On Sun, 2017-05-07 at 22:40 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > NOTE: unclean SSD power-offs are dangerous and may brick the device in > > > the worst case, or otherwise harm it (reduce longevity, damage flash > > > blocks). It is also not impossible to get data corruption. > > > I get that the incrementing counters might not be pretty but I'm a bit > > skeptical about this being an actual issue. Because if that were > > true, the device would be bricking itself from any sort of power > > losses be that an actual power loss, battery rundown or hard power off > > after crash. > > And that's exactly what users see. If you do enough power fails on a > SSD, you usually brick it, some die sooner than others. There was some > test results published, some are here > http://lkcl.net/reports/ssd_analysis.html, I believe I seen some > others too. > > It is very hard for a NAND to work reliably in face of power > failures. In fact, not even Linux MTD + UBIFS works well in that > regards. See > http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/ubi.html. (Unfortunately, its > down now?!). If we can't get it right, do you believe SSD manufactures > do? > > [Issue is, if you powerdown during erase, you get "weakly erased" > page, which will contain expected 0xff's, but you'll get bitflips > there quickly. Similar issue exists for writes. It is solveable in > software, just hard and slow... and we don't do it.]
It's not that hard. We certainly do it in JFFS2. I was fairly sure that it was also part of the design considerations for UBI — it really ought to be right there too. I'm less sure about UBIFS but I would have expected it to be OK. SSDs however are often crap; power fail those at your peril. And of course there's nothing you can do when they do fail, whereas we accept patches for things which are implemented in Linux.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
