[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1494233673.6528.28.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 09:54:33 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Ricard Wanderlof <ricard.wanderlof@...s.com>
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, 2017-05-08 at 10:36 +0200, Ricard Wanderlof wrote:
> On Mon, 8 May 2017, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Our empirical testing trumps your "can never happen" theory :)
>
> I'm sure it does. But what is the explanation then? Has anyone analyzedÂ
> what is going on using an oscilloscope to verify relationship betweenÂ
> erase command and supply voltage drop?
Not that I'm aware of. Once we have reached the "it does happen and we
have to cope" there was not a lot of point in working out *why* it
happened.
In fact, the only examples I *personally* remember were on NOR flash,
which takes longer to erase. So it's vaguely possible that it doesn't
happen on NAND. But really, it's not something we should be depending
on and the software mechanisms have to remain in place.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (4938 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists