On 25 November 2014 at 23:14, Phillip Susi <psusi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/19/2014 6:59 PM, Duncan wrote: > >> The paper specifically mentioned that it wasn't necessarily the >> more expensive devices that were the best, either, but the ones >> that faired best did tend to have longer device-ready times. The >> conclusion was that a lot of devices are cutting corners on >> device-ready, gambling that in normal use they'll work fine, >> leading to an acceptable return rate, and evidently, the gamble >> pays off most of the time. > > I believe I read the same study and don't recall any such conclusion. > Instead the conclusion was that the badly behaving drives aren't > ordering their internal writes correctly and flushing their metadata > from ram to flash before completing the write request. The problem > was on the power *loss* side, not the power application. I've found: http://www.usenix.org/conference/fast13/technical-sessions/presentation/zheng http://lkcl.net/reports/ssd_analysis.html Are there any more studies? -- 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
