On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Dmitri Nikulin <dnikulin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Dongjun Shin <djshin90@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> A well-designed SSD should survive power cycling and should provide atomicity >> of flush operation regardless of the underlying flash operations. I don't expect >> that users of SSD have different requirements about atomicity. > > Well that's my point, it "should" provide atomicity, but is this the > case for consumer SSDs? It is certainly NOT the case for cheap > USB-based flash media and AFAIK not for CF either. > AFAIK, all enterprise and consumer SSDs have atomicity requirements because they're designed to replace the HDD without changes to the OS. USB or any kind of flash-based cards have different requirements. They're optimized for cost and the priority for the atomicity is low. Moreover, they can be plugged out without prior notice to OS. -- Dongjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
