[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.38: XFS/USB/HW issue, or failing USB stick?

To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.6.38: XFS/USB/HW issue, or failing USB stick?
From: Tim Soderstrom <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:20:01 -0500
Cc: Alan Piszcz <ap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <201103181659.46558.arnd@xxxxxxxx>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1103181104020.30018@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <30463798-7ACB-4248-8CDC-CEFCB6ABC0BE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201103181659.46558.arnd@xxxxxxxx>
On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Friday 18 March 2011, Tim Soderstrom wrote:
>>> However, after some amount of time, the errors occur below, is this USB
>>> stick failing?  Since it has no SMART, is there any other way to verify
>>> the 'health' of a USB stick?
>> What prompted you to go with XFS over, say, ext2? The journal will generally
>> cause quite a bit more writes onto your USB device. I use ext2 on my CF card 
>> in my NAS for that reason (the spinning media is on XFS of course). I know
>> that's not an answer to your problem but thought I would add it as a 
>> suggestion :)
> Using ext2 on flash media instead of ext3 or other file systems is
> recommended a lot, but the situation is actually much more complex.
> In https://lwn.net/Articles/428584/, I explain how these things work
> under the cover. For a drive that can only have very few erase blocks
> open, using a journaled file system will always mean thrashing, but
> for drives with more open erase blocks, it's probably better to
> use a journal than not.

Wow that's a great article, thanks for the link!


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>