Message-ID: <20090829100909.GI1634@ucw.cz>
Date:	Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:09:09 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	david@...g.hm
Cc:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@....de>,
	Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@....de>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
	rdunlap@...otime.net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is
	possible

On Fri 2009-08-28 07:46:42, david@...g.hm wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 20:08 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>>>
>>> (It's worse with people using Digital SLR's shooting in raw mode,
>>> since it can take upwards of 30 seconds or more to write out a 12-30MB
>>> raw image, and if you eject at the wrong time, you can trash the
>>> contents of the entire CF card; in the worst case, the Flash
>>> Translation Layer data can get corrupted, and the card is completely
>>> ruined; you can't even reformat it at the filesystem level, but have
>>> to get a special Windows program from the CF manufacturer to --maybe--
>>> reset the FTL layer.
>>
>> This just goes to show why having this "translation layer" done in
>> firmware on the device itself is a _bad_ idea. We're much better off
>> when we have full access to the underlying flash and the OS can actually
>> see what's going on. That way, we can actually debug, fix and recover
>> from such problems.
>>
>>>   Early CF cards were especially vulnerable to
>>> this; more recent CF cards are better, but it's a known failure mode
>>> of CF cards.)
>>
>> It's a known failure mode of _everything_ that uses flash to pretend to
>> be a block device. As I see it, there are no SSD devices which don't
>> lose data; there are only SSD devices which haven't lost your data
>> _yet_.
>>
>> There's no fundamental reason why it should be this way; it just is.
>>
>> (I'm kind of hoping that the shiny new expensive ones that everyone's
>> talking about right now, that I shouldn't really be slagging off, are
>> actually OK. But they're still new, and I'm certainly not trusting them
>> with my own data _quite_ yet.)
>
> so what sort of test would be needed to identify if a device has this  
> problem?
>
> people can do ad-hoc tests by pulling the devices in use and then 
> checking the entire device, but something better should be available.
>
> it seems to me that there are two things needed to define the tests.
>
> 1. a predictable write load so that it's easy to detect data getting lose
>
> 2. some statistical analysis to decide how many device pulls are needed  
> (under the write load defined in #1) to make the odds high that the  
> problem will be revealed.

Its simpler than that. It usually breaks after third unplug or so.

> for USB devices there may be a way to use the power management functions  
> to cut power to the device without requiring it to physically be pulled,  
> if this is the case (even if this only works on some specific chipsets),  
> it would drasticly speed up the testing

This is really so easy to reproduce, that such speedup is not
neccessary. Just try the scripts :-).
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists