On 1/18/14 1:44 AM, "Clemens Eisserer" <linuxhippy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hi again, > >> Rather, the issue on the flash devices may come from the current >> immature garbage collection algorithm. The current cleanerd only >> supports the timestamp-based GC policy which always tries to move the >> oldest segment first and even moves segments full of live blocks, >> thereby shortens the lifetime of flash devices. :-( > >It depends - for SSDs the timestamp policy is not optimal as it leads >to unnecessary writes. > >On the other hand, most cards only implement dynamic wear leveling >(wear leveling takes only place for areas that are written to, which >leads to very uneven wear distribution when there is mostly static >data) and also don't have read-disturb handling. >So for cards it is actually helpful to have the writes spread out >evenly and as a bonus there is no need to worry about read-disturb >effects =) > >Regards, Clemens >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in >the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Hi Clemens and group, Good information. So, is it true that the logging/cow nature of nilfs actually improves wear leveling by having 'writes spread out evenly'? Regards, Mark T. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
