[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: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:45:34 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Tim Soderstrom <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Alan Piszcz <ap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
User-agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, 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.

I still need to do simulations to figure out how this exactly
ends up on various file systems, and I had not considered XFS
so far.
Ok, I performed all of the tests and I did not notice any type of failures,
unless I am not interpreting the results correctly..

Getting back to the rogiinal question, I'd recommend testing the
stick by doing raw accesses instead of a file system. A simple

dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/zero iflag=direct bs=4M

root@sysresccd /root % time dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/zero iflag=direct bs=4M
1960+0 records in
1960+0 records out
8220835840 bytes (8.2 GB) copied, 234.265 s, 35.1 MB/s
dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/zero iflag=direct bs=4M  0.01s user 1.88s system 0% cpu 
3:54.28 total
root@sysresccd /root %

will read the entire stick and report any errors. The corresponding

dd of=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdX oflag=direct bs=4M

.. yes I took a second backup (before wiping) before doing this (below) ..

writes the entire stick. Some media won't report errors on write,
though, so this might not help you at all.

Ok, here are the results:

root@sysresccd /root % time dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda oflag=direct bs=4M
dd: writing `/dev/sda': No space left on device
1961+0 records in
1960+0 records out
8220835840 bytes (8.2 GB) copied, 283.744 s, 29.0 MB/s
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda oflag=direct bs=4M  0.01s user 7.14s system 2% cpu 
4:43.75 total
root@sysresccd /root %

I'm also interested in results from flashbench
(git://git.linaro.org/people/arnd/flashbench.git, e.g. like
That might help explain how the stick failed.

Certainly, testing below, following this:

# ./flashbench --open-au --open-au-nr=1  /dev/sda --blocksize=8192   
--erasesize=$[2* 1024 * 1024]  --random
2MiB 29.5M/s 1MiB 29.1M/s 512KiB 28.5M/s 256KiB 22.8M/s 128KiB 23.8M/s 64KiB 24.4M/s 32KiB 18.9M/s 16KiB 13.1M/s 8KiB 8.22M/s

# ./flashbench --open-au --open-au-nr=4  /dev/sda --blocksize=8192 
--erasesize=$[2* 1024 * 1024]  --random
2MiB 25.9M/s 1MiB 21.8M/s 512KiB 15M/s 256KiB 11.9M/s 128KiB 12.1M/s 64KiB 13.6M/s 32KiB 9.81M/s 16KiB 6.41M/s 8KiB 3.88M/s

# ./flashbench --open-au --open-au-nr=5  /dev/sda --blocksize=8192 
--erasesize=$[2* 1024 * 1024]  --random
2MiB 29.2M/s 1MiB 27.8M/s 512KiB 18.4M/s 256KiB 7.82M/s 128KiB 4.62M/s 64KiB 2.47M/s 32KiB 1.26M/s 16KiB 642K/s 8KiB 327K/s #

# ./flashbench --open-au --open-au-nr=6  /dev/sda --blocksize=1024 
--erasesize=$[2* 1024 * 1024]  --random
2MiB 29.2M/s 1MiB 25.6M/s 512KiB 15.2M/s 256KiB 7.8M/s 128KiB 4.73M/s 64KiB 2.53M/s 32KiB 1.3M/s 16KiB 659K/s 8KiB 333K/s ^C

(did not run one with 7)

# ./flashbench --findfat --fat-nr=10 /dev/sda --blocksize=1024 --erasesize=$[2* 
1024 * 1024]   --random
2MiB 22.7M/s 19.1M/s 15.5M/s 13.1M/s 29.5M/s 29.5M/s 29.6M/s 29.6M/s 29.5M/s 29.5M/s 1MiB 20.6M/s 13.3M/s 13.3M/s 20.8M/s 18.1M/s 17.8M/s 18M/s 18.3M/s 18.8M/s 18.6M/s 512KiB 18.4M/s 18.6M/s 18.3M/s 18.1M/s 23.5M/s 23.2M/s 23.5M/s 23.5M/s 23.4M/s 23.4M/s 256KiB 26.9M/s 21.3M/s 21.2M/s 21M/s 21.1M/s 21.2M/s 21.1M/s 21.1M/s 20.6M/s 21M/s 128KiB 22.2M/s 22.3M/s 22.6M/s 21.4M/s 21.5M/s 21.3M/s 21.6M/s 21.3M/s 21.4M/s 21.4M/s 64KiB 23.9M/s 22.6M/s 22.9M/s 23M/s 22.5M/s 22.4M/s 22.4M/s 22.4M/s 22.5M/s 22.4M/s 32KiB 18.2M/s 18.3M/s 18.3M/s 18.3M/s 18.3M/s 18.4M/s 18.3M/s 18.2M/s 18.3M/s 18.3M/s 16KiB 12.9M/s 12.9M/s 13M/s 13M/s 12.9M/s 13M/s 12.9M/s 12.9M/s 12.9M/s 12.9M/s 8KiB 8.14M/s 8.15M/s 8.15M/s 8.15M/s 8.15M/s 8.14M/s 8.14M/s 8.15M/s 8.15M/s 8.06M/s 4KiB 4.07M/s 4.08M/s 4.07M/s 4.06M/s 4.04M/s 4.04M/s 4.04M/s 4.04M/s 4.04M/s 4.04M/s 2KiB 2.02M/s 2.02M/s 2.02M/s 2.02M/s 2.02M/s 2.01M/s 2.01M/s 2.01M/s 2.01M/s 2.02M/s 1KiB 956K/s 954K/s 956K/s 953K/s 947K/s 947K/s 947K/s 950K/s 947K/s 948K/s



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