Author Topic: PY32F002B: To trust or not to trust on flash endurance?  (Read 2391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online brucehoult

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5171
  • Country: nz
Re: PY32F002B: To trust or not to trust on flash endurance?
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2025, 02:05:13 pm »
Yes. Analog Devices have interesting MCUs though with up to 24-bit ADCs and good analog performance, with their ADuCM series.

4 ksps vs 2.4 Msps for the PY32F002B.

Also $9.24 qty 1000 ($17 for 1) vs ~$0.10 for the PY32F002B.

Not really playing in the same league.
 

Offline Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9780
  • Country: fi
Re: PY32F002B: To trust or not to trust on flash endurance?
« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2025, 01:06:40 pm »
Start by looking up flash endurance in the datasheet.
Obviuous and ignoring the main question from the OP  :-//

To be fair, Doctorandus_P gave direct answer to the very question in the title, which you quoted. If you struggled to understand this 9-word long sentence, I can rephrase it:

Yes, to trust.

And I tend to agree it's a sensible opinion. You have to trust it, because testing it independently is a massively expensive and long project. The best that can be done, really, is to apply some extra derating, but that's it. You can't practically verify it.

Besides, if the spec is 10 000 cycles, that doesn't sound specifically high. Many others specify larger counts. So it's not an "alarmingly good" spec either.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2025, 01:08:44 pm by Siwastaja »
 

Offline SacodepatatasTopic starter

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Country: es
Re: PY32F002B: To trust or not to trust on flash endurance?
« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2025, 11:25:49 pm »

To be fair, Doctorandus_P gave direct answer to the very question in the title, which you quoted.

An answer is an answer, and Doctorandus_P gave an answer of a typical engineer, that is, absolutely precise, but not so much accurate. If i assumed 10k is because contrary to other manufacturers the datasheet specifies 2 numbers, one for the minimum number of cycles (100k) and another for a minimum "date retention" (i should assume they meant data retention but then I could be advised to check the datasheet again). I don't know what happens between 10k and 100k cycles, so i think it's better so assume the lower specified amount of cycles as the most reliable number.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2025, 11:37:42 pm by Sacodepatatas »
 

Offline NorthGuy

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3333
  • Country: ca
Re: PY32F002B: To trust or not to trust on flash endurance?
« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2025, 01:19:34 pm »
If i assumed 10k is because contrary to other manufacturers the datasheet specifies 2 numbers, one for the minimum number of cycles (100k) and another for a minimum "date retention" (i should assume they meant data retention but then I could be advised to check the datasheet again).

It's like your car. It may last 20 years, but if you drive 200 km every day, it won't. But you'll have hard time finding out how long exactly the car may last for a given driving pattern. All you can get is guesstimates.
 

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16388
  • Country: fr
Re: PY32F002B: To trust or not to trust on flash endurance?
« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2025, 01:27:26 pm »
Yes, now the OP said the writes would not be frequent (define frequent here?). Say the flash area for these settings is written to 1 time per day. 10000 cycles min would be 27 years.
Not sure it would be worth fretting about, but if the OP intends to make a product with a PY32F002B planned to have a > 27 years lifetime, that's interesting.
Or, again, if unsure, just use a small external EEPROM which are very cheap in those small sizes, and call it a day.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf