On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 11:07:09AM +0000, Tim Walker wrote: > 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. I think device managed wear leveling was the point of zoned ssd's. If the host was managing that, then that's pretty much an open channel ssd.
