Hi all- On Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 9:20:52 PM Ric Wheeler wrote: >On 6/9/21 2:47 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> On 6/9/21 11:30 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> maybe you should read the paper. >>> >>> " Thiscomparison demonstrates that using F2FS, a flash-friendly file >>> sys-tem, does not mitigate the wear-out problem, except inasmuch asit >>> inadvertently rate limitsallI/O to the device" >> It seems like my email was not clear enough? What I tried to make clear >> is that I think that there is no way to solve the flash wear issue with >> the traditional block interface. I think that F2FS in combination with >> the zone interface is an effective solution. >> >> What is also relevant in this context is that the "Flash drive lifespan >> is a problem" paper was published in 2017. I think that the first >> commercial SSDs with a zone interface became available at a later time >> (summer of 2020?). >> >> Bart. > >Just to address the zone interface support, it unfortunately takes a very long >time to make it down into the world of embedded parts (emmc is super common and >very primitive for example). UFS parts are in higher end devices, have not had a >chance to look at what they offer. > >Ric > > > For zoned block devices, particularly the sequential write zones, maybe it makes more sense for the device to manage wear leveling on a zone-by-zone basis. It seems like it could be pretty easy for a device to decide which head/die to select for a given zone when the zone is initially opened after the last reset write pointer. Best regards, -Tim
