From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wy0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Psx4M-0003mo-KD for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:46:51 +0000 Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so1610371wyf.36 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:46:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Mean Time Between Failure - UBI clarifications From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Ricard Wanderlof In-Reply-To: References: <1298637391.2798.101.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:45:21 +0200 Message-ID: <1298637921.2798.108.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 13:40 +0100, Ricard Wanderlof wrote: > On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 15:04 +0100, Ricard Wanderlof wrote: > >> I don't know about UBI, someone else probably does. > > > > No, UBI does not collect bit-flips statistics. It could be changed > > though, someone could send a patch. > > But don't bit flips eventually trigger bit scrubbing in UBI? Yes, they do, but after scrubbing we forget about them. But we could store the bit-flips counter in UBI headers, so "paranoid" users could get per-eraseblock bit-flips count. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)