archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tim Walker <>
To: Ric Wheeler <>,
	Bart Van Assche <>,
	Matthew Wilcox <>
Cc: "" 
	Linux FS Devel <>,
	"" <>
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: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi all-

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?).
>> Bart.
>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.

Best regards,

  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]       ` <>
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

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:

* 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).