From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from co202.xi-lite.net ([149.6.83.202]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1RG53j-0004QM-Dr for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:30:03 +0000 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:29:55 +0200 From: Ivan Djelic To: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: UBIFS recovery fails Message-ID: <20111018082955.GB5997@parrot.com> References: <4E9C2DAC.7090109@swissonline.ch> <1318882668.2172.10.camel@koala> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1318882668.2172.10.camel@koala> Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , Daniel Kuhn List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 09:17:48PM +0100, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > If someone wants to see UBIFS 100% or near 100% power-cut safe on > MLC or one of shitty modern SLCs - he needs to invest men-hours. > I can help by suggesting and reviewing. Although the funny thing is > that eMMCs die and lose data in case of power cuts very often :-) Hi Artem, That's interesting... Do you have more details or any data on those eMMC power-cut failures ? I plan to be working soon (December) on UBIFS robustness issues with unstable modern SLCs; besides using nandsim to simulate SLC (and maybe MLC) issues, I also have real hardware with a power-cutting framework ready for testing. Best Regards, -- Ivan