Re: scrub implies failing drive - smartctl blissfully unaware

[Patrik Lundquist <patrik.lundquist@gmail.com>]

On 25 November 2014 at 23:14, Phillip Susi <psusi@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On 11/19/2014 6:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
>
>> The paper specifically mentioned that it wasn't necessarily the
>> more expensive devices that were the best, either, but the ones
>> that faired best did tend to have longer device-ready times.  The
>> conclusion was that a lot of devices are cutting corners on
>> device-ready, gambling that in normal use they'll work fine,
>> leading to an acceptable return rate, and evidently, the gamble
>> pays off most of the time.
>
> I believe I read the same study and don't recall any such conclusion.
>  Instead the conclusion was that the badly behaving drives aren't
> ordering their internal writes correctly and flushing their metadata
> from ram to flash before completing the write request.  The problem
> was on the power *loss* side, not the power application.

I've found:

http://www.usenix.org/conference/fast13/technical-sessions/presentation/zheng
http://lkcl.net/reports/ssd_analysis.html

Are there any more studies?