From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS: Internal error XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_RETURN
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:46:14 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52AAD766.8080405@hardwarefreak.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2A0A637F-7ED6-4743-8791-E57E22306139@colorremedies.com>
On 12/11/2013 6:19 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
...
> I suspect we've only just begun to see the myriad ways in which SSDs
> could fail. I ran across this article earlier today:
> http://techreport.com/review/25681/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-testing-data-retention-at-300tb
>
> What I thought was eye opening was a hashed file failing multiple
> times in a row with *different* hash values, being allowed to rest
> unpowered for five days and then passing. Eeek. Talk about a great
> setup for a lot of weird transient problems with that kind of
> reversal. What I can't tell is if there were read errors report to
> the SATA driver, or if (different) bad data from a particular page
> was sent to the driver.
The drive that exhibited this problem, the Samsung 840, is (one of) the
first on the market to use triple level cell NAND. The drive is
marketed at consumers only. The anomaly occurred after 100 TB of
writes, well beyond what is expected for a consumer drive. After the
anomaly occurred the drive ran flawlessly up to 300 TB.
The rest of the drives, including the Samsung 840 Pro, use two cell MLC
NAND, and none of them have shown problems in their testing. They've
been flawless. So I disagree with your statement "we've only just begun
to see the myriad ways in which SSDs could fail".
What we have here is what we've always had. A manufacturer using a
bleeding edge technology didn't have all the bugs identified and fixed
with the first rev of the product. This isn't a problem with SSDs in
general, but one manufacturer, one new drive model, using a brand new
NAND type.
--
Stan
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-13 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-11 17:27 XFS: Internal error XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_RETURN Dave Jones
2013-12-11 18:52 ` Chris Murphy
2013-12-11 18:57 ` Dave Jones
2013-12-12 0:19 ` Chris Murphy
2013-12-13 9:46 ` Stan Hoeppner [this message]
2013-12-11 23:01 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-12 16:14 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-12-12 16:20 ` Dave Jones
2013-12-12 21:27 ` Dave Chinner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-08-23 20:09 XFS internal " Markus Schoder
2007-08-24 1:43 ` David Chinner
2007-08-24 19:19 ` Markus Schoder
2007-08-24 2:02 ` Timothy Shimmin
2007-08-24 19:23 ` Markus Schoder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52AAD766.8080405@hardwarefreak.com \
--to=stan@hardwarefreak.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.