[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1705081034420.6882@lnxricardw1>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 10:36:54 +0200
From: Ricard Wanderlof <ricard.wanderlof@...s.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
CC: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
<boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
Subject: Re: Race to power off harming SATA SSDs
On Mon, 8 May 2017, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > I've got a problem with the underlying mechanism. How long does it take to
> > erase a NAND block? A couple of milliseconds. That means that for an erase
> > to be "weak" du to a power fail, the host CPU must issue an erase command,
> > and then the power to the NAND must drop within those milliseconds.
> > However, in most systems there will be a power monitor which will
> > essentially reset the CPU as soon as the power starts dropping. So in
> > practice, by the time the voltage is too low to successfully supply the
> > NAND chip, the CPU has already been reset, hence, no reset command will
> > have been given by the time NAND runs out of steam.
> >
> > Sure, with switchmode power supplies, we don't have those large capacitors
> > in the power supply which can keep the power going for a second or more,
> > but still, I would think that the power wouldn't die fast enough for this
> > to be an issue.
> >
> Our empirical testing trumps your "can never happen" theory :)
I'm sure it does. But what is the explanation then? Has anyone analyzed
what is going on using an oscilloscope to verify relationship between
erase command and supply voltage drop?
/Ricard
--
Ricard Wolf Wanderlöf ricardw(at)axis.com
Axis Communications AB, Lund, Sweden www.axis.com
Phone +46 46 272 2016 Fax +46 46 13 61 30
Powered by blists - more mailing lists