Re: document ext3 requirements

Pavel Machek
2009-01-04T23:05:30Z

On Sun 2009-01-04 17:06:34, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 01:49:49PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> >
> > Want to document the granularity issues with flash, while you're at it?
> >
> > An inherent problem with using flash as a normal block device is that the
> > flash erase size is bigger than most filesystem sector sizes. So when you
> > request a write, it may erase and rewrite the next 64k, 128k, or even a couple
> > megabytes on the really _big_ ones.
> >
> > If you lose power in the middle of that, ext3 won't notice that data in the
> > "sectors" _after_ the one your were trying to write to got trashed.
>
> True enough, although the newer SSD's will have this problem addressed
> (although at least initially, they are **far** more costly than the
> el-cheapo 32GB SD cards you can find at the checkout counter at Fry's
> alongside battery-powered shavers and trashy ipod speakers).

Hey, I got one of those el-cheapo 32GB SD cards. I fully expected it
to be slow, but eating my data 3 times per month was unexpected even
for me.

I'm not even sure where the blame is. I certainly blame the Linux
documentation: there should be "DON'T USE CRAPPY SD CARDS" warning in
big bold letters somewhere. I guess mkfs.ext3 should just refuse to
make filesystem on them. (Of course, the manufacturer should have told
me that the card is crap; I can bet it can not even work with
VFAT/Windows).

Plus I'd hope some filesystem materializes that can handle 128KB
"block size"... because the el-cheapo card I have here is actually
pretty sane. It seems to store data I put on it, and should be safe to
use with huge block size...

Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html