From: Tim Walker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Ric Wheeler <email@example.com>,
Bart Van Assche <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <email@example.com>
Linux FS Devel <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] durability vs performance for flash devices (especially embedded!)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 11:07:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45A42D25-FB2A-43EB-8123-9F7B25590018@seagate.com> (raw)
On Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 9:20:52 PM Ric Wheeler wrote:
>On 6/9/21 2:47 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 6/9/21 11:30 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> maybe you should read the paper.
>>> " Thiscomparison demonstrates that using F2FS, a flash-friendly file
>>> sys-tem, does not mitigate the wear-out problem, except inasmuch asit
>>> inadvertently rate limitsallI/O to the device"
>> It seems like my email was not clear enough? What I tried to make clear
>> is that I think that there is no way to solve the flash wear issue with
>> the traditional block interface. I think that F2FS in combination with
>> the zone interface is an effective solution.
>> What is also relevant in this context is that the "Flash drive lifespan
>> is a problem" paper was published in 2017. I think that the first
>> commercial SSDs with a zone interface became available at a later time
>> (summer of 2020?).
>Just to address the zone interface support, it unfortunately takes a very long
>time to make it down into the world of embedded parts (emmc is super common and
>very primitive for example). UFS parts are in higher end devices, have not had a
>chance to look at what they offer.
For zoned block devices, particularly the sequential write zones, maybe it makes more sense for the device to manage wear leveling on a zone-by-zone basis. It seems like it could be pretty easy for a device to decide which head/die to select for a given zone when the zone is initially opened after the last reset write pointer.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-10 11:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-09 10:53 [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] durability vs performance for flash devices (especially embedded!) Ric Wheeler
2021-06-09 18:05 ` Bart Van Assche
2021-06-09 18:30 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-06-09 18:47 ` Bart Van Assche
2021-06-10 0:16 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-06-10 1:11 ` Ric Wheeler
2021-06-10 1:20 ` Ric Wheeler
2021-06-10 11:07 ` Tim Walker [this message]
2021-06-10 16:38 ` Keith Busch
[not found] ` <CAOtxgyeRf=+grEoHxVLEaSM=Yfx4KrSG5q96SmztpoWfP=QrDg@mail.gmail.com>
2021-06-10 16:22 ` Ric Wheeler
2021-06-10 17:06 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-06-10 17:25 ` Ric Wheeler
2021-06-10 17:57 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2021-06-13 20:41 ` [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] SSDFS: LFS file system without GC operations + NAND flash devices lifetime prolongation Viacheslav Dubeyko
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).