Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:34:17 -0700
From:      bob prohaska <fbsd@www.zefox.net>
To:        Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc:        freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, bob prohaska <fbsd@www.zefox.net>
Subject:   Re: Effect of partitioning on wear-leveling
Message-ID:  <20160322033417.GD83908@www.zefox.net>
In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfrCWXAswe02Qd3tTiDL8O_4TGEWbhFqgft4Q9aKj7ixvg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20160321175952.GA83908@www.zefox.net> <1458586884.68920.96.camel@freebsd.org> <20160321221153.GB83908@www.zefox.net> <1458600070.68920.107.camel@freebsd.org> <1973487B-0AA7-468D-A9CC-319FBE2122F0@netgate.com> <CANCZdfrCWXAswe02Qd3tTiDL8O_4TGEWbhFqgft4Q9aKj7ixvg@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 08:38:13PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> 
> One thing that people forget is that the underlying blocks that are written
> are completely independent of what lba is used to write it. So the notion
> that you have blocks normally part of /var or /tmp no longer makes sense.
> Between writing blocks in different order and garbage collection, modern SD
> cards do a good job of wear averaging. How much you've written to the drive
> in total drives wear out these days.
> 

How do modern flash devices report end of life? Do problems show up in error
logs, or does the device simply refuse to work with no warning?

Thanks for writing!

bob prohaska




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160322033417.GD83908>