Cloudisk 32GB

  • Obtained from: AliExpress
  • Price paid: $3.52
  • Advertised capacity: 32GB
  • Logical capacity: 31,457,280,000 bytes
  • Physical capacity: 31,457,280,000 bytes
  • Fake/skimpy flash: Skimpy (1.70% skimp)
  • Protected area: 83,886,080 bytes (inaccessible)
  • Speed class markings: Class 10, U1, A1
  • CID data:
    • Manufacturer ID: 0xfe
    • OEM ID: 0x3432 (ASCII: 42)
    • Product name: 0x5344313647 (ASCII: SD16G)
    • Product revision: 0x20
    • Manufacture date: Jul 2023
Sample #123Average
Serial number0x00000ba20x00000bb40x00000b9eN/A
Sequential read speed (MB/sec)83.1737.0840.3653.54
Sequential write speed (MB/sec)23.1423.7523.2223.37
Random read speed (IOPS/sec)495.66719.31540.54585.17
Random write speed (IOPS/sec)174.86143.62150.28156.25
Read/write cycles to first error2,0771,5168751,489
Read/write cycles to complete failure2,1882,279Not yet determined2,234
Total days to complete failure14289Not yet determined115.5
Card reader usedSmartQ DuoJJS CR-UTC4ACJJS CR-UTC4ACN/A
Package frontNot availableN/A
Package backNot availableNot availableNot availableN/A
Card frontN/A
Card backN/A

Discussion

This card was unusual in the fact that it did not come in a retail package — instead, it came in a simple plastic case.

All three samples performed well enough on the performance tests to qualify for the Class 10 and U1 markings; however, none of them performed well enough to qualify for the A1 marking. As we’ve established previously, my tests don’t conform to the tests described in the SD Physical Layer Specification — so maybe these cards would have performed better under the right conditions…but somehow I doubt it (especially seeing as how I have other cards that did perform well enough to qualify for the A1 marking).

Sample #1 did make it past the 2,000 read/write cycle mark without encountering any errors — but just barely. Its track record was pretty boring — but here it is:

Like I said, it’s pretty boring: nothing happens until round 2,077 — where barely anything happens — and then nothing happens for another 100 rounds or so before the card becomes unresponsive.

Sample #2 encountered its first error after 1,516 read/write cycles. I finally declared it dead at the end of round 2,279, when the number of bad sectors reached the 50% threshold. Here’s what its progress graph looked like:

Sample #3 experienced its first error during round 876. I don’t know the nature of the error, but it affected over 5% of the sectors on the device in one round — but by the next round, those same sectors did not experience any errors. It has survived 3,237 read/write cycles so far. The card is failing as I write this: it passed the 10% failure threshold recently (during round 2,874), and the number of failures just keeps inching higher. I highly suspect that it will be the next card in my collection to fail.

My conclusion: eh. These weren’t the worst performers in my collection, but it sure seemed like they were for a while. There are better options out there for the money.

June 9, 2024

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *