Re: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng v2.17 (stable)

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 01/11/2010 12:17 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>> Uhm, that's just plain wrong.
>>
>> It doesn't matter if there is a "special mapping layer" -- if you're
>> crossing multiple erase blocks you're still having more churn in
>> your flash translation layer, with more wear on the device, and
>> lower performance than if you didn't.
> 
> Eraseblocks really should not matter. It is not as if each logical
> sector belongs to one eraseblock....
> 
> (OTOH, maybe the eraseblock *groups* that are basis for wear-leveling
> do, or maybe firmware is doing something really really strange.)
> 								Pavel

Maybe they "should not" matter, but they *do* matter.  In most existing
FTLs, each logical sector *does* belong to one erase block, although
which particular erase block that is of course moves around.  However,
the invariant that matters though -- and the reason alignment matters --
is that for most FTLs, the *offset* of any particular logical sector
within the erase block it currently belongs to is invariant, i.e. the
FTL operates on physical sectors which are the same size as the erase
blocks.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/