From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756293Ab3INClS (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:41:18 -0400 Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:59968 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755938Ab3INClR (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:41:17 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:41:08 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Marcus Sundman Cc: Jan Kara , Dave Chinner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Debugging system freezes on filesystem writes Message-ID: <20130914024108.GA10740@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Marcus Sundman , Jan Kara , Dave Chinner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20130224012052.GC1196@thunk.org> <512D01E0.7010009@hibox.fi> <20130226231703.GA22674@quack.suse.cz> <5231BA3C.2090704@hibox.fi> <20130912131051.GA14664@quack.suse.cz> <5231C5FF.3060504@hibox.fi> <20130912143941.GB14664@quack.suse.cz> <5231D8DD.5010703@hibox.fi> <20130912163530.GD14664@quack.suse.cz> <523200EB.7000202@hibox.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <523200EB.7000202@hibox.fi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 08:59:07PM +0300, Marcus Sundman wrote: > > At 128 GB it is extremely small as it is, and I'm really struggling > to fit all on it. Most of my stuff is on my NAS (which has almost 10 > TB space), but still I need several code repositories and the > development environment and a virtual machine etc on this tiny 128 > GB thing. > > So, if I used some other filesystem, might that allow me to use a > larger portion of the SSD without this degradation? Or with a much > slower rate of degradation? What model are you using? It's possible that your flash device was designed as a cache driver for windows. As such, it might have been optimized for a read-mostly workload and not something for a lot of random small writes. The f2fs file system is designed for crappy flash drives with crappy FTL's, so it might work be better for you. But let me ask you this --- how much is your data worth? How much would it cost to replace your flash device with something better? I tend to get very nervous with crappy storage devices, and it sounds like your flash drive isn't a particularly good one. I'd strongly suggest doing regular backups, because when flash devices die, they can die in extremely catastrphic ways. Regards, - Ted