Jun 2, 2013*permalink

Boky

RAID controller can not reside on the external memory media...the SD card could be useful only if the stored photos on first partition become damaged during post-processing / editing or similar. by the way... how do you delete the darn post...????

Jun 2, 2013*permalink

Andy Crowe

What's the benefit of mirroring if both mirrors are on the same device? It's like having a "backup" partition on the same hard drive; sure in the event that part of the data becomes corrupt you'll still have a good copy, but if anything goes wrong with the disk (card) then you've lost both copies.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

Bach Photo

Unless it has two controllers it is really useless.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

SirSeth

Maybe it will be as good as RAID. If so, then what a boon. If the two partitions are insulated from each other correctly that is... and time will tell. Auto backup in one card is a fantastic idea in theory and it will only take a bit of time to see if this idea delivers the goods or not. Naysayers, maybe it's not as good as it sounds (message that scarcity mentality), but you have to admit that if it does provide highly reliable mirroring in one card well that could be amazing for mission critical shooting. I'm in favor.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

Ak pinxit

The PC RAID goes around idea of two (or more) access points , here you have only one , and if the access gets unavailable , it wouldn't be matter how good was the internal mirroring - all goes down the drain.

Jun 1, 2013*permalink

if the connector is damaged, or the controller fails?
or if the camera corrupts the file system, you duplicate the corruption.

RAID is not a backup or archiving solution.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

RAID O CompactFlash

Photofast CR-7200 CompactFlash Adapter Runs Four microSDs In RAID
http://gizmodo.com/5302727/photofast-cr+7200-compactflash-adapter-runs-four-microsds-in-raid

Jun 1, 2013permalink

R0N

This controller does RAID 0, if one SD card fails the others are useless

Jun 1, 2013permalink

@RON
Yeah, I just thought to post the link because someone earlier mentioned RAID 0 and also it's another option for those who are interested in the speed benefits.

Regards,
plevyadophy

Jun 1, 2013permalink

Well, I think it would depend on how this card is designed.

If the design is such that there are two seperate "cards" within one CF casing, and in normal mode another controller merges the two cards to fool the camera into thinking it's one card, then it seems fine to me because it would mean that in RAID Mode you really are backing up to two seperate cards.

If however, it's just one card partitioned into two then it's pretty pointless as a backup device.

I think we will have to wait a while to learn a little more about the design of this card (from an independent reviewer; this would be the kind of product that Rob Gailbraith would have been good at reviewing but alas his site is no longer running)

As to the comments before mine regarding faulty controllers, perhaps the way around that would be to have CF pins on two sides of the card, with a cap covering the pins you are not using; these covered pins (and the controller) would come into play if the other side failed.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

Further to my comments above, I would also be concerned as to how this "mirroring" is done.

If a file is simply being copied from one partition/card to another then if the original image is corrupt you are simply copying corrupt data to the second partition/card.

If on the other hand, when one presses the shutter button two independent and simultaneous files are created of the same image then this card could be useful as you will not be copying/backing up corrupt data (you would have a dodgy copy on one half of the card and a good copy on the other half).

I think this company needs to release a LOT more information about this card of theirs before releasing it to the public in two weeks time.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

tkbslc

regardless of the implementation, for those with a single slot camera this is surely more safety than only having one copy of the file.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

@tkbslc

I am not sure that is the case.

If it is creating two files in the manner I described in first scenerio above (in my second post), then it's offering you a false sense of security because even if the data itself isn't corrupt when copied there still remains the issue of what happens if the conroller fails; a failed controller means that you cannot access any data no matter which partition it is on (of course depending on how the controller has been implemented).

The security of this card might be no different to taking your chances with one card in your one slot camera, shooting until filled and then sticking another card in that one slot to continue shooting.

Like I said, a LOT more info needs to be provided about the way the data transfer is implemented in this card before it can be given the thumbs up. However, the company is to be applauded for at least addressing the problem of data backup for cameras with just one memory card slot.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

jackpro

about time Im suprised no-one has created a cf-sd adapter that holds 2x sd cards & a raid controller on board

Jun 1, 2013permalink

well, there have been devices somewhat like that:
http://en.akihabaranews.com/18419/legacy-unused/pc/diy-ssd-drive-test-a-raid5-hdd-with-3-compact-flash

the only SD to CF adaptor I've seen holds a single SD or uSD card.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

CyberAngel

So...if I have a Nikon D3, or D3X, or D3S, or a Canon EOS-1D X, 1D C
then I could have 2xCFx2
that is...both a back-up CF and a "RAID" CF
with quad pictures simultaneously
and
naturally two cameras to be REALLY safe with octa system setup
They could be on a same tripod side-by-side...
Maybe a duplicate tripod system and...
(but no back-up photographers with a similar setup, please {WTD} )

I wonder if this new CF will work on the old Nikon D3 series
or if it requires the latest and the greatest like Canon EOS-1D
(trolling)

Jun 1, 2013*permalink

Hey look, "Pay $5, protect yourself from fraud!" Let's pay $10, we'd be double protected! :D

Jun 1, 2013permalink

Debankur Mukherjee

Can I use this in existing DSLR ??

Jun 1, 2013permalink

dylanbarnhart

This is not a gimmic.

You have to remember this is not a magnetic device like hard drives, where the whole drive fails when the disk stops spinning. This is random access memory. If one partition fails, the other side still works.

Background: CF cards of all brands use NAND chips from companies like Samsung or Micron. For example, a 32GB card can use 8 chips, each of which is 4GB. These chips are separate and only connect to the ATA memory controller. If one dies the rest don't die with it.

There are some kinds of failures that could render the entire thing uselsess, like when RAID itself fails, or if the card is damaged physically. Far more common is the problem where some memory cells are corrupted, or that a single NAND chip fails. That's what this card can deal with.

May 31, 2013permalink

Unless, of course, the the on-card controller dies - doesn't matter if it's the RAID part, the USB or filesystem - related fault, the whole card still dies. I've never heard of a bad sector on a flash card.

Jun 1, 2013*permalink

Adrian Van

Perhaps you could explain why then when there is a problem with a card, some files are good on it (photos intact) and some files are corrupted (missing data, part of image greyed out or won't open or was this transfer issue or reader problem). No bad sectors on card? Or it this problem with not formatting regularly, or bad controller. I have been using Sandisk CF for 10 years and only one went bad, however rescue software got the files. Had some issues with SD cards though. Only buy premium brands now.

Jun 1, 2013*permalink

"Perhaps you could explain why then when there is a problem with a card, some files are good on it (photos intact) and some files are corrupted"
No way to tell for certain, but a single bad sector would've corrupted a single file. And in all likelihood the controller would've known about three wire error, and reported it to the camera.
More likely, the filesystem got corrupted, and chunks of files got overwritten by the latter writes. RAID 1 is not aware of individual files, so you would've gotten two exact copies of each file, complete with corrupted chunks.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

the controllers in the card boot off a locked and hidden part of the flash, so if the flash in that region goes bad, the card is effectively bricked.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

X Faktor Photo

To all those who've experienced CF card failure; What brand+model were they?

These cards haven't failed for over 4 years and still going:
-4gb Sandisk Extreme III
-8GB Sandisk Extreme

My latest card, the 32gb Sandisk Extreme Pro, I bought last year and has had several corrupted photos, they were taken at high speed (8fps).

I'd have to say the regular Extreme line of Sandisk cards work well (for me)

May 31, 2013permalink

CarVac

I was hoping it'd be RAID 0 for double the transfer rates. Raw video loves fast cards...

May 31, 2013permalink

dylanbarnhart

Actually it is. The speed doubles when you don't use mirror mode.

May 31, 2013permalink

Digitall

Gimmick for sure.

May 31, 2013permalink

Adrian Joseph Roy

RAID is a gimmick??

Dude. :)

Jun 1, 2013permalink

Adrian Joseph Roy

Did I just fall for a troll?

Jun 1, 2013permalink

Digitall

I said RAID is a gimmick?

Jun 1, 2013permalink

RAID certainly can be a gimmick if not used for its intended purposes. RAID 0 (striping) can double the data rate. RAID 1 (mirroring) guards against failures of individual drives drives. Sometimes RAID 1 redundancy causes lax backup practices - which is bad, because RAIDed data is still vulnerable to things like controller faults, accidental deletion, filesystem corruption, etc.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

Adrian Van

As the article says, if an image corrupts while writing on one side, it may not be corrupt on the other partition (in case of bad sectors on one side). As most cameras (still cameras mainly) have only one CF slot (or only one SD slot), except for the Canon XF100/300 pro video camera which has 2 CFs, this could be useful to some people. Many older cameras do not have both SD and CF slots, or 2 SD slots, and many mainstream APS-C cameras have only one card slot (except for the higher end ones).

The general consumer taking personal photos, may not care at all for this, but some event and journalist photographers and video guys, may want one if their camera does not have backup slots. How expensive is this card?

I wonder if they could put it into a mirrored SD or that too small to do so.
I think Sony is working on a dual mirror pro memory card like this as well on their line (mainly for video backup for pros) I have read.

May 31, 2013*permalink

dylanbarnhart

No it's not possible to put RAID on an SD card, because SD card doesn't have a built-in memory controller like CF cards. The memory controller for SD is on the card reader.

May 31, 2013permalink

Bad flash sectors are not the only cause of corrupted files, and not even a likely cause. Chances are, if an image is corrupted, its mirrored copy will be corrupted as well.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

@dylanbarnhart
an SD card is a high speed serial bus, a CF is parallel.
there's still a flash controller in an SD card which does wear levelling, fee block management, garbage collection etc.

you are probably thinking of smart media, a long defunct card format, where the card was dumb and most of the control was external.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

kahren

upon reading the topic, i thought they managed to fit 2 sd cards into that single cf :)
but this raid on a single card thing is a joke

May 31, 2013permalink

Well, I think it would depend on how this card is designed.

If however, it's just one card partitioned into two then it's pretty pointless as a backup device.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

djsphynx

Or just buy 2 64GB cards for those of us who have cameras with two slots?

May 31, 2013permalink

Ak pinxit

there are no CF dual slots , but , as was said before me - it is gimmick anyway

May 31, 2013*permalink

Turbo Hampster

Erm yes there are! I have 2 on CF slots on my 1DX

May 31, 2013permalink

joejack951

D3, D3S, and D4 all have dual CF slots as well.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

Josh152

LOL even if you have dual SD or SD and CF this is point less. SD cards have basically the same speed as CF these days. it is also safer two have to separate cards than one even with the raid idea.

Jun 1, 2013*permalink

Ak pinxit

My bad , but I didn't had in mind the high-ends

Jun 1, 2013permalink

onlooker

RAID 1 with a single point of failure. Cute.

I am sure it will sell more cards, though, since it halves their capacity.

May 31, 2013permalink

peevee1

It should take 2 SD cards and either mirror or span them. Otherwise, if the CF card fails, mirrored information will not be reachable anyway.

May 31, 2013permalink

(unknown member)

RAID 1 on a single hard drive with 2 partitions?

May 31, 2013permalink

E.J.

This is stupid, the things that cause most of these cards to fail would impact both sides. This is marketing gimmickry at it's finest

May 31, 2013permalink

Clint Dunn

I've been using digital camera since 2001....not once have I ever had a corrupted memory card...just sayin'.

May 31, 2013permalink

viking79

I have been using digital cameras since 2001, and I have had several failed memory cards. Both SD, CF, and others. Failed to the point of not being readable by a computer. Card failures can and do happen.

May 31, 2013permalink

djsphynx

I've had one fail and I've since always mirrored my shots to both slots.

just sayin

May 31, 2013permalink

Tony Bonanno

I ALWAYS mirror.. I've had two card failures, one in the midst of a high profile client when the media was waiting for the images and time line was short. THANK my lucky stars I had two cards going. It can and does happen. May not be a big issue for some, but it certainly can be for others. My concern about this new card is what others have expressed.. what is likelihood that whatever takes out the card won't take out BOTH partitions ??? I'll stick with two separate cards.. a CF and an SD mirroring each other is actually ideal IMO.

May 31, 2013permalink

Simon Joinson

you obviously never used SmartMedia :)

May 31, 2013permalink

Digitall

Good "old days" of the SmartMedia, I have some of them.

May 31, 2013permalink

X Faktor Photo

In my opinion, smart media had a short life, but at the time, wafer-thin memory was sweet.

May 31, 2013permalink

DaytonR

theres still few SmartMedia cards on sale out there - theres something quite nostalgic about them :)

May 31, 2013permalink

X Faktor Photo

And just curious about all those who have had failed CF cards.

What brand and model were they?

These cards have not yet failed me after over 4 years of use:
SanDisk Extreme

May 31, 2013permalink

SemperAugustus

I find hard to believe that if the card fails one of the partitions will be safe....but that's just me.

May 31, 2013permalink

DaytonR

I think the reason why a card failure takes out the whole card is because a lot of cards are technically one partition therefore everything goes down if there is an issue. Look at it this way- in your computer if you have a partition for Windows and another for your data then when Windows corrupts your data is still safe as it is on a separate partition . A similar principle will apply to this card - if one partition goes out the other is still untouched as any operating system be it on a computer or a camera will "see" the partitions as 2 separate drives even though physically its one memory card.

This card is a great idea and I am surprised someone hadnt brought this idea to memory cards a long time ago as partitions have been successful in computers for ages ......

May 31, 2013permalink

@DaytonR

What you are talking of is DATA corruption. And you are correct.

A problem arises if there is catastrophic failure i.e. hardware failure. Partitioning your drive such that Windows and your data are on separate partitions of the same drive will make no difference as everything, data included, will be lost.

So therefore, I think it would depend on how this card is designed.

If however, it's just one card partitioned into two then it's pretty pointless as a backup device.

I think we will have to wait a while to learn a little more about the design of this card (from an independent reviewer)

Jun 1, 2013permalink

franzel

Well, the whole point of Raid 1 is to write all data to two seperate harddrives at the same time - in case one failes, you have all data still availble on the second drive in the array .

Seperate is the key here, physically seperate with their own interface and controller .

May 31, 2013permalink

RAID 1 is intended for systems that require zero downtime, like a financial transaction server in a major bank that has to be always up and running. A camera does not need zero downtime.

Oh, and RAID arrays still have to be backed up.

Jun 1, 2013permalink

idbar

Sounds good. This was the main reason I got the D7000, the dual SD slot allowing pictures to be stored on both. I'm curious what's required to enable this on the cards.

Quite interesting the read/write speed drops to half, I wouldn't have expected the read rates to be impacted.

May 31, 2013permalink

viking79

I imagine if it is using the full capacity it is using something like Raid 0 (striping) which could improve speed. I have an external HDD that is about 280 MB/s in Raid 0 and about 140 MB/s in Raid 1 (mirroring). The actual bus write speed is the same, but you are writing the same thing twice so you are effectively writing half as much unique information.

May 31, 2013*permalink

Just a Photographer

I would never trust my data to be stored on a single card as most often its the controller failing and not any of the datablocks itself.

This solutions provides only false feeling of safety - Beware!!

May 31, 2013permalink

Juck

You think controllers fail more often than CF cards? I don't think so Sir.

May 31, 2013permalink

Just a Photographer

Then I might have been unlucky sir, because the controller ON the cf cards already failed on me three times 2x Sandisk, 1x Lexar (this was with different camera's btw.)

May 31, 2013*permalink

malcolma

Controllers are very reliable. It was the flash memory that failed on you. Flash memory is very fickle relative to the electronics that drive it (including the controllers).

Jun 1, 2013permalink

PLShutterbug

Both replies here just support "Just a..."'s point. Backing up a CF card to another partition on the same card is not backing up at all - if anything happens to the card, both the original and the "backup" are both lost.

Backup strongly implies the ability to retrieve from a separate store if the original store is lost.

Jun 1, 2013permalink